Defending the 3 & Coach Few

[GUnawinit]

1st time on the board after the W.S. loss!

I'm sure it's been discussed...why is it GU can't defend the 3 over the years?

And does it have anything to do with coachng!

I'm currently watching a game reply and just don't get it?

Is it coaching / players desire or......

GU had this game....

Not trying to open a sore spot here...just asking

???

[webspinnre]

Look through the last 3 pages, there's probably a dozen threads on this.

[GUnawinit]

Thank you

I'll look through the last three pages......

As I mentioned..It had probably been mentioned...

On my case...Sometimes if you ask (ME) you'll get a answer, and yes I was just asking!

GO BULLDOGS!

[Oregonzagnut]

It was a combination of WSU getting red hot from 3, Bell getting hurt and the entire team just not playing their "A" game. I don't even think we played bad. Its just we couldn't avoid a mistake prone game that we normally would pull out at the end. This time the opponent hit every three in the final 2 minutes to clinch it.

[MDABE80]

I think I postd in one of those threads that WSU was a season long .33 3 pt shooting team. For them to climb to .500 (which they did against us) the odds are 2640 to 1. Darn luck!

[gonwick]

Few makes it a priority to pack it in against the dreaded two ball, the great equalizer in college b ball.


Prepare to be told nothing can be done about the three, as it is an unstoppable force in basketball, against which we are powerless (as we have proven year, after year, after year and will continue to prove because why on earth should we expect that in a one and done tourney, a team might exploit the three). Kenpom says defense has little effect on the three point percentage. Sort of like how no one defends free throws, so why bother worrying about how often people get to the line. It may also be that few felt our 7 footers can't get by without help from our lanky guards against penetration.

[montanazag88]

Without question.....THE post of the century.

Few makes it a priority to pack it in against the dreaded two ball, the great equalizer in college b ball.


Prepare to be told nothing can be done about the three, as it is an unstoppable force in basketball, against which we are powerless (as we have proven year, after year, after year and will continue to prove because why on earth should we expect that in a one and done tourney, a team might exploit the three). Kenpom says defense has little effect on the three point percentage. Sort of like how no one defends free throws, so why bother worrying about how often people get to the line. It may also be that few felt our 7 footers can't get by help from our lanky guards against penetration.

Gonwick. And you may be surprised that I will not judge you to be a Few hater/asking for his head because of your lucid summation on the most important subject of GU's past and future.

Brutal honesty is the only way to get better and Few will get better.....slowly, but better. I would add that we have a long history of playing to the competition in most of our tourney games, also revealing a deer in the headlights approach to offense in the final crucial minutes of tourney games. Don't anyone fool Themselves that this team had the components to beat everyone WSU has taken down this far and Gary Bell's injury was a set back, not a trigger for disaster. Even if the loss of his contribution on D had a more than avg impact, there is no excuse for the defensive play calling, which you so accurately eluded to, that destroys us year after year.

Absolutely beautiful post. ....... Now. Bring on the demo team to provide excuses and accusations. It's SOP, but I am not complaining.

[Chicken Ball]

Kenpom says the opposite. He says that defense does little to change 3 pt percentages, but. Defense can take away the three. Iow, the philosophy of the team is wrong: just trying to challenge three point shooters will have almost zero effect on how many shots they make. The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

[gonwick]

Kenpom says the opposite. He says that defense does little to change 3 pt percentages, but. Defense can take away the three. Iow, the philosophy of the team is wrong: just trying to challenge three point shooters will have almost zero effect on how many shots they make. The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

I think if you reread my post, you will find that you agree with me.

[cjm720]

Witchita is good.

[Zagdawg]

Length/size, quickness and spacing can slow the three.


If you have quickness to close out on your man-- you can sag more -- if you do not --you should not sag as much.

We all recall how many shots Daye blocked -- the opposing player thought he had an open look at a three and Dayes long arms told him otherwise.

Does the defending player have the speed to get around a screen/out to contest the shot enough to lower the shoot %.

Coleman has good quickness.

Nunez has good length.

We had a good number of bigs with size that could defend the paint this year-- but we still sagged off the weak side to "help" leaving many an open man to take an open three (played the %-- but when the team we were playing started getting hot from three-- we were in trouble).

Just a step too late will kill ya every time (or about 50% of the time in the last game played).

I am curious to see how the team reacts with Ray gone-- I thought that he was the defensive specialist.

[ZagDaddy]

The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

I would agree with this assessment. I am not going to take the time to see if the numbers bear it out, but watch the way Butler guards the 3 for example and compare how the Zags defend the 3. Butler is frequently in the chest of 3 point shooters with the ball and Gonzaga sags off half a step to a step on shooters with one hand up. Butler's in-the-chest technique limits shooting space and GU's does not. GU defensive philosophy seems more concerned with taking away the dribble drive than the 3.

Zags also hurt themselves by packing the paint on fast-break defense and hope to close out on the shooter camped in the corner. We have been burned over and over by this philosophy for all of Few's tenure. He never waivers from playing the percentages (take away the 2 and risk the 3) even when he is getting torched by threes. This clearly works most of the time as his record bears out, but when it doesn't and you can't adjust, you are toast.

[Zagger]

.....Zags also hurt themselves by packing the paint on fast-break defense and hope to close out on the shooter camped in the corner. We have been burned over and over by this philosophy for all of Few's tenure. He never waivers from playing the percentages (take away the 2 and risk the 3) even when he is getting torched by threes. This clearly works most of the time as his record bears out, but when it doesn't and you can't adjust, you are toast.

Agree, mostly. I think the Zags been a bit too predictable on defense. We've done well when we are aggressive in going after the ball beyond the arc - not so well when we haven't. Would also like to see the Zags shoot more from beyond the arc. That would tend to open up the inside that much more. Even though we lost to Wichita I greatly enjoyed seeing Mike Hart sink 2 3s in that game. I hope Mike gets picked up by a pro team that will allow him to shine further. I would not be surprised to see Mike in the NBA someday if he puts time into shooting like he has in going after the ball. ---- sorry for straying OT! I felt Mike was under utilized.

[Ezag]

Whether we can guard the three or not or whether it makes any difference according to Kenpom on how you guard the three....it still seems interesting that we get booted every year by a hot 3 point shooter/shooting team....can it just be coincidence year after year?

[gamagin]

so whither Vincent ?

This is a letter to the editor in the Sunday sports section. I guess it has to be true . . Vincent says so.



Story
Comments
April 7, 2013 in Sports
GU substituted poorly
Print
Email

Gonzaga plays hard. That is evident. They appeared to still be showing nerves into the second game. The Wichita State loss, however, lies solely with the coaching staff. Here’s why:

With the score tied at 10 and 12:41 to go in the first half, Coach Few went to a smaller lineup and in less than 6 minutes, Wichita State ballooned to a 26-13 lead, hitting four 3-pointers along the way.

With 6:51 left in the first half, Coach Few switched to the taller lineup. Rotating Barnam, Hart and Draganis (all 6-feet-5 or better), the Zags began rolling. Using this lineup, the Zags were not only able to defend the 3-pointer, but they erased the 13-point deficit and were leading 49-44 when, with 10:37 left in the game, almost unbelievably he switched back to the lineup that had created the mess and played it the rest of the game!

It was like watching two separate games. With the smaller lineup, Wichita State outscored Gonzaga 48-24. With the taller lineup, Gonzaga outscored Wichita State 46-28.

The Zags played to the best of their abilities, hard at all times. Blame no player. They were simply outcoached.

Robert Vincent

Spokane