Zone Defense


What do you think about Ed’s zone last night? I know Ed is a man to man guy, but the zone does a couple things for us:

  1. Allows him to keep Jeff Brooks in the game. Jeff shows flashes of brilliance on offense, but he still gets pushed around and loses his man a lot on defense. He’s less of a liability in a zone.

  2. Neutralizes somewhat quick, strong post players like VT’s Allen.

  3. Allows 38 MPG Talor to expend less energy on defense.

  4. An aggressive zone can be very effective against teams that don’t shoot well from the outside.

The negatives are:

  1. You tend to get lazy.

  2. It takes PSU out of our running game.

  3. If an opponent gets hot from three point land, it can fall apart quickly.

What do you guys think - do we see more of the zone in the future?


I liked the changeup. It did help Battle get a breather. Haven’t seen much of the 1-3-1 zone trap yet this year, have we?


The zone as a secondary defense is a good idea.


Temple used to run a matchup zone and also used to be a pretty fast team on the scoring end.


The big problem, to me, with the zone defense is rebounding.

It’s always tougher matching up to box out and we’ve seen how poor the rebounding has been out of the man, so the idea of playing zone just leads me to think rebound basket after rebound basket, coupled with open set shots from the arc.

It’s a nice alternative here and there, but for the most part, I’d like to just see us improve the man-to-man…something that can be done in my mind, since so much of defense is attitude (unless you have zero athletes).