View Full Version : Hav'nt we used the 1-3-1 zone in the past?

11-21-2008, 11:31 AM
I seem to remember we used it a few times with Micah up front and it worked well, but for some reason we did'nt use it a lot. I would seem to me that we have the personnel to utilize this zone variation to good advantage since our achilles foot has been getting burned with unchallenged threes, especially form the wings? Perhaps Coach Few is not a big fan of that defense or in the past our personnel have not been suited to use it to advantage? Now though, with Daye, Downs, Josh, Rob, and Will's long wingspans to man the edges, it would seem a defense that would be very handy at times. Just wondering? Perhaps someone would enlighten me?

11-21-2008, 11:52 AM
I'm thinking a Thabeet or a Hansbrough would kill a 1-3-1. And isn't it teams with that level of inside presence we are most concerned with?

11-21-2008, 12:14 PM
I guess I did not make myself clear, I did not mean go to a 1-3-1 exclusively, just have it in the practice scheme, and use it when needed. Actually IMHO if a zone is ones primary defense, several different variations ( 2-3, 3-2, 2-1-2, and the 1-3-1) should all be in the arsenal and each has its uses depending on the oppositions strengths. The advantage of zones is that unlike the M2M, you can disguise a weak spot or two. I am prejudiced as I played and coached zone for my whole (not distinguished) hoops career and abhor the non zone defense in the NBA.

11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
It's been useful in the past Hill. I think the "man" Ray's been using has worked well and, even though we went zone for a while with Idaho, the fellas are working "man" to perfect it. I do think the other defense will be used depending on the opponent and the situation. Seems like the 1-3-1 is making a comback in other teams. I think Bill's been using it in SD at least part of the time....

11-21-2008, 12:36 PM
I'm not talking exclusively either, but who are you going to use that zone against? And don't the current Zags play defense well enough against those type of teams? Should we have used it against Billings?

I would guess that the Zags are familiar with the 1-3-1 as well as every type of defense you can think of. You can start with teaching an opponent's defense to your own team so that you can practice your offense against it. So while you may not employ a particular defense often, you become familiar with it. I'll bet there isn't a defense out there that they are not familiar with.

In other words, the tool is likey in the toolbox.

11-21-2008, 12:37 PM
boy, Michigan sure used the 1-3-1 effectively against UCLA last night!
UCLA was totally LOST -- they just could not seem to deal with the 1-3-1.

I think it's just one of those defensive schemes that some teams are able to adjust to & others are not.

11-21-2008, 12:48 PM
boy, Michigan sure used the 1-3-1 effectively against UCLA last night!
UCLA was totally LOST -- they just could not seem to deal with the 1-3-1.

I think it's just one of those defensive schemes that some teams are able to adjust to & others are not.

The greatest compliment is to emulate. The Michigan coach laid down the blueprint and everyone is going to follow suit. UCLA is going to have to find a way to present a threat at the post or they are going to see Michigan's defense every week.

But it isn't just gimmickry either. Idaho would lose using the 1-3-1 against UCLA. D1 hoops is all about matchups. You use a specific defense or offense to create favorable matchups.

Edit: I think we are too hung up on yesteryear. The defense is good. The Zags can present any kind of defensive match up you can imagine. Let go of the stereotype. The Zags have the horses to play a variety of defense.

11-21-2008, 12:56 PM
I am pretty sure we used it against Davidson in the first half. I was at work watching the game on my small TV, so I am not 100% sure. But I remember the announcers talking about how effective it was to have Micah on the top and they were wondering why we didnt use it more in the second half. So I think it would be good to use if we play a team with a great scorer/shooter like Curry. However, I would rather not play anyone like him again!

11-21-2008, 01:08 PM
Beilein's staple is the 1-3-1. He used it at WVU, and he's using it at Michigan. As a gimmick defense it's nice to use occasionally, but if you are going to use it a lot, it has to become a program staple like the matchup zone is at Syracuse. Your players have to believe in it and throughly understand it. The problem with the 1-3-1 is that you get killed on the boards on a nightly basis. Especially on the offensive glass. However, Beilein is able to get away it a good deal of the time because the 1-3-1, when executed properly, generates a ton of turnovers. So while Michigan got pounded on boards last night 32-21 (and UCLA is not that big of a team compared to Michigan), Michigan's 1-3-1 induced 17 UCLA turnovers, including 5 from Collison and 6 from Shipp. It's a risky defense because you must induce turnovers or you will lose to good teams on a regular basis.

11-21-2008, 01:39 PM
In my opinion a 1-3-1 is a very good defense, depending on two factors:
1. A very fast and great defender on the top.
2. An extremely fast, tall and athletic defender down low.

I think Micah would be great at the top of this defense, however, I don't think we have a guy that would be tall enough and fast enough down low. The only one that may be able to handle that position would probably be Ira.

Added: This also wears out the top and bottom guy because they have to cover a lot of ground. Which could hurt on the offensive end as well.

11-21-2008, 01:50 PM
My own favorite zone is the 2-1-2. If the kids move with the ball, keep their hands up and hustle out on the wings it is very effective. Another thing I like about it is that it's probably the best zone to corral long rebounds(a zone weakness) and if you like to run it gives great outlet passes to start your break, your first option. Man I cringe when I think about the hours we spent running figure eights with a medicine ball to practice that break.