Switching Defense - impact on our run
Mar 23, 2021 10:33:25 GMT -8
TheGlove, seastape, and 5 more like this
Post by beaverstever on Mar 23, 2021 10:33:25 GMT -8
I'm been thinking about WT (and Scott Rueck as well), committing to being able to run a switching defense. He manages the game tightly on both ends, where players always checking on what defense to run. I don't think a ton of teams do this, especially as much as OSU does - but I don't really pay close enough attention to really know how common it is.
What I do know is that as someone that played PG in HS, I hated it. It was tough enough reading the defense and calling the offensive sets when it was pretty obvious. I hated when teams went 1:3:1 against us, as we didn't have the personnel to attack it well. I loved when teams went 2:3 zone, as we could usually kill those. Man-to-man depended on how good their team defenders were, and I didn't relish man-to-man extended full-court. But I really didn't like disguised defenses, nor defenses that kept changing. We'd waste possessions if I misread the defense and called the wrong offensive set.
In watching Cunningham in the last game, it seemed like he also saw a lot he didn't like. They run more of a free-flowing offense (what Robinson later tried and was a disaster), and when it wasn't flowing, it really struggled. I wondered why we could double-team him at the top of the key with Thompson and Roman, and yet he would rarely find the open man. He often couldn't see over Roman, but I also think because of the style they play, he also didn't know where Roman's man was exactly, and knew even less about where the other defenders were committed to. This is a kid who is supposed to be a #1 NBA draft pick at PG and simply was unable to get his teammates involved against the defenses we throw at them. He got his points the way he could - rising over smaller defenders, but everything was a struggle. We saw the same thing with Tenn, where their guards just struggled to find any rhythm. We'd hear "they did get some good looks, but just missed them" - the reality is, good looks out of rhythm are still hard shots for most shooters.
Anyway, I'm curious how others see our switching D. In the last 5 games, nobody has figured out how to score more than 70 points on us in regulation, and every one of those teams have NBA talent on their roster. In my view, it's the single biggest reason that has made the run happen - our ability to run lots of different defenses, switch then seamlessly, and have all 5 guys communicate and be on the same page (the hardest part). That right there requires tremendous coaching and player buy-in to properly execute - one guy in the wrong defense and/or executes the rules of that defense incorrectly usually spells disaster, and I suspect that's why everybody doesn't do it.
What I do know is that as someone that played PG in HS, I hated it. It was tough enough reading the defense and calling the offensive sets when it was pretty obvious. I hated when teams went 1:3:1 against us, as we didn't have the personnel to attack it well. I loved when teams went 2:3 zone, as we could usually kill those. Man-to-man depended on how good their team defenders were, and I didn't relish man-to-man extended full-court. But I really didn't like disguised defenses, nor defenses that kept changing. We'd waste possessions if I misread the defense and called the wrong offensive set.
In watching Cunningham in the last game, it seemed like he also saw a lot he didn't like. They run more of a free-flowing offense (what Robinson later tried and was a disaster), and when it wasn't flowing, it really struggled. I wondered why we could double-team him at the top of the key with Thompson and Roman, and yet he would rarely find the open man. He often couldn't see over Roman, but I also think because of the style they play, he also didn't know where Roman's man was exactly, and knew even less about where the other defenders were committed to. This is a kid who is supposed to be a #1 NBA draft pick at PG and simply was unable to get his teammates involved against the defenses we throw at them. He got his points the way he could - rising over smaller defenders, but everything was a struggle. We saw the same thing with Tenn, where their guards just struggled to find any rhythm. We'd hear "they did get some good looks, but just missed them" - the reality is, good looks out of rhythm are still hard shots for most shooters.
Anyway, I'm curious how others see our switching D. In the last 5 games, nobody has figured out how to score more than 70 points on us in regulation, and every one of those teams have NBA talent on their roster. In my view, it's the single biggest reason that has made the run happen - our ability to run lots of different defenses, switch then seamlessly, and have all 5 guys communicate and be on the same page (the hardest part). That right there requires tremendous coaching and player buy-in to properly execute - one guy in the wrong defense and/or executes the rules of that defense incorrectly usually spells disaster, and I suspect that's why everybody doesn't do it.
