Recent Comments

This lived up to every single expectation I had.

Rob,

I think we need to be careful in thinking that just because our opponents shooting percentage and our opponents points against validate Coach Johnson into turning around our defense. I have seen fans toss around the idea (not necessarily you) that Coach Johnson deserves another year alone due to "turning around" our team in the last (7) games with his coaching.

What our opponents do shooting from the field is not the end all tell all statistic. To me it is a no brainer and not a surprise that our opponents shooting percentage is down verses our zone, but there are negative effects of our 2-3 zone. What we do on defense in basketball ties into our offense as well. The first is that while forcing the game to slow down for our opponent and use all of their possession clock, this in turn also limits our possessions, as well. Couple that with our offense that takes almost all of the possession clock to attempt to score, and we are only magnifying our horrid offensive efficiency, making it worse. We are getting less opportunities (our shot attempts are down the last 7 games on average vs before in man defense), and less points per possession and for a team that is already not very efficient on offense, this is bad.

With less offensive possessions and points per possession where can we generate opportunities to score? Not in turnovers. The 2-3 zone is relatively passive in nature, because the zone is designed to be packed inside the three-point arc, the defense is not looking to actively steal perimeter passes. While some passes might be intercepted, the zone is not a great way to force turnovers. Instead, the zone is designed to control the action from inside the three-point line and force several long shots. Turnovers are in fact decreasing. In the last (7) games while in all zone our turnover margin has decreased comparing it to the previous (7) games in man, from -1.8 (man) down to -7.7 (zone). We are generating less turnovers and generating less fast break opportunities (which lead to easy scores). There are several schools of thought into play here but my point is we are getting less opportunities on offense. What's a really odd stat as well is our own turnovers are up in the last (7) games (14.7) vs the previous (7) games (10.7). I kinda think we aren't able to get in any rhythm, with less opportunities on offense. Our worst TO games were vs Maryland, NC State, and PITT.

Another important stat is our opponents offensive rebounds. Usually, it is harder to rebound in a 2-3 zone then in a man defense. In our last (7) games our opponents averaged 13.3 offensive rebounds verses our previous (7) games in man at 10.0. We actually did a pretty decent job preventing Maryland from generating second chances so this number could have been worse if consistent to the previous (6) games sitting in a zone. To me, while not dictated on the stat sheet, but rather the way i was taught is that offensive rebounds for the other team are basically turnovers for us. While not an official stat, adding in offensive rebounds against to our turnover margin we are in the last (7) games -21.0 verses previous (7) games (in man ) -11.8. Again, there are several schools of thought but my point again is we are getting less offensive opportunities.

You have also pointed out a lot that we held Duke and UVA to record low offensive outputs. While I am happy at our effort (and I think there is no argument that our players are giving it all they have), in these games there were tons of uncontested shots. To me this was more Duke making Duke's offensive output look bad and UVA making UVA's shooting percentage look bad, in comparison to other teams, by simply missing open shots. Duke and UVA alone were able to almost create a wash with not only their offensive rebounds (verse our same zone) but also able to dictate match ups verses our zone leaving us unable to adjust (which is another weakness in our zone). Maryland in fact did the same thing. They were able to dictate our forwards (JVZ and Trevor Thompson) not allowing them to contest many shots, leaving Maryland to attack the paint over and over and over. We didn't adjust.

With all that said, I completely understand why Coach Johnson is playing zone the whole game. It is obviously a logical decision. We have limited players that we need to last the whole game. I just feel a 2-3 zone the whole game just magnifies our woes on offense and doesn't match us well (a horrible offensive team). We cannot get into a rhythm, we have less opportunities, getting out rebounded on defense, we are already slowing down the game on offense, we aren't efficient, etc. There are too many red flags here amongst the good (maybe we are damned if we do damned if we don't). I have always felt we need to be getting more experience in man defense for next season. The ACC is young and so are we. The only way to get better in a man to man help defense is to get the reps in. While we have all summer to do this leading to next season, to me in game reps matter the most, especially vs other young players we will be lining up against next season. I wish we would switch it up between zone and man. Next season if we continue to be an all game 2-3 zone defense i might jump out of a window, honestly. In my opinion there is nothing better then solid intense man defense to dictate game tempo and to get in the passing lanes. From my memory only 4 teams currently actively play mostly if not all 2-3 zone (Syracuse, Eastern Michigan, East Tenn St, and Southern Miss), and really historically only Syracuse and Temple (with John Chaney but that was more of a match up zone) really had any success wining with all zone and alot of that was good coaching and recruiting to fit the zone (length on the perimeter and a solid shot blocking big man)

Coach Johnson will get another year not because of the last (7) games instead just because of the timing of the AD and financial decisions. But to me next year is the crucial year. To me if we aren't in a post season tournament (at least NIT), or we aren't in the top 8-9 of the ACC then we need to part ways. Just getting above .500 wont cut it IMO. I'd rather see us move on but I am willing to go one more year and see what he has, I guess...

Please don't take this as any attack on Coach Johnson or you providing us with stats (I appreciate all the statistician work you are putting in). It is just how I feel about our defensive direction with the 2-3. I hope that it is just a temporary thing and we only see it next year: as a gimmick, to rest a couple possessions, hide players in foul trouble, against some baseline out of bounds plays, or if we ever zone press as something we can drop back into (just easier to drop from zone press to zone)

The last 2 or 3 words of this title are unnecessary.

...it's...glorious!

I'm not a fan. College football stops enough with first downs, getting out of bounds, etc. No reason to add another TV timeout that screws up the rhythm of the game and leaves me standing bored in the stadium (or living room) waiting desperately to see the end of the game.

Another angle:

http://youtu.be/k9LGE6AfDTU

You'd think that a Cavalier would know when to take an L...

Plus we have a grade A beat writer that contributes/posts in Bitter

I'll just leave this right here

I get what you're trying to say, but the game isn't technically any longer. It might take more time to complete but it's still going to be 60 min of game time. Same amount of time that ke. Fuller and Facyson will be playing

TimeCop wouldnt know what to do with this rule. He might call a timeout so his team could recover from the two minute warning

must be drunk off zima.