I think I'm going to be in the minority on this one, but I think the criticism for zone offense has been over the top.
Watching the UCLA game, when they unveiled the 3-2, UNLV flat out sucked in working it. It was ugly, it was painful, until the Rebels figured it out a bit and then it improved slightly. Bolden caused problems at the top of the zone and the guards weren't ambitious enough to get it into the high post.
Now I'll grant that the Rebels have struggled against 2-3's also, even ones thrown out by lesser teams. But I think struggled is way too harsh. They've had some bad possessions, maybe even small stretches. But outright struggling? Nah, that's not what I've seen. I've seen some hit and miss.
Indiana's squad is known for their offensive firepower, not their defense. I believe the Rebels saw the 2-3 for four straight possessions. I know Cornish missed a three, but I cannot recall if it was a "good" miss. But I believe the Rebels scored on the next three possessions with good zone offense.
The reason I mention this is because UNLV has faced zone offenses before. With Kruger, we either shot ourselves out of it or dug a deep hole because the bevy of three pointers were off. It was one guy in the post while the ball swung around to three or four guys are there wax enough daylight for a shot. Bayno's early teams worked it similarly. I know it drove people nuts and it was easy to chalk up to "we didn't hit our shots". That's true to some degree because you do need to hit some shots. But they can't all come from 22 feet out.
I think the issue has been way, way overblown - not that it doesn't need work. It needs a lot, because they're going to face a lot and it's far from great (otherwise we wouldn't see it at all). I'm more worried about unconventional zones than typical zones, though.
Watching the UCLA game, when they unveiled the 3-2, UNLV flat out sucked in working it. It was ugly, it was painful, until the Rebels figured it out a bit and then it improved slightly. Bolden caused problems at the top of the zone and the guards weren't ambitious enough to get it into the high post.
Now I'll grant that the Rebels have struggled against 2-3's also, even ones thrown out by lesser teams. But I think struggled is way too harsh. They've had some bad possessions, maybe even small stretches. But outright struggling? Nah, that's not what I've seen. I've seen some hit and miss.
Indiana's squad is known for their offensive firepower, not their defense. I believe the Rebels saw the 2-3 for four straight possessions. I know Cornish missed a three, but I cannot recall if it was a "good" miss. But I believe the Rebels scored on the next three possessions with good zone offense.
The reason I mention this is because UNLV has faced zone offenses before. With Kruger, we either shot ourselves out of it or dug a deep hole because the bevy of three pointers were off. It was one guy in the post while the ball swung around to three or four guys are there wax enough daylight for a shot. Bayno's early teams worked it similarly. I know it drove people nuts and it was easy to chalk up to "we didn't hit our shots". That's true to some degree because you do need to hit some shots. But they can't all come from 22 feet out.
I think the issue has been way, way overblown - not that it doesn't need work. It needs a lot, because they're going to face a lot and it's far from great (otherwise we wouldn't see it at all). I'm more worried about unconventional zones than typical zones, though.
