Pack Line Defense

Ned Zissou · Post by **Ned Zissou** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:19 pm

is it time to scrap the Pack Line defense after what Buffalo and UMBC did to it in the tourney?

Lute lost back-to-back first round games to East Tennessee State and Santa Clara. Lute saw Mr. Jennings (ETSU) and Steve Nash (SC) run circles around our slow, stiff teams. To Lutes credit, he completely changed his coaching philosophy and team identity and went with 3-guard, more athletic lineup. The ability to adapt to changing game was, in my opinion Lutes greatest coaching character.

I think Sean Miller, if he stays, has to think long and hard about modifying some of his philosophies.

zonagrad · Post by **zonagrad** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:23 pm

Ned Zissou wrote:is it time to scrap the Pack Line defense after what Buffalo and UMBC did to it in the tourney?

Lute lost back-to-back first round games to East Tennessee State and Santa Clara. Lute saw Mr. Jennings (ETSU) and Steve Nash (SC) run circles around our slow, stiff teams. To Lutes credit, he completely changed his coaching philosophy and team identity and went with 3-guard, more athletic lineup. The ability to adapt to changing game was, in my opinion Lutes greatest coaching character.

I think Sean Miller, if he stays, has to think long and hard about modifying some of his philosophies.

Is it philosophy? Or is it personnel? I think it's both. We were super athletic against Arkansas in the final four in '94, but lacked a dominant big man to neutralize Corlis Williamson. And that athletic style was neutralized by a more plodding Utah team in '98. I think the major component is to have really good point guard play. And we clearly were lacking in that department this season.

Postmaster · Post by **Postmaster** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:52 pm

I heard 98 loss was caused by liquor.

If you have guys like RHJ, AG or NJ you can make pack line work.
It doesn't work with guys who can't or won't play high level defense.

TheCat · Post by **TheCat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:20 am

Yeah it is the packline. Only gave Virgina the best record ever in the ACC, the beat defense statistically in 17 years and they won the ACC by 4 games. Yep dump that defense. They lost to a team that played out of their mind, shot great from 3, and rebounded hard. It looked almost like a carbon copy of our game. Virginia was 2 of 22 from 3. Hard to beat a team that shoots 50% from 3.

HibachiZero · Post by **HibachiZero** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:36 am

TheCat wrote:Hard to beat a team that shoots 50% from 3.

They shot 50% from 3 against us earlier this year and we beat them by 25. At some point you have to have an offense too. Offense was Virginia's problem last night, not the packline.

CatsbyAZ · Post by **CatsbyAZ** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:04 am

Postmaster wrote:I heard 98 loss was caused by liquor.

If you have guys like RHJ, AG or NJ you can make pack line work.
It doesn't work with guys who can't or won't play high level defense.

This is answers the questions for me. Why instill a defense that is so dependant on personnel, whether size or physique? Eventually you'll go into a season without an ideal roster for the pack line. Then what?

First of all, it's defense. Recruits don't come to play defense and fans aren't ever going to praise defense over offense. In other words defense is something that doesn't have to be overthought. The pack line is a defense too sophisticated for its own good.

Keep defense simple so that everyone can pick it up, contribute, and know what to expect on that side of the ball. Meanwhile, put the imagination and gameplanning creativity on the offense where there's always plenty of room and support for it.

From what I've seen of the pack line, it doesn't adjust to a player (like UMBC's Lyles last night) going off on a scoring tirade. It also is weak against attacks from the 3, and in that sense, with everyone shooting threes these days, is outdated.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:15 am

I haven't read any post in this thread, but just based on the title of this thread I have one response and one response only to the subject:

Name a team not named Wisconsin that has made the Final Four with it in the last two decades.

phenom5 · Post by **phenom5** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:18 am

CatsbyAZ wrote:
Postmaster wrote:I heard 98 loss was caused by liquor.

If you have guys like RHJ, AG or NJ you can make pack line work.
It doesn't work with guys who can't or won't play high level defense.
This is answers the questions for me. Why instill a defense that is so dependant on personnel, whether size or physique? Eventually you'll go into a season without an ideal roster for the pack line. Then what?

First of all, it's defense. Recruits don't come to play defense and fans aren't ever going to praise defense over offense. In other words defense is something that doesn't have to be overthought. The pack line is a defense too sophisticated for its own good.

Keep defense simple so that everyone can pick it up, contribute, and know what to expect on that side of the ball. Meanwhile, put the imagination and gameplanning creativity on the offense where there's always plenty of room and support for it.

From what I've seen of the pack line, it doesn't adjust to a player (like UMBC's Lyles last night) going off on a scoring tirade. It also is weak against attacks from the 3, and in that sense, with everyone shooting threes these days, is outdated.

I don't have a problem with the packline, or the fact that you need a certain type of player to play it. But if you are going to go that route, you have to recruit like hell to construct a roster that fits that system, or be willing and able to recognize when your roster doesn't fit that system and change. At least tweak.

Miller hasn't done either of recently. Hoping, if he's staying, that he does both things better going forward.

CatsbyAZ · Post by **CatsbyAZ** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:53 am

phenom5 wrote:
CatsbyAZ wrote:
Postmaster wrote:I heard 98 loss was caused by liquor.

If you have guys like RHJ, AG or NJ you can make pack line work.
It doesn't work with guys who can't or won't play high level defense.
This is answers the questions for me. Why instill a defense that is so dependant on personnel, whether size or physique? Eventually you'll go into a season without an ideal roster for the pack line. Then what?

First of all, it's defense. Recruits don't come to play defense and fans aren't ever going to praise defense over offense. In other words defense is something that doesn't have to be overthought. The pack line is a defense too sophisticated for its own good.

Keep defense simple so that everyone can pick it up, contribute, and know what to expect on that side of the ball. Meanwhile, put the imagination and gameplanning creativity on the offense where there's always plenty of room and support for it.

From what I've seen of the pack line, it doesn't adjust to a player (like UMBC's Lyles last night) going off on a scoring tirade. It also is weak against attacks from the 3, and in that sense, with everyone shooting threes these days, is outdated.
I don't have a problem with the packline, or the fact that you need a certain type of player to play it. But if you are going to go that route, you have to recruit like hell to construct a roster that fits that system, or be willing and able to recognize when your roster doesn't fit that system and change. At least tweak.

Miller hasn't done either of recently. Hoping, if he's staying, that he does both things better going forward.

But that's exactly the inherent setback of the Packline - you have to recruit a certain type of player to play the packline defense at whatever expense to the offense it becomes. You see, you're recruiting to the defense and forcing the offense to conform, which to me seems the logical opposite of how a basketball program should be built and maintained.

Always recruit for offense and conform the defense in stride. Defense can be effectively simplified to faciliate the offense. Doesn't work the other way around.

Ned Zissou · Post by **Ned Zissou** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:29 am

1. We were told Arizona was bad on defense because we did not have the right players
2. We were told Virginia had the right players who bought in and it was a historic defense
3. Virginia lost to a #16 seed by 20 points
4. UMBC ran circles around Virginia and at times ran the same layup drills Buffalo did
5. From start of season to end, I saw DeAndre Ayton having to chase 6'-7" dudes past the 3-point line only to see guards blow by our guards, making layups because we had no rim protection.
6. I also agree, you have to recruit defensive players (like UVA did) to run the pack line and clearly those players are not offensive studs
7. TWO things Arizona and UVA have in common: the pack line defense and both snuggle on offense.
8. Make that 3 things Arizona and UVA have in common; both have under-achieved in the NCAA tourney the last 3 years.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:13 am

ChooChooCat wrote:I haven't read any post in this thread, but just based on the title of this thread I have one response and one response only to the subject:

Name a team not named Wisconsin that has made the Final Four with it in the last two decades.

And when you have one of the best offenses of all-time like Wisconsin had in 2015 it really doesn't matter what defense you play. Those teams got to Final Fours strictly because of their elite offenses not their 35th ranked defenses.

Look, every defensive scheme has its flaws. But there must be a reason why the elite programs don't utilize the packline, right? It's a defense intrinsically built for mid-major/senior laden teams who don't have the athletes to keep up. It's susceptible to the 3 point shot because there's always going to be daylight for that shot to get off even if rotations are crisp. Small ball lineups and teams adept at cutting can also cut the defense to shreds. The defense doesn't allow for many transition opportunities either so there goes your tempo. Lowering your number of possessions just allows the less talented team to hang in there and increases the chances of an upset. Hell, even Izzo scrapped the packline to beat Virginia in 2015. http://bballbreakdown.com/2015/03/27/mi ... djustment/. He was willing to adjust depending on the matchup. The same cannot bee said for Miller. He has been incredibly inflexible with his teams. The "Do What We Do" moniker should have been discarded a while ago.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:40 am

I have a serious question for people who don't like packline.

What aspect of the strategy do you think limits tourney success? I don't mean the general packline bad response, I'm asking about ball pressure, help side principles, etc., what portions of packline actually are bad for tournament success?

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:11 pm

For me it sets you up to give up too many 3 balls. If a team is hitting their shots the close out is way to slow or we even give up wide open looks should our defender get beat off the bounce. Everyone had to have a foot to the key to help.

I really have no preference as to what we play but I do think we should use multiple defenses including some zone. Our personnel this year was not well suited for this type of defense.

TheCat · Post by **TheCat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:45 pm

Ned Zissou wrote:1. We were told Arizona was bad on defense because we did not have the right players
2. We were told Virginia had the right players who bought in and it was a historic defense
3. Virginia lost to a #16 seed by 20 points
4. UMBC ran circles around Virginia and at times ran the same layup drills Buffalo did
5. From start of season to end, I saw DeAndre Ayton having to chase 6'-7" dudes past the 3-point line only to see guards blow by our guards, making layups because we had no rim protection.
6. I also agree, you have to recruit defensive players (like UVA did) to run the pack line and clearly those players are not offensive studs
7. TWO things Arizona and UVA have in common: the pack line defense and both snuggle on offense.
8. Make that 3 things Arizona and UVA have in common; both have under-achieved in the NCAA tourney the last 3 years.

Not sure that would pass my freshman logic class. Virginia did not play their typical defense yesterday. You do realize they gave up more points in the second half than they have in games this year. Virginia held them I think to 21 points in the first half. So the packline is at fault. Seemed to be okay in first half. Virginia did not play well and got beat by a team with nothing to lose. That is what makes March Madness.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:22 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I have a serious question for people who don't like packline.

What aspect of the strategy do you think limits tourney success? I don't mean the general packline bad response, I'm asking about ball pressure, help side principles, etc., what portions of packline actually are bad for tournament success?

Ultimately for me is it leaves too many points off the board for our offense. It drains too much clock and it isn't conducive at all in creating fast break opportunities.

Also even if you play the packline well you are absolutely susceptible to a team being hot from 3 point land. HI SAM DEKKER!

It ultimately boils down to this for me, the more opportunities you have for your offense the better. The more opportunities for fast breaks where your opponent can't settle into their D and you're likely to get easy points the better. The Packline prevents both and therefore should get the gulag.

Offense wins championships.

TatetheGreat · Post by **TatetheGreat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:55 pm

TheCat wrote:
Ned Zissou wrote:1. We were told Arizona was bad on defense because we did not have the right players
2. We were told Virginia had the right players who bought in and it was a historic defense
3. Virginia lost to a #16 seed by 20 points
4. UMBC ran circles around Virginia and at times ran the same layup drills Buffalo did
5. From start of season to end, I saw DeAndre Ayton having to chase 6'-7" dudes past the 3-point line only to see guards blow by our guards, making layups because we had no rim protection.
6. I also agree, you have to recruit defensive players (like UVA did) to run the pack line and clearly those players are not offensive studs
7. TWO things Arizona and UVA have in common: the pack line defense and both snuggle on offense.
8. Make that 3 things Arizona and UVA have in common; both have under-achieved in the NCAA tourney the last 3 years.
Not sure that would pass my freshman logic class. Virginia did not play their typical defense yesterday. You do realize they gave up more points in the second half than they have in games this year. Virginia held them I think to 21 points in the first half. So the packline is at fault. Seemed to be okay in first half. Virginia did not play well and got beat by a team with nothing to lose. That is what makes March Madness.

UMBC also held UVA to 21 points in the first half. And UVA did play their standard pack line until they went down 10 and started to panic. They then went M2M and heaved up early threes to get back into the game. The problem is, that's UMBC's game and UVA had no chance to implement it on the fly. The pack line/motion offense has been exposed. No excuse to double down at this point. Miller must adapt.

waysouthcat · Post by **waysouthcat** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:44 am

It seems to me that we were doing pretty damned well in the NCAA tourney with the packline defense until we stopped having a decent point guard. Hasn't our recent poor tourney outings coincided with PJC being the PG?

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:22 am

waysouthcat wrote:It seems to me that we were doing pretty damned well in the NCAA tourney with the packline defense until we stopped having a decent point guard. Hasn't our recent poor tourney outings coincided with PJC being the PG?

Well, doing damned well besides no FF, but I get your point.

Seems similar to RichRod's tenure at Arizona. Had a bottom 20 defense most years, but as long as you score more points than the other team, it didn't really matter.

waysouthcat · Post by **waysouthcat** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:33 am

Doing pretty damned well as in a couple missed shots from multiple final fours. Tough luck, but we were in position every year, and not getting punked by mid-majors the first weekend.

SunnyAZ · Post by **SunnyAZ** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:53 pm

waysouthcat wrote:It seems to me that we were doing pretty damned well in the NCAA tourney with the packline defense until we stopped having a decent point guard. Hasn't our recent poor tourney outings coincided with PJC being the PG?

Two things:

1. Three point shooting has took a spike in the last ~3 years.
2. We have had a team full of players that would get drafted to the NBA (or picked up as a FA by an NBA team) because of their defense (TJ, Rondae, Aaron, Kaleb, Stanley, Nick Johnson, etc.) those years. Pretty sure it doesn't matter what system you run if you have that much talent you will be able to beat most teams. You don't scheme 70 points in a game, you scheme points here and there. Those here and there points matter when you go against elite teams when you are an elite team (like our EE teams). And they matter when you play good teams when you are a good team (like our recent teams).

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:39 am

Thanks to the people that answered. It seems like the common thread is giving up 3's.

My personal opinion is that the packline gets too much hate. The particular issue we had this year, IMO, stemmed from an inability to stop penetration on ball. Name one guy who was really an on ball stopper? This forced a ton of help and recovery.

A better on ball defensive team (UVA) was 10th nationally in opponent 3 point percentage. They didn't give up near the penetration we did.

That's one reason I think packline gets too much hate. One thing no scheme can really cover for is being beat individually. Even zone gets carved up when dribble penetration happens. We got significantly worse because we downgraded across the board. Vs the 13-14 tourney team, I think we're worse at every position if you view AG and Ayton as the 4's. PJC vs TJ, NJ vs Zo, RHJ vs Rawle and Zeus vs Dusan are not close defensively.

This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. I just think the base issues this year would have existed regardless of scheme because of the issues controlling dribble penetration.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:09 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thanks to the people that answered. It seems like the common thread is giving up 3's.

My personal opinion is that the packline gets too much hate. The particular issue we had this year, IMO, stemmed from an inability to stop penetration on ball. Name one guy who was really an on ball stopper? This forced a ton of help and recovery.

A better on ball defensive team (UVA) was 10th nationally in opponent 3 point percentage. They didn't give up near the penetration we did.

That's one reason I think packline gets too much hate. One thing no scheme can really cover for is being beat individually. Even zone gets carved up when dribble penetration happens. We got significantly worse because we downgraded across the board. Vs the 13-14 tourney team, I think we're worse at every position if you view AG and Ayton as the 4's. PJC vs TJ, NJ vs Zo, RHJ vs Rawle and Zeus vs Dusan are not close defensively.

This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. I just think the base issues this year would have existed regardless of scheme because of the issues controlling dribble penetration.

Spiff, have you seen this?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/s ... cebook.com" target="_blank

One of the best critiques of the packline I've seen.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:23 am

If it's the players and not the system and the system doesn't make the players inherently better defenders, what's the point of system? Other limiting you on your offensive possessions and making the margin for error even smaller.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:28 am

To expand, I see it like the tripe option Georgia Tech and the service academies run. if you're behind and need to pass you're most likely going to lose. There's no point of having it if you have better talent than everyone. If we have to have 3 NBA caliber players who are defensive minded to have good defensive teams with this system we're screwed.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:51 am

Beachcat97 wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thanks to the people that answered. It seems like the common thread is giving up 3's.

My personal opinion is that the packline gets too much hate. The particular issue we had this year, IMO, stemmed from an inability to stop penetration on ball. Name one guy who was really an on ball stopper? This forced a ton of help and recovery.

A better on ball defensive team (UVA) was 10th nationally in opponent 3 point percentage. They didn't give up near the penetration we did.

That's one reason I think packline gets too much hate. One thing no scheme can really cover for is being beat individually. Even zone gets carved up when dribble penetration happens. We got significantly worse because we downgraded across the board. Vs the 13-14 tourney team, I think we're worse at every position if you view AG and Ayton as the 4's. PJC vs TJ, NJ vs Zo, RHJ vs Rawle and Zeus vs Dusan are not close defensively.

This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. I just think the base issues this year would have existed regardless of scheme because of the issues controlling dribble penetration.
Spiff, have you seen this?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/s ... cebook.com" target="_blank

One of the best critiques of the packline I've seen.

I think the pace criticism is a legitimate one. It makes it harder to overcome the fluky 3 hot streaks that can happen because a team just does not produce a ton of points to compensate. The quote about 8 points is always 8 points is pretty dead on, IMO.

I think we've done better than UVA in terms of pacing. We aren't a pedal to the medal team, but we've always scored more than them. They are D first, but don't really ever have that extra offensive gear. Against UMBC, they played offense like always and UMBC got very hot and put up 50+ in the second half.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:18 am

NYCat wrote:If it's the players and not the system and the system doesn't make the players inherently better defenders, what's the point of system? Other limiting you on your offensive possessions and making the margin for error even smaller.

I'd look at it like this:

Every system comes with advantages and disadvantages. The packline is based on this idea; if you have a hard time controlling dribble penetration, you give up threes. If you play a D with less help, you give up layups and dunks.

Packline is based partially in the idea that semi contested threes are shots most teams won't hit, but that most teams will hit semi contested layups and dunks. I tend to think that's true.

I do agree it leads to a slower tempo and that this comes with its own set of issues. That's why I skew towards an inability to control dtibble penetration being a factor that eviscerates any scheme. If people are regularly getting to the rim, your D is in trouble regardless of what your help is.

As for faster paces, yes and no. The opposite of packline is a press, and press teams are not exactly pregnant with tourney success. Shaka and WVA have made a single run, but that's all. Acceleration comes with the possibility that the other team can handle pressure and will just spread you and blow you away in a track meet.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:36 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I think the pace criticism is a legitimate one. It makes it harder to overcome the fluky 3 hot streaks that can happen because a team just does not produce a ton of points to compensate. The quote about 8 points is always 8 points is pretty dead on, IMO.

I think we've done better than UVA in terms of pacing. We aren't a pedal to the medal team, but we've always scored more than them. They are D first, but don't really ever have that extra offensive gear. Against UMBC, they played offense like always and UMBC got very hot and put up 50+ in the second half.

It's actually the "Giants" vs. "Killers" part that most resonated with me. AZ is normally a "Giant," rarely a "Killer." It seems like the teams that consistently do well in both the regular season and the tourney (recently Nova, Duke, and Kansas) can be both. They are giants during the season, but their coaches can adapt well to the tourney situation.

So a slower, steadier team like AZ or UVA can have great success over the course of a season, but in a single-game elimination format, they don't fare as well. Think about what Buffalo did to us. They just fucking attacked. Those wings just went to the basket again and again. Yes, they also hit 15 threes, and that's tough to overcome. But I don't think our guys attacked as aggressively as Buffalo. We ran our sets, tried to get it to our bigs, and Buffalo just got into the passing lanes, swarmed the post, and made us uncomfortable. Maybe having a Kadeem or NJ changes things this year. Rawle can't dribble, PJC is inconsistent, and Trier settles too often for the three. So we were greatly disadvantaged vs. a Buffalo team with excellent guards/wings.

We have to be killers in the tourney. We need guys who can meet the intensity and ferocity of those Buffalo wings ("Buffalo wings," lol). It felt like they would get an easy basket, and then we would just trot down on offense, run a predictable play, and rush a bad shot. Over and over.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:50 am

Beachcat97 wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:I think the pace criticism is a legitimate one. It makes it harder to overcome the fluky 3 hot streaks that can happen because a team just does not produce a ton of points to compensate. The quote about 8 points is always 8 points is pretty dead on, IMO.

I think we've done better than UVA in terms of pacing. We aren't a pedal to the medal team, but we've always scored more than them. They are D first, but don't really ever have that extra offensive gear. Against UMBC, they played offense like always and UMBC got very hot and put up 50+ in the second half.
It's actually the "Giants" vs. "Killers" part that most resonated with me. AZ is normally a "Giant," rarely a "Killer." It seems like the teams that consistently do well in both the regular season and the tourney (recently Nova, Duke, and Kansas) can be both. They are giants during the season, but their coaches can adapt well to the tourney situation.

So a slower, steadier team like AZ or UVA can have great success over the course of a season, but in a single-game elimination format, they don't fare as well. Think about what Buffalo did to us. They just fucking attacked. Those wings just went to the basket again and again. Yes, they also hit 15 threes, and that's tough to overcome. But I don't think our guys attacked as aggressively as Buffalo. We ran our sets, tried to get it to our bigs, and Buffalo just got into the passing lanes, swarmed the post, and made us uncomfortable. Maybe having a Kadeem or NJ changes things this year. Rawle can't dribble, PJC is inconsistent, and Trier settles too often for the three. So we were greatly disadvantaged vs. a Buffalo team with excellent guards/wings.

We have to be killers in the tourney. We need guys who can meet the intensity and ferocity of those Buffalo wings ("Buffalo wings," lol). It felt like they would get an easy basket, and then we would just trot down on offense, run a predictable play, and rush a bad shot. Over and over.

Maybe this is just the personal bias showing, but I really though Buffalo exposed our inability to stop penetration, then compounded that by hitting threes.

We didn't have any perimeter guys that took a defensive matchup personally. Kadeem, Nick, TJ, Rondae...those guys would invest personally in shutting someone down. This year, no one wanted to step to that responsibility.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:56 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:We didn't have any perimeter guys that took a defensive matchup personally. Kadeem, Nick, TJ, Rondae...those guys would invest personally in shutting someone down. This year, no one wanted to step to that responsibility.

Exactly. Maybe Miller thought Akot could be that guy by March. Or maybe he thought he'd have Kobi Simmons for two years. Not sure. Bottom line, though: our guards this year could not dominate on defense. I do give props to Parker for working hard and getting better, but let's face it: he was just an average player, with occasional good moments.

I hope that one of the lessons Miller takes from this year is that we cannot do very much in March without at least a couple defensive monsters. Maybe these guys are simply hard to come by.

SunnyAZ · Post by **SunnyAZ** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:16 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thanks to the people that answered. It seems like the common thread is giving up 3's.

My personal opinion is that the packline gets too much hate. The particular issue we had this year, IMO, stemmed from an inability to stop penetration on ball. Name one guy who was really an on ball stopper? This forced a ton of help and recovery.

A better on ball defensive team (UVA) was 10th nationally in opponent 3 point percentage. They didn't give up near the penetration we did.

That's one reason I think packline gets too much hate. One thing no scheme can really cover for is being beat individually. Even zone gets carved up when dribble penetration happens. We got significantly worse because we downgraded across the board. Vs the 13-14 tourney team, I think we're worse at every position if you view AG and Ayton as the 4's. PJC vs TJ, NJ vs Zo, RHJ vs Rawle and Zeus vs Dusan are not close defensively.

This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. I just think the base issues this year would have existed regardless of scheme because of the issues controlling dribble penetration.

I don't have a problem with the packline. I have a problem with never making adjustments out of it. The answer is always try and do it better instead of let's switch up coverages.

SunnyAZ · Post by **SunnyAZ** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:23 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Packline is based partially in the idea that semi contested threes are shots most teams won't hit, but that most teams will hit semi contested layups and dunks. I tend to think that's true.

it can be true and still be a bad strategy. If you hit 50% of contested layups you would only have to hit 33% of threes to get the same production.

So if it actually is 45% from twos and 35% for 3PT FGs you are still more efficient taking the threes. And it is not even close (1.05 vs .9 points per possession).

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:11 pm

SunnyAZ wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Packline is based partially in the idea that semi contested threes are shots most teams won't hit, but that most teams will hit semi contested layups and dunks. I tend to think that's true.
it can be true and still be a bad strategy. If you hit 50% of contested layups you would only have to hit 33% of threes to get the same production.

So if it actually is 45% from twos and 35% for 3PT FGs you are still more efficient taking the threes. And it is not even close (1.05 vs .9 points per possession).

Yes and no. Of course there's a percentage where it no longer works. I would wager that layups and dunks are going to be converted higher than 50%. Further, having a lot of contested layups/dunks will equate to more fouls and traditional three point plays.

Point is that teams will more reliably convert at the rim than 3. If you give up a lot at the rim, there's a lower variability of conversion. I do think that is solid logic.

What the actual percentages are...well, you only know when you know.

Phylek · Post by **Phylek** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:28 pm

The packline is always going to be susceptible to a hot 3 point shooting performance. Every defense has its weakness. That's the packline's.

However, I like the packline for a few reasons. It puts your players in good rebounding position. It prevents easy shots and forces a team to beat you with long range contested shots. It creates a system of individual accountability.

Arizona's implementation of the pack line this year was extremely frustrating. The players were guarding their guys that didn't have the ball too tightly creating situations where they were in each other's way and forced them into switches that should have never happened. This led to mismatches and easy uncontested layups and shots. Guys weren't hustling to get out on their guys. This Arizona team was in no way an endorsement for the pack line as they played it very poorly.

On the other hand, Virginia played it very well and still got schooled by a hot shooting quick 4 guard lineup.

I would really like to see Arizona have a better half court offense to help out when they come across those hot shooting nights. Of course, that starts with having a good point guard.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:35 pm

Phylek wrote:The packline is always going to be susceptible to a hot 3 point shooting performance. Every defense has its weakness. That's the packline's.

However, I like the packline for a few reasons. It puts your players in good rebounding position. It prevents easy shots and forces a team to beat you with long range contested shots. It creates a system of individual accountability.

Arizona's implementation of the pack line this year was extremely frustrating. The players were guarding their guys that didn't have the ball too tightly creating situations where they were in each other's way and forced them into switches that should have never happened. This led to mismatches and easy uncontested layups and shots. Guys weren't hustling to get out on their guys. This Arizona team was in no way an endorsement for the pack line as they played it very poorly.

On the other hand, Virginia played it very well and still got schooled by a hot shooting quick 4 guard lineup.

I would really like to see Arizona have a better half court offense to help out when they come across those hot shooting nights. Of course, that starts with having a good point guard.

Is there any reason why we can't run Cuse's zone every now and then? I can't believe how badly that thing disrupted Michigan State. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it gives Duke trouble as well.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:05 pm

Beachcat97 wrote:
Phylek wrote:The packline is always going to be susceptible to a hot 3 point shooting performance. Every defense has its weakness. That's the packline's.

However, I like the packline for a few reasons. It puts your players in good rebounding position. It prevents easy shots and forces a team to beat you with long range contested shots. It creates a system of individual accountability.

Arizona's implementation of the pack line this year was extremely frustrating. The players were guarding their guys that didn't have the ball too tightly creating situations where they were in each other's way and forced them into switches that should have never happened. This led to mismatches and easy uncontested layups and shots. Guys weren't hustling to get out on their guys. This Arizona team was in no way an endorsement for the pack line as they played it very poorly.

On the other hand, Virginia played it very well and still got schooled by a hot shooting quick 4 guard lineup.

I would really like to see Arizona have a better half court offense to help out when they come across those hot shooting nights. Of course, that starts with having a good point guard.
Is there any reason why we can't run Cuse's zone every now and then? I can't believe how badly that thing disrupted Michigan State. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it gives Duke trouble as well.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll hop on my soapbox.

I think Phylek is right that one of the most frustrating things about this year was seeing players getting lost repeatedly and drifting between assignments. For defense, committing to something is always better than being in the middle. It was definitely very frustrating seeing players lapse in execution, especially when we were starting 4 guys with at least a year in the program.

Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.

That's just my opinion. Miller wants to be a packline team by default. Getting a lot of instruction time in on packline is big for execution, and execution was so so this year. I tend to be a disciple of the "pick a system then perfect it" school. Boeheim's zone works in part because he teaches it exclusively. When Syracuse gets killed in the 2-3, Boeheim's remedy is more 2-3.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:31 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I know you didn't ask me, but I'll hop on my soapbox.

I think Phylek is right that one of the most frustrating things about this year was seeing players getting lost repeatedly and drifting between assignments. For defense, committing to something is always better than being in the middle. It was definitely very frustrating seeing players lapse in execution, especially when we were starting 4 guys with at least a year in the program.

Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.

That's just my opinion. Miller wants to be a packline team by default. Getting a lot of instruction time in on packline is big for execution, and execution was so so this year. I tend to be a disciple of the "pick a system then perfect it" school. Boeheim's zone works in part because he teaches it exclusively. When Syracuse gets killed in the 2-3, Boeheim's remedy is more 2-3.

Always feel free to jump in, Spiff.

Has a (primarily) packline team won a NC?

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:09 pm

Beachcat97 wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:I know you didn't ask me, but I'll hop on my soapbox.

I think Phylek is right that one of the most frustrating things about this year was seeing players getting lost repeatedly and drifting between assignments. For defense, committing to something is always better than being in the middle. It was definitely very frustrating seeing players lapse in execution, especially when we were starting 4 guys with at least a year in the program.

Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.

That's just my opinion. Miller wants to be a packline team by default. Getting a lot of instruction time in on packline is big for execution, and execution was so so this year. I tend to be a disciple of the "pick a system then perfect it" school. Boeheim's zone works in part because he teaches it exclusively. When Syracuse gets killed in the 2-3, Boeheim's remedy is more 2-3.
Always feel free to jump in, Spiff.

Has a (primarily) packline team won a NC?

Not to my knowledge, but one limitation is how many primarily packline teams there are. UVA, Arizona and...?

The second half of my rant is how people get obsessed with the brand name rather than the principles. If Miller announced he was rolling out the "red breasted booby" man to man strategy, then played basically the same thing, would it change our probabilities? Would it change fans opinions?

That's why I get on my soapbox about why a lot of hate on the packline is hate on the brand instead of the principles.

dcZONAfan · Post by **dcZONAfan** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:18 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thanks to the people that answered. It seems like the common thread is giving up 3's.

My personal opinion is that the packline gets too much hate. The particular issue we had this year, IMO, stemmed from an inability to stop penetration on ball. Name one guy who was really an on ball stopper? This forced a ton of help and recovery.

A better on ball defensive team (UVA) was 10th nationally in opponent 3 point percentage. They didn't give up near the penetration we did.

That's one reason I think packline gets too much hate. One thing no scheme can really cover for is being beat individually. Even zone gets carved up when dribble penetration happens. We got significantly worse because we downgraded across the board. Vs the 13-14 tourney team, I think we're worse at every position if you view AG and Ayton as the 4's. PJC vs TJ, NJ vs Zo, RHJ vs Rawle and Zeus vs Dusan are not close defensively.

This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. I just think the base issues this year would have existed regardless of scheme because of the issues controlling dribble penetration.

This 1,000,000 times, THIS

Phylek · Post by **Phylek** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:23 pm

Michigan state and Xavier also run primarily pack line. Again, not the best endorsement this year.

But spiff brings up a good point that not many teams run pack line. It's a very challenging defense.

I tried to find out if the 2000 Michigan state team team pack line, but was not successful. I do know they've run it for as long as I can remember.

Ohio State also ran pack line while Matta was there.

pokinmik · Post by **pokinmik** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:24 pm

Yea I was gonna say maybe it just boils down to our players not being that good. This isn’t college ball from 20 years ago. Even mid majors have some freak athletes nowadays. Ayton is excluded from everything I’m about to say but are any of our players from this year really that lengthy or overly athletic?? Not really. PJC is in fact a weakness physically. Alkins is more dynamic than Trier but neither are freaks. Ristic is slow. Add all this up and you run into a team that plays more cohesively, and also plays much harder and attacks, and also makes more shots, and you get rolled by 20 regardless of ‘Arizona’ being on the front of your jersey.

dcZONAfan · Post by **dcZONAfan** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:30 pm

Beachcat97 wrote: Is there any reason why we can't run Cuse's zone every now and then? I can't believe how badly that thing disrupted Michigan State. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it gives Duke trouble as well.

Damn dude do you ever think before you write something? I wish people wouldn't quote you so I don't have to read your drivel, but since they do I feel compelled to respond.

Syracuse's zone..hmm, I'll bet it's so consistently effective because it's just so easy to implement whenever you feel like it, possession by possession, no matter who your personnel is, and you'll run it just like Syracuse! Toss it in for 5 possessions and change the game, that would probably be so simple, right?!

The Syracuse zone takes just as much effort and practice and knowledge as the packline I'll bet, and is likely just as dependent on having the right personnel. And, as I think you can imagine, there might be no worse coach in the country to implement Syracuse's zone than Miller. It's downright laughable whenever our guys go into a zone. It ends up with a wide open shot 90% of the time, which is why we play it for 2 possessions max and then go back to what we do.

Postmaster · Post by **Postmaster** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:42 pm

Phylek wrote:The packline is always going to be susceptible to a hot 3 point shooting performance. Every defense has its weakness. That's the packline's.

However, I like the packline for a few reasons. It puts your players in good rebounding position. It prevents easy shots and forces a team to beat you with long range contested shots. It creates a system of individual accountability.

Arizona's implementation of the pack line this year was extremely frustrating. The players were guarding their guys that didn't have the ball too tightly creating situations where they were in each other's way and forced them into switches that should have never happened. This led to mismatches and easy uncontested layups and shots. Guys weren't hustling to get out on their guys. This Arizona team was in no way an endorsement for the pack line as they played it very poorly.

On the other hand, Virginia played it very well and still got schooled by a hot shooting quick 4 guard lineup.

I would really like to see Arizona have a better half court offense to help out when they come across those hot shooting nights. Of course, that starts with having a good point guard.

Ppg since joining Pac-12
80.5 PJC
76.6 PJC
80.4. KA
76.6. TJ
72.9. TJ
73.4 LYONS
69.0. FOGG

I'm not certain our offense has suffered under PJC

dcZONAfan · Post by **dcZONAfan** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:46 pm

Postmaster wrote: Ppg since joining Pac-12
80.5 PJC
76.6 PJC
80.4. KA
76.6. TJ
72.9. TJ
73.4 LYONS
69.0. FOGG

I'm not certain our offense has suffered under PJC

I get the urge to use this statistic, however I think if you substitute any of the other PGs on that list for PJC we average 3-4 points more (and of course probably give up 5 less points as well)

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:47 pm

dcZONAfan wrote:The Syracuse zone takes just as much effort and practice and knowledge as the packline I'll bet, and is likely just as dependent on having the right personnel. And, as I think you can imagine, there might be no worse coach in the country to implement Syracuse's zone than Miller. It's downright laughable whenever our guys go into a zone. It ends up with a wide open shot 90% of the time, which is why we play it for 2 possessions max and then go back to what we do.

Look, man. What we're running isn't working. At this time of year, it's interesting to look around and notice other, more effective defenses. Maybe Cuse's is simply too radical a departure from "what we do," and too time-consuming. Fine.

Was the Buffalo loss more about our system or about our players, then? How about the Xavier loss? How about the Wichita State loss? That's three straight years we've lost to a double-digit seed.

Cuse, on the other hand, seems to over-achieve in the tourney. Does that mean we should just do what they do? Probably not. Does it mean Miller can evolve as a coach by paying attention to programs who continue to succeed in the tourney? Yeah, I think so.

SunnyAZ · Post by **SunnyAZ** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:51 pm

Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.

I don't think this is true. Basketball is super simple. You can learn where you need to be in like 2 days. They have months to get better. It is very easy to learn both. I don't know how much of the tourney you guys are watching but most games both teams are switching between different types of defense. I think the only ones that aren't switching are Duke and 'Cuse, and they both are playing 2-3 zones.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:51 pm

Phylek wrote:Michigan state and Xavier also run primarily pack line. Again, not the best endorsement this year.

But spiff brings up a good point that not many teams run pack line. It's a very challenging defense.

I tried to find out if the 2000 Michigan state team team pack line, but was not successful. I do know they've run it for as long as I can remember.

Ohio State also ran pack line while Matta was there.

I honestly didn't know MSU ran it, but Izzo has had great tourney success. Matta also made the Final Four, so those would be two Final Fours. There just isn't a huge sample size of teams that run it. I wouldn't blame tourney losses on packline, mostly:

I'd blame our tourney losses on:

2018--Overall malaise and awful performance.
2017--Failure to handle zone and just collapsing on both sides of the ball in the last 2:40.
2016--Wichita just being better, especially their D vs our offense.
2015--This is as close to packline blame, but Wisky was spitting hot fire too.
2014--Our offense was poor and Kaminsky gashed us in the post.
2013--Offensive lulls and just not being great.
2011--DWill having early foul trouble and just a letdown after smoking Duke.

If you want an interesting analytics perspective critical of packline, here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ma ... 87a3041e2f" target="_blank

I don't agree, but it is interesting.

Phylek · Post by **Phylek** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:55 pm

Explaining a little more of why Arizona played pack line so poorly this year...

1. Pack line requires fighting through(primarily) or around screens. You have one defender playing very tightly on the ball. All others are playing pretty lose off their guy, about 3-4 feet inside the three point line. So, when the offense runs a screen the defender either fights through or goes around with plenty of space because they other defender isn't right there. The preference is to fight through or you risk giving up the shot over the screen, but even then it's a lower percentage 3. This whole year our off ball defenders were playing tight on their guy. It's like they had some mental inability to give space. So, when there was a screen our on ball defender had to fight through/around two people screening. This caused one of two situations. 1. The on ball defender got stopped in his tracks allowing an easy path to the basket because the help defender is, correctly, staying on his man while also screening the on ball defender or, 2. The off ball defender realizes he just screened his own player and switches to cover the ball, which now means there is a double team on the ball(because you don't switch in pack line) leaving a player wide open for a mid to long range jumper(dusan made this mistake all year)

2. Pack line requires that you be smart enough to stay in front of your guy and direct any drive toward a help defender. This is particularly important on the baseline where you only have help defense on one side of you. If you get beat along the baseline, no one is coming and it's an easy path to the basket. So the defender has to position himself when he's on ball along the baseline so that he's keeping himself at an angle between the defender and the baseline, to force the play away from the baseline toward the help defender. Too often our on ball defender would fall for a fake to the inside and get blown by on the baseline. You have to trust your help defender who is a step behind you to your side to stop the penetration on that side. You have to guard the baseline.

Those are the two areas we, constantly, got killed on this year.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:59 pm

SunnyAZ wrote:
Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.
I don't think this is true. Basketball is super simple. You can learn where you need to be in like 2 days. They have months to get better. It is very easy to learn both. I don't know how much of the tourney you guys are watching but most games both teams are switching between different types of defense. I think the only ones that aren't switching are Duke and 'Cuse, and they both are playing 2-3 zones.

I just disagree. Look at free throws. It's as simple a skill as required, players practice it and how many get where they need to be in two days? Execution of defenses takes a while to learn and be good at. The curve may differ, but there's always a curve.

Another example, why did we give up tons of penetration to Buffalo? Players learn how not to do that too.

Something a lot of fans discount is other teams practice to exploit a zone. Other teams don't just lay there and take it. Drawing back to other teams, I can never really argue vs the ethereal other teams. If you have specific examples, let me know and I'll respond to them.

SunnyAZ · Post by **SunnyAZ** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:06 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
SunnyAZ wrote:
Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.
I don't think this is true. Basketball is super simple. You can learn where you need to be in like 2 days. They have months to get better. It is very easy to learn both. I don't know how much of the tourney you guys are watching but most games both teams are switching between different types of defense. I think the only ones that aren't switching are Duke and 'Cuse, and they both are playing 2-3 zones.
I just disagree. Look at free throws. It's as simple a skill as required, players practice it and how many get where they need to be in two days? Execution of defenses takes a while to learn and be good at. The curve may differ, but there's always a curve.

Another example, why did we give up tons of penetration to Buffalo? Players learn how not to do that too.

Something a lot of fans discount is other teams practice to exploit a zone. Other teams don't just lay there and take it. Drawing back to other teams, I can never really argue vs the ethereal other teams. If you have specific examples, let me know and I'll respond to them.

defense is way more about being competitive and having natural ability than learning/understanding. Basketball is a super easy sport. If can't learn two defenses you probably shouldn't be in college or on a college bball team.

Phylek · Post by **Phylek** » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:12 pm

SunnyAZ wrote:
Introducing a second defense like zone constricts teaching time of the primary D. You can run into being so so at 2 things instead of being good at one. Teaching concepts, especially with returning players is usually time well spent in developing the program as a whole.
I don't think this is true. Basketball is super simple. You can learn where you need to be in like 2 days. They have months to get better. It is very easy to learn both. I don't know how much of the tourney you guys are watching but most games both teams are switching between different types of defense. I think the only ones that aren't switching are Duke and 'Cuse, and they both are playing 2-3 zones.

Briefly consider just one difference between man to man and zone. Switching.

In pack line, as with most man to man defenses, you don't want to switch the guy you're guarding. In zone you are constantly switching because you're guarding a spot, not a guy. With the constant motion and fast paced action all it takes is one fraction of a second of second guessing yourself about whether or not to follow the guy to completely screw up the entire defense and lose the possession. It's even worse with zone because if you leave your area you're screwed.

For this reason it is really important to either be a zone team or a man to man team. You either switch, or you don't.

Login • Register