Defensive Strategy: Double Teaming Low Block?

[Frak]

Spraingler had 16 points and 15 rebounds last game, thats probably why we chose to double team him. He was a difference maker last game.

Sure, but a lot of his points were off of offensive rebounds. Box him out and he loses a lot of effectiveness. I don't think that he has a lot of post up moves. Of course, if Ejim and Niang are in early foul trouble, ISU loses pretty much all chances to win.

 

[mattyice]

yes because you know so much more about bball than CF

These responses are always idiotic.

Just because someone would do something different doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. CFH likes to double from the opposite wing.....great....another coach or fan might think a zone would be better against KU. Neither is "wrong"...just a differing philosophy.

I've coached a lot of years and I personally wouldn't drop opposite guards bc I think it leaves you scrambling and opens up driving lanes more than you'd like. My opinion isn't wrong, nor is hoibergs....he's in the seat not any if us.....but that doesn't mean people don't know what they are talking about

 

[hoosman]

I agree with the OP. OU is a 4-guard team, and we are leaving them open 3's because of Spangler? Stupid question #1- would a zone defense help protect our interior? SQ #2 - are the backup forwards that bad that we have to avoid frontcourt fouls with double teams?

 

[mattyice]

I agree with the OP. OU is a 4-guard team, and we are leaving them open 3's because of Spangler? Stupid question #1- would a zone defense help protect our interior? SQ #2 - are the backup forwards that bad that we have to avoid frontcourt fouls with double teams?

Not dumb questions but again it comes down to philosophy. Fennelly likes zone bc it limits fouls on post players....but just by its nature is pretty inefficient at rebounding as you don't have an assignment player to box out.

I didn't watch close enough to see if the double came from the off wing everytime or not

 

[Steve]

I agree with the OP. OU is a 4-guard team, and we are leaving them open 3's because of Spangler? Stupid question #1- would a zone defense help protect our interior? SQ #2 - are the backup forwards that bad that we have to avoid frontcourt fouls with double teams?

It doesn't make any sense to adopt a strategy that puts them at the line sooner and more often. They shot 40.6% from the field and 78.6% from the line.

Double teams aren't going to work every time, but they are almost a necessity when we lack a defensive stopper in the middle. They limit the points that we allow in the paint and are also responsible for a good share of the turnovers that we create. Many of out turnovers come from either stripping the ball with the double down or getting a hand on the kick-out pass.

 

[AttakOfDaClones]

It looked to me that the 3's Hield hit were due to defensive errors by our defender - hesitating in rotating or closing out - and not holes in the defensive plan. I think the double-team plan did a good job keeping us out of foul trouble, helping us dominate the points in the paint, and causing OU to take a lot of difficult shots, many of which were quick jump shots. The weakness was that it put us out of position to rebound those quick jump shots, which also tend to lead to a high number of long rebounds (often 50/50 balls).

The summary at the end shows an OU team that shot a poor percentage (40.6%), lost the turnover battle (-4), lost the Points in the Paint (-12), and won on the boards (+12) against ISU. I think the double-team the post plan worked very well when looking at the big picture.

The game was closer than it could have been (which I assume to be the root of this thread) due to ISU only grabbing 6 offensive rebounds, having a few periods where we stopped moving the ball in the half court and forced things 1 on 1, and OU hitting a fair amount of difficult shots, IMO.