Pack Line Defense

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

Not at higher levels, it isn't, at least in my opinion. I remember over an day's worth of coaching about your foot movement when your man passes the ball. Then it has to become natural through repetition and happen in games...I think people underrate the amount of coaching detail in any form of D.

[SunnyAZ]

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.

almost every team in the tourney has switched defenses throughout the year. Us, UVA, 'Cuse, and Buffalo are probably the only ones that didn't. Again if you watch the games every game you can see one or the other teams switch between defenses. Even Xavier played zone against a 16 seed.

[SunnyAZ]

Not at higher levels, it isn't, at least in my opinion. I remember over an day's worth of coaching about your foot movement when your man passes the ball. Then it has to become natural through repetition and happen in games...I think people underrate the amount of coaching detail in any form of D.

yeah and in the beginning of the year I said we have no chance of being a good defensive team. Why? Because we have PJC, Dusan, and Trier who aren't defensively talented. Why did we have great defenses before? Because we had great defensive talent. It's not that hard. Pretty sure PJC, Dusan, and Trier had a better grasp of the defense than freshmen like Stanley, Aaron, and Rondae. Yeah but that really doesn't matter.

[Phylek]

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)

In the two years that PJC ran the offense he had the good fortune of having Deandre Ayton, Alonzo Trier, and Lauri Markennen. Each year he had two of these guys. That's having two players to facilitate that are incredibly efficient offensive players. None of those other guys had anything close to that.

Look, I'm not trying to disparage PJC. He had his moments, both good and bad. But he did not create in the half court offense very well. The best offensive sets we had all year were either from Dusan or Ayton from the high post, or from trier driving and drawing the foul(would have loved to see him drive and dish more, but...oh, well). PJC limited his turnovers and could break the press, but he did not create in the half court offense.

I'll also be the first to admit that Miller is not a great offensive coach. His teams like to pass the ball around the 3 point line with very probing of the defense. Far more individual offense than team offense. This year was the first year I really saw improved offensive sets, including TJ's years. Hopefully that is coaching growth.

[Beachcat97]

I'll also be the first to admit that Miller is not a great offensive coach. His teams like to pass the ball around the 3 point line with very probing of the defense. Far more individual offense than team offense. This year was the first year I really saw improved offensive sets, including TJ's years. Hopefully that is coaching growth.

Me neither. This is why I was happy when we hired Romar. He had some really, really good offensive teams at UW. Thought maybe we'd get a little of that. Guess not.

I hope our new assistants are offense guys.

[Phylek]

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.

almost every team in the tourney has switched defenses throughout the year. Us, UVA, 'Cuse, and Buffalo are probably the only ones that didn't. Again if you watch the games every game you can see one or the other teams switch between defenses. Even Xavier played zone against a 16 seed.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm explaining an important risk. Everything decision a coach makes is about risk vs. reward. There's only so much practice time in a day/week/season. Coaches have to decide how much time to commit to what in practice. Does it hurt to practice some zone? It may, it may not. But considering that our team was committed to the packline and we had guys that at the end of the year still didn't understand that you DON'T SWITCH, maybe teaching them a defense where you do switch could be seen as counter-productive.

It's like spiff said. You can choose to do several things pretty well, or attempt to do one thing perfectly. My question "if these guys couldn't learn to do one thing well, why are we so confident they could have learned to play zone well?" If they had gotten really good at pack line, I would believe they could learn zone.

[Phylek]

I'll also say that I'm wondering whether the packline is suited to a team with one and dones. The pack line requires that you trust that your help defender is going to be there even if you don't see him. That's how you trust your teammate on the baseline. That's how you trust your teammate not to get in your way when your getting through/around a screen. When you're on the ball you're tight to your guy. You're the only one playing out on your guy. You have to trust that your teammate is a little behind you and to your side, waiting to help by being a wall if your guy drives. You have to trust that your teammate has his guy, and you just have yours.

That trust may be difficult to build when you have guys coming and going each year, with no real core.

Zone is easier. Maybe it lends itself to one and dones. I think pack line is a better defense, but you've gotta have buy in.

[Ned Zissou]

Michigan state and Xavier also run primarily pack line.

Michigan State
Xavier
Arizona
Virginia

It just seems to be a defense that needs major adjustments as the other tournament teams offenses have figured out how to beat it.

[zonagrad]

Michigan State didn't lose because of defense. They missed something like 15 straight shots. They shot 25% from the field. Same story UVA.

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

almost every team in the tourney has switched defenses throughout the year. Us, UVA, 'Cuse, and Buffalo are probably the only ones that didn't. Again if you watch the games every game you can see one or the other teams switch between defenses. Even Xavier played zone against a 16 seed.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm explaining an important risk. Everything decision a coach makes is about risk vs. reward. There's only so much practice time in a day/week/season. Coaches have to decide how much time to commit to what in practice. Does it hurt to practice some zone? It may, it may not. But considering that our team was committed to the packline and we had guys that at the end of the year still didn't understand that you DON'T SWITCH, maybe teaching them a defense where you do switch could be seen as counter-productive.

It's like spiff said. You can choose to do several things pretty well, or attempt to do one thing perfectly. My question "if these guys couldn't learn to do one thing well, why are we so confident they could have learned to play zone well?" If they had gotten really good at pack line, I would believe they could learn zone.

In all honesty, you nailed the point. There's an opportunity cost to every defense incorporated. I also fully agree if they're not grasping packline principles, why would you think they'd get zone or another man variant easily? If you struggle with the basics of the defense you practice every day, adding in a second seems like a recipe for bad things.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Not at higher levels, it isn't, at least in my opinion. I remember over an day's worth of coaching about your foot movement when your man passes the ball. Then it has to become natural through repetition and happen in games...I think people underrate the amount of coaching detail in any form of D.

yeah and in the beginning of the year I said we have no chance of being a good defensive team. Why? Because we have PJC, Dusan, and Trier who aren't defensively talented. Why did we have great defenses before? Because we had great defensive talent. It's not that hard. Pretty sure PJC, Dusan, and Trier had a better grasp of the defense than freshmen like Stanley, Aaron, and Rondae. Yeah but that really doesn't matter.

See, I agree with that and think it is pretty close to my base thesis. Any halfway legitimate scheme will essentially do if you have good defenders. You just need some principles that don't contradict each other and a basic theory of what you're trying to do, then let your athletes go and do it.

[Phylek]

Michigan State didn't lose because of defense. They missed something like 15 straight shots. They shot 25% from the field. Same story UVA.

I'll agree about Michigan state, but Virginia's defense got shredded. They got out-rebounded 33-22. UMBC was 12-24 from 3 point range. Virginia got flat out played.

You could make a stronger case about Arizona having an offensive implosion. But we were awful on defense as well. Just no effort on either end.

Xavier was actually not a defensive failure. They did pretty well on defense. However, they turned the ball over 18 times and shot poorly.

Virginia is really the only one that I think was a failure of the pack line.

Arizona never played the defense well, the tournament wasn't a defensive aberration. It's was an offensive aberration.

[zonagrad]

Michigan State didn't lose because of defense. They missed something like 15 straight shots. They shot 25% from the field. Same story UVA.

I'll agree about Michigan state, but Virginia's defense got shredded. They got out-rebounded 33-22. UMBC was 12-24 from 3 point range. Virginia got flat out played.

You could make a stronger case about Arizona having an offensive implosion. But we were awful on defense as well. Just no effort on either end.

Xavier was actually not a defensive failure. They did pretty well on defense. However, they turned the ball over 18 times and shot poorly.

Virginia is really the only one that I think was a failure of the pack line.

Arizona never played the defense well, the tournament wasn't a defensive aberration. It's was an offensive aberration.

UMBC was held to 21 points in the first half. For the entire regular season (and ACC Tourney), Virginia's packline defense held up just fine against North Carolina, Duke and other talented teams. You're telling me that none of the Hall of Fame coaches that faced Tony Bennett's packline defense had a clue about how to solve this conundrum but at halftime the lightbulb went on for UMBC and now the packline just sucks?

No. The more Virginia struggled offensively, the more they had to extend their defense. And the more their defense was spread out and beat off the dribble. That has zero to do with defensive scheme and everything to do with personnel & effort. Virginia played like horseshit on both ends of the floor.

Sometimes it's about execution. If you don't guard the man in front of you and you can't put the ball in the basket, you're going to lose.

Arizona's failure is playing a style ill-suited for their point guard & their center (Ristic). One is undersized and cannot physically contain big, quick guards. The other is very slow afoot and cannot recover on ball screens and gets caught too far from the basket and is easily boxed out from rebounding despite his size. Put them on the floor together and it's a recipe for disaster. The saving grace is that Ayton is there as a major deterrent.

You can survive with PJC at the point if you have 4 other players who are exceptional. And you can survive with Ristic if you have four other players who are exceptional. But you can't survive with both of them on the floor and Trier also a subpar defender.

I'll go to my grave believing Arizona's season was destined to be cut short all because of the lack of a legitimate point guard. Put Tra Holder, Aaron Holiday, Jordan McLaughlin, McKinley Wright, Payton Pritchard, Justin Bibbins and a host of other point guards on the floor for Arizona and it's a completely different team. Completely different. PJC's only attribute was that he didn't try to do too much. He didn't make a ton of mistakes because he had other players around him that were so skilled. PJC didn't try to create plays. Didn't try to be a difference maker when opponents were daring him to assert himself. Buffalo scouted us well and recognized that if they doubled & tripled Ayton and extended ball pressure, then PJC would have trouble initiating the offense and making plays. And that's exactly what happened.

[SunnyAZ]

bballbreakdown on UVA vs UMBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rXHbrBmOZM

it is kind of a bashing of the packline

[Beachcat97]

Buffalo scouted us well and recognized that if they doubled & tripled Ayton and extended ball pressure, then PJC would have trouble initiating the offense and making plays. And that's exactly what happened.

Ugh. Truth hurts.

I really tried to give PJC the benefit of the doubt this season. And he did have some good games for us. But overall, it's undeniable: he just wasn't good enough to be AZ's starting PG, and yet that's what Miller had to roll with. He wanted Duval. Maybe things go differently if Duval's in Tucson instead of Durham.

Going forward, I hope Miller gets back to recruiting the kind of guys that his system requires.

[Phylek]

Michigan State didn't lose because of defense. They missed something like 15 straight shots. They shot 25% from the field. Same story UVA.

I'll agree about Michigan state, but Virginia's defense got shredded. They got out-rebounded 33-22. UMBC was 12-24 from 3 point range. Virginia got flat out played.

You could make a stronger case about Arizona having an offensive implosion. But we were awful on defense as well. Just no effort on either end.

Xavier was actually not a defensive failure. They did pretty well on defense. However, they turned the ball over 18 times and shot poorly.

Virginia is really the only one that I think was a failure of the pack line.

Arizona never played the defense well, the tournament wasn't a defensive aberration. It's was an offensive aberration.

UMBC was held to 21 points in the first half. For the entire regular season (and ACC Tourney), Virginia's packline defense held up just fine against North Carolina, Duke and other talented teams. You're telling me that none of the Hall of Fame coaches that faced Tony Bennett's packline defense had a clue about how to solve this conundrum but at halftime the lightbulb went on for UMBC and now the packline just sucks?

I'm thoroughly confused as to how you can read the things I've posted in this thread and think I'm attacking the packline. I've been defending it this entire thread.

I have said repeatedly that I like the packline.

I've also stated that it is susceptible to a hot 3-point shooting team. UMBC shot 50% on 24 threes. They scored 53 points in the 2nd half. The game was tied 21-21 at half time. This is even after UMBC shootng 5-12(41.7%) from 3 for the half. To start the 2nd half UMBC went 4-5 from 3(plus fouled on a 3 making all 3 free throws) to take a 41-27 lead 5 minutes into the half. That's 15 points in 5 minutes from 3 point land on 6 shots. UMBC getting hot from 3 drastically changed the game. 15 points off 6 shots in 5 minutes will do that. They also had a couple other field goals and a free throw for 20 points in 5 minutes on 10 shots.

Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Clemson, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, NC State, UNC, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, and a few mid majors scored less than UMBC's 2nd half output for an entrire game.

The packline is a great defense that forces teams to take low percentage shots. But when those shots are falling from 3 point range, at say a 50% clip on 24 shots taken(that's 36 points on 24 shots for those keeping count); it takes a toll. Especially when combined with a poor shooting night for the packline team.

Maybe you misunderstood because I said it was a failure of the packline. Maybe it would have been better to say that it was the only game that the packline was played correctly, but the other team got hot and exploited the biggest weakness of the packline.

Now, for those arguing that Virginia should have switched to a zone...UMBC had scored 20 points in the first 5 minutes of the 2nd half almost matching their 21 from the 1st, 15 of which were from 3. There was no issue for Virginia before that point, so switching to a zone before that wouldn't have made sense. After that, the damage was done and you stick with the defense that got you to 31-2 on the season and the top overall seed. And who's to say a zone would have fared better?

No one can plan for a team getting crazy hot and just not missing.

[TucsonClip]

bballbreakdown on UVA vs UMBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rXHbrBmOZM

it is kind of a bashing of the packline

Love coach Nick. We got beat all year on those slip screens, not to mention all the side to side DHO and side screen and roll into another side screen and roll.

Additionally, UMBC ran a ton of NBA sets on those zipper cuts into floppy, and even the spain PNR, which I love. I think we all know how difficult it has been to defend modern offenses under Miller, as we see it all the time. Oregon, USC, and then all the NBA sets K runs at Utah. Watching that breakdown was a vivid reminder of my disdain for our defense the last few seasons.

[FourthandUniversity]

The problem with the packline is it's beatable and if it's all you are ever going to play 100% of the time it's very beatable cause your opponents are going to practise to destroy it. There are entire books based around breaking it down either by using break aways, increasing the tempo, pick and rolls, using spacing, passing through or simply raining threes.

You also can't run the packline with lazy players who aren't aggressively contesting the ball or playing like it was 1 dollar shot night at the Bellagio. You've got to get back fast to set up the line and block any clear path to the basket. The packline relies on out-hustling, something I swear to god we sucked at this year.

The other problem is you have got to have a backup plan for when your packline is failing. You don't have to use the zone, but you ought to at least try it or mix in surprise full or half court pressure. Hell you can resort to simply a good old 3 and 2, but put a he'll of a lot more pressure on the 3. I didnt see SM change it up at all - not even once.

This year our D was downright terrible to watch and made worse when Xavier kick our asses playing it.

[JW_in_Boston]

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.

We must have run a modified pack line then because they had free lanes to the basket, with 2 7 foot centers!?, AND wide, wide open 3s all night long. So if the pack line becomes the stand around and do nothing depending on personnel then I think it's a problem!

[U.P. Zona Fan]

So if the pack line gives up 3s, what tweaks can you make to it in game when you face a team that is hitting from distance consistently? Can you even tweak it without opening driving lanes?

[Phylek]

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.

We must have run a modified pack line then because they had free lanes to the basket, with 2 7 foot centers!?, AND wide, wide open 3s all night long. So if the pack line becomes the stand around and do nothing depending on personnel then I think it's a problem!

Not modified. Just poorly executed.

[U.P. Zona Fan]

I will also add this. I was a swimmer in college, so I don't know crap about basketball but I do about competition, and about last chances to prove yourself and the ability for an athlete to dig down and pull out a performance that exceeds expectations. The pack line worked beautifully for Virginia all year, we have had years where we run it great. But at the end of the year you are more likely to see those performances where an athlete will just go off. Any normal game against those players playing within their normal range, fine, the pack line can probably handle it. But it seems like the evidence is stacking up that against teams with one or more athletes having an aberrant performance, the pack line seems to be more susceptible to succumbing to it. Thoughts? I guess since we've seen it picked apart by "lesser" competition lately, (not just our team) it was something I was wondering about.

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

We must have run a modified pack line then because they had free lanes to the basket, with 2 7 foot centers!?, AND wide, wide open 3s all night long. So if the pack line becomes the stand around and do nothing depending on personnel then I think it's a problem!

That's why I'd said at the beginning that I think the particular issue this year was our inability to stop ball penetration one on one with a side order of relatively poor execution of our rotations. Not being able to stop the ball one on one leaves the D having to rotate a ton. Our inconsistency on rotations left us either underrotating and giving a free lane or rotating and getting trapped with the result an open 3.

That's just the case with most defenses. It doesn't matter what your help principles are if you can stop the ball and rarely need help.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I will also add this. I was a swimmer in college, so I don't know crap about basketball but I do about competition, and about last chances to prove yourself and the ability for an athlete to dig down and pull out a performance that exceeds expectations. The pack line worked beautifully for Virginia all year, we have had years where we run it great. But at the end of the year you are more likely to see those performances where an athlete will just go off. Any normal game against those players playing within their normal range, fine, the pack line can probably handle it. But it seems like the evidence is stacking up that against teams with one or more athletes having an aberrant performance, the pack line seems to be more susceptible to succumbing to it. Thoughts? I guess since we've seen it picked apart by "lesser" competition lately, (not just our team) it was something I was wondering about.

I'll defend Virginia. Bennett has had one top 20 recruiting class over the last 5 years at UVA per 24/7. He's had one EE, one Sweet 16, 2 round of 32 exits and this year's first round L.

Viewed vs recruiting, I think Bennett has overperformed vs his talent level at UVA. It's when you look at postseason vs regular season that people go after him.

On some level, talent is a big deal in the tournament. One common denominator among teams that make a deep run is they usually have a good deal of talent. I think UVA is handicapped as much by talent in their postseason, and their regular season success has masked the talent issue.

[azgreg]

So if the pack line gives up 3s, what tweaks can you make to it in game when you face a team that is hitting from distance consistently? Can you even tweak it without opening driving lanes?

I would think that in that case you would just go straight up man-to-man.

[Spaceman Spiff]

So if the pack line gives up 3s, what tweaks can you make to it in game when you face a team that is hitting from distance consistently? Can you even tweak it without opening driving lanes?

I would think that in that case you would just go straight up man-to-man.

Straight up man doesn't really exist, IMO. Every man scheme has a defined way of doing things like handling pick and roll, help side, rotation, etc. Packline is just a tag name for a collection of those concepts. Switching to another variant of man is really just adjusting the various concepts.

That's why I get (probably irritatingly so) stuck on the individual principles. There's no default, it's just a matter of adjusting various parts of the scheme, but there always principles.

[Merkin]

Great thread guys, actually quite informative, keep it up!

[SunnyAZ]

So if the pack line gives up 3s, what tweaks can you make to it in game when you face a team that is hitting from distance consistently? Can you even tweak it without opening driving lanes?

I would guess it is mostly about PnR coverages. You can switch PnRs if the post guys can't score in the post (tough to do with PJC). Maybe soft hedge instead so it is easier to recover to a popper. Maybe throw in a zone for a few possessions to throw off their rhythm. Not sure we force guys middle like UVA does but maybe play straight up instead?

The thing I don't like about the packline is it forces a lot of closeout situations, which is a benefit to the offense. So doing those things I mentioned could possibly reduce the amount of closeouts.

[U.P. Zona Fan]

Thanks, this is great. I appreciate the knowledge you guys are passing on, will help me in the future be able to see more of what's actually going on.

[Postmaster]

Didn't miller spend time with Boheim last off season? I thought he would throw in a zone a bit this year.

[Beachcat97]

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.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... e-sweet-16" target="_blank

Worked for Duke. Guess it’s too much work for us, though. Right dc?

[NYCat]

Duke went full time zone really late in February and in 3/4 weeks became a top 10 defense with a zone that was best suited for their no playing defense personnel.

[Beachcat97]

Duke went full time zone really late in February and in 3/4 weeks became a top 10 defense with a zone that was best suited for their no playing defense personnel.

Excellent move by K. This adjustment has seemingly fueled their late-season surge.

[NYCat]

Above all, that what I wished Miller did, adjust to his personnel. The 2017-2018 team was absolutely terrible across the board at help defense, two 7 footers that make the team slow, and a team didn't have the fight to play a full complete game. Zone defense would've been better suited, who cares if they're more susceptible to 3pt shots.

All these college offenses are terrible, that's why they struggle vs what should be easy to beat zone defenses.

[Beachcat97]

Above all, that what I wished Miller did, adjust to his personnel. The 2017-2018 team was absolutely terrible across the board at help defense, two 7 footers that make the team slow, and a team didn't have the fight to play a full complete game. Zone defense would've been better suited, who cares if they're more susceptible to 3pt shots.

All these college offenses are terrible, that's why they struggle vs what should be easy to beat zone defenses.

Cuse v. Duke will be interesting this week. It’s hard to pick against Duke. I mean, look at that roster. But I could’ve said the same about MSU. Boeheim is sneaky good.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Above all, that what I wished Miller did, adjust to his personnel. The 2017-2018 team was absolutely terrible across the board at help defense, two 7 footers that make the team slow, and a team didn't have the fight to play a full complete game. Zone defense would've been better suited, who cares if they're more susceptible to 3pt shots.

All these college offenses are terrible, that's why they struggle vs what should be easy to beat zone defenses.

The big issue with us and zone is that we couldn't have gone zone with both Ayton and Dusan on the floor without one being on the perimeter. That would have been a really bad situation, IMO. If we thought they struggled in pick and roll, imagine them being exclusively tasked with perimeter zone coverage.

I do agree zone can hurt opposition in college because it puts a premium on execution, but we really, really would have been counting on other teams to just fail going zone with both Ayton and Dusan out there.

[Phylek]

Zones would be a mismatch nightmare for a team with 2 7 footers and PJC.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Zones would be a mismatch nightmare for a team with 2 7 footers and PJC.

Zones are great for teams with a lot of long, mobile players 6'6 to 6'8. We were either shorter or taller. Duke's done ok because none of their bigs needs to be inside to be effective on D, but we had two guys like that.

Syracuse always tries to have longer guys on the top of the 2-3 to make swinging the ball harder, and again, PJC isn't the guy for that.

[Phylek]

Honestly, the pack line was a great defense for our personnel and PJC appeared to have a good grasp of it(probably due to 4 years in the system). He really played it better than anyone else on the team. The problem was that Dusan and Ayton often ended up in positions they shouldn't have and other teams figured out how to create a mismatch by having Dusan or Ayton's guy screen PJC's guy.

I wish PJC had the personality(and a step stool) to get in those guys faces when they screwed up their assignment. You could see that he was annoyed it happened, but never called them out. Being called out by a teammate on the floor is often far more impactful than being called out by the coach.

[TatetheGreat]

Miller needs to recruit better athletes and embrace zone theory.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Honestly, the pack line was a great defense for our personnel and PJC appeared to have a good grasp of it(probably due to 4 years in the system). He really played it better than anyone else on the team. The problem was that Dusan and Ayton often ended up in positions they shouldn't have and other teams figured out how to create a mismatch by having Dusan or Ayton's guy screen PJC's guy.

I wish PJC had the personality(and a step stool) to get in those guys faces when they screwed up their assignment. You could see that he was annoyed it happened, but never called them out. Being called out by a teammate on the floor is often far more impactful than being called out by the coach.

I see it like this. Any defensive scheme involving PJC and Dusan would be limited to some extent by their physical limits. With packline, at least they both knew the principles and could execute.

Sometimes there is no perfect choice, only a best choice. I think Miller made that choice in sticking with the D that PJC, Dusan, Smith, Rawle and Trier were experienced in. Switch to a different D and now you're trying to teach every single player on your team a new scheme and PJC is still tiny and Dusan is still pretty immobile.

[SunnyAZ]

Above all, that what I wished Miller did, adjust to his personnel. The 2017-2018 team was absolutely terrible across the board at help defense, two 7 footers that make the team slow, and a team didn't have the fight to play a full complete game. Zone defense would've been better suited, who cares if they're more susceptible to 3pt shots.

All these college offenses are terrible, that's why they struggle vs what should be easy to beat zone defenses.

The big issue with us and zone is that we couldn't have gone zone with both Ayton and Dusan on the floor without one being on the perimeter. That would have been a really bad situation, IMO. If we thought they struggled in pick and roll, imagine them being exclusively tasked with perimeter zone coverage.

I do agree zone can hurt opposition in college because it puts a premium on execution, but we really, really would have been counting on other teams to just fail going zone with both Ayton and Dusan out there.

Ayton was always on the perimeter anyways. Not sure why that would be a consideration.

[SunnyAZ]

To me, the packline is a homerun defense (in that it increases the effort, activity, help, timing, etc. required to play defense and if it works it is great). This year we just needed to hit singles. If Ichiro Suzuki went out there and tried to hit homers every at bat he would've had a totally different career.

[azcat49]

Play a 1-3-1 and put ayton on the nail and Duece on the FT line and give responsibilities of the corners to the wings. Never happen with Miller but it would have been a fun experiment

[Phylek]

The 1-3-1 is getting increasingly risky with the outside shooting 4s and 5s. Everyone is a perimeter shooter anymore, causing an issue for any defense that is committing a defender under the basket.

The game had changed. It's a shooter's game. That's why there's no zone in the NBA. No traditional 4s and 5s.

[SunnyAZ]

The game had changed. It's a shooter's game. That's why there's no zone in the NBA. No traditional 4s and 5s.

I think it has more to do with the fact that there is defensive three in the NBA. I really think people make a way bigger deal about zone not being able to cover the 3pt line. It's not really an issue imo.

[Merkin]

[YoDeFoe]

That packline guide is here, for those that really want 96 pages of slowbro defense in their life.

[YoDeFoe]

Notes from some of Miller's clinics here (one featured, more linked at the bottom).

[U.P. Zona Fan]

Is there a warning?
Possible side effects include but are not limited to: losing to a vastly less talented team in the first round of the tournament that gets hot from three, difficulty scoring more than 60 points in a game, inability to score in transition. Do not use if you are currently using a roster of not super athletic freaks of nature with really really long arms, fast feet, and a will to dominate on defense, or players that are showcasing their skills on offense for the nba scouts in attendance.