Purel Bball Discussion about Buzz Staying...Defensive Scheme, Gottfried, etc.

[ncsportsnut1]

Now that we know Buzz is staying, here are my concerns about his coaching and would like people with more bball knowledge than me to correct or fill in the blanks of my average perspective. I cannot stand the "product" put on the floor the last two years, save the 110% effort of a few players. But moving on, he's here, we're stuck with him, so here's a summary of my concerns about his coaching strategies and what it could mean in the next few years.

COACHING SYSTEM: Buzz apparently has shown some ability to recruit. If these recruits pan out well they will lay a foundation only if there is a "coaching system" for them to plug into. It seems to me that Buzz has some offensive system, but lacks a defensive scheme for people to plug into. My premise is this: ALL successful coaches have systems of offense and defense that makes them successful. Knight, Rupp, Smith, Williams, Wooden, they all had systems that worked and produced success. Gottfried had a system at Alabama that he learned from some of the established coaches and he installed that system and you see the results instantaneously. Much of coaching is about organization whether it's during games or on the court. Having a system that is successful is critical.

I don't see that in our defense. A quick look at turnover differential is a big clue. Our defense never forces turnovers. If the other team turns the ball over it's usually their error. With no defensive pressure, and no rebounding, and teams lighting it up from the perimeter, it seems to me there needs to be a change in defensive strategy similar to when Dino and Skip installed the PackLine defense. So simply put, regardless of the caliber of the recruits, I think at very least Bzz needs to take a hard look at what he is doing defensively and scrap it in favor of something that will work or he can have 5 star players and we would still lose.

So hoping some people who know more than me can tell me if we're using matchup zone, or what we are doing, and if a higher caliber player will make that system work better?

 

[blackgold]

I can agree with this. Perhaps Jeff needs to look inward and make some changes in our our assistant coaching staff. He could probably stand to hire an assistant, with known strengths as a defensive coach.

Do we need to think about swapping out Rusty? How is his work on the recruiting trail?

 

[PhonsoINT]

Best way I know to get a new defensive system is to get a NEW HEAD COACH....

 

[deacfreke2]

I'm going to keep with your attempt to look at this from a purely x and o perspective. My take is that buzz has excellent x and o knowledge and wants to implement his "system" regardless of the talent on hand. When Wellman says that the program has sacrificed short term fixes for long-term success, I believe this is what he means.

Which is why comparisons to Coach K's 2nd and 3rd years are on point because K said then that he was going to implement his style regardless of the talent on hand. His AD Butters gave him the green light to do just that and it's worked out well. That meant full-time man defense those two years when Duke did not have the personnel to use it. When you're playing Engelland and Emma in the backcourt, and Mike Tissaw and Dan Meagher in the frontcourt, you can't defend anyone man to man and Duke couldn't. Still, the philosophy was set and K was able to recruit talent to be successful later on.

I've been watching Rick Majerus's offense at SLU for the past two years as most of their games are viewable somewhere. Majerus gets praised for his superior offensive schemes and it's as close to watching a Bob Knight halfcourt offense as you'll see. Aside from all the screening, cutting and spacing you see in that offense, you also have solid post play as a cornerstone to it. It's set up this way. You use ball screens to set up pick and roll situations, and use back door cuts if a help defender drifts too far away from his man. If those aren't available, you set up a post entry pass. If that doesn't work you swing it out and try to hit an open jump shooter, or have the guard drive off a high ball screen. Buzz is trying to implement the same offense here and there are periods where it looks very fluid and gets open shots. The problem has been our complete lack of a big who is a threat to score in the post, or a guard who can consistently finish in the lane.

The hope is that we can secure a skilled big man who provides the post threat that makes the whole thing go. We haven't done it yet, and from the looks of things it's questionable whethere buzz will be here long enough to bring one in.

Defensively, I know he wants to play man and my observation from listening and watching is that he has all the x and o knowledge he needs. In man, we do everything everyone else does with hedging on top of the key ball screen, switching when needed, fighting through stagger screens to follow a shooter from one wing through the lane to the other, providing help side D, the whole ball of wax. He's used 2-3 zone as a desperation way to keep bigs out of foul trouble or to stop easy penetration in the lane.

My take from the offensive and defensive xs and os is that buzz's system will work, but it's like any other system, it takes talent, size, speed, athleticism, and a few shooters for it to come together.

The confounding x and o thing I don't understand about buzz is how we go about offensive rebounding. I asked a question in December on his show about offensive rebounding. What he said made sense, but I haven't seen our team using it. He said that when the shot goes up he wants two players to crash the glass, usually the four and five, unless the four takes a perimeter shot then the three hits the glass. One player then rotates to mid-court and two drop to stop the break. That sounds good, but time after time this year, I saw very little attempt to hit the offensive glass. I mean a shot would go up, and there wouldn't be a Wake player in the picture, no one within 20' of the rim.

I have no way of knowing if he suspended his offensive rebounding system because he thought stopping the break was more important, or if the players forgot what they were supposed to do. It would be inconsistent to say we're implementing a system and then abandon the offensive rebounding part of it, and if that's what happened it's not good. If our players couldn't remember the offensive rebounding system in the heat of the moment then someone has to decipher if the coaching was bad, or the player's retention of information was bad.

In summary, I've limited this discussion to xs and os as the OP asked, making no comment on buzzin, wait and see, or out, or defending buzz in any way. This is my take on what I've seen and heard for two years and what I believe to be buzz's x and o philosophy, nothing more.

 

[Neurodeac]

I'm going to keep with your attempt to look at this from a purely x and o perspective. My take is that buzz has excellent x and o knowledge and wants to implement his "system" regardless of the talent on hand. When Wellman says that the program has sacrificed short term fixes for long-term success, I believe this is what he means.

Which is why comparisons to Coach K's 2nd and 3rd years are on point because K said then that he was going to implement his style regardless of the talent on hand. His AD Butters gave him the green light to do just that and it's worked out well. That meant full-time man defense those two years when Duke did not have the personnel to use it. When you're playing Engelland and Emma in the backcourt, and Mike Tissaw and Dan Meagher in the frontcourt, you can't defend anyone man to man and Duke couldn't. Still, the philosophy was set and K was able to recruit talent to be successful later on.

I've been watching Rick Majerus's offense at SLU for the past two years as most of their games are viewable somewhere. Majerus gets praised for his superior offensive schemes and it's as close to watching a Bob Knight halfcourt offense as you'll see. Aside from all the screening, cutting and spacing you see in that offense, you also have solid post play as a cornerstone to it. It's set up this way. You use ball screens to set up pick and roll situations, and use back door cuts if a help defender drifts too far away from his man. If those aren't available, you set up a post entry pass. If that doesn't work you swing it out and try to hit an open jump shooter, or have the guard drive off a high ball screen. Buzz is trying to implement the same offense here and there are periods where it looks very fluid and gets open shots. The problem has been our complete lack of a big who is a threat to score in the post, or a guard who can consistently finish in the lane.

The hope is that we can secure a skilled big man who provides the post threat that makes the whole thing go. We haven't done it yet, and from the looks of things it's questionable whethere buzz will be here long enough to bring one in.

Defensively, I know he wants to play man and my observation from listening and watching is that he has all the x and o knowledge he needs. In man, we do everything everyone else does with hedging on top of the key ball screen, switching when needed, fighting through stagger screens to follow a shooter from one wing through the lane to the other, providing help side D, the whole ball of wax. He's used 2-3 zone as a desperation way to keep bigs out of foul trouble or to stop easy penetration in the lane.

My take from the offensive and defensive xs and os is that buzz's system will work, but it's like any other system, it takes talent, size, speed, athleticism, and a few shooters for it to come together.

The confounding x and o thing I don't understand about buzz is how we go about offensive rebounding. I asked a question in December on his show about offensive rebounding. What he said made sense, but I haven't seen our team using it. He said that when the shot goes up he wants two players to crash the glass, usually the four and five, unless the four takes a perimeter shot then the three hits the glass. One player then rotates to mid-court and two drop to stop the break. That sounds good, but time after time this year, I saw very little attempt to hit the offensive glass. I mean a shot would go up, and there wouldn't be a Wake player in the picture, no one within 20' of the rim.

I have no way of knowing if he suspended his offensive rebounding system because he thought stopping the break was more important, or if the players forgot what they were supposed to do. It would be inconsistent to say we're implementing a system and then abandon the offensive rebounding part of it, and if that's what happened it's not good. If our players couldn't remember the offensive rebounding system in the heat of the moment then someone has to decipher if the coaching was bad, or the player's retention of information was bad.

In summary, I've limited this discussion to xs and os as the OP asked, making no comment on buzzin, wait and see, or out, or defending buzz in any way. This is my take on what I've seen and heard for two years and what I believe to be buzz's x and o philosophy, nothing more.

Best post I've seen on either board and the type of discussion we used to have from time to time.

 

[TheIshThatSaved WakeForest]

 

[ncsportsnut1]

Thanks...yep I do have a typo in the title line lol

 

[ncsportsnut1]

I'm going to keep with your attempt to look at this from a purely x and o perspective. My take is that buzz has excellent x and o knowledge and wants to implement his "system" regardless of the talent on hand. When Wellman says that the program has sacrificed short term fixes for long-term success, I believe this is what he means.

Which is why comparisons to Coach K's 2nd and 3rd years are on point because K said then that he was going to implement his style regardless of the talent on hand. His AD Butters gave him the green light to do just that and it's worked out well. That meant full-time man defense those two years when Duke did not have the personnel to use it. When you're playing Engelland and Emma in the backcourt, and Mike Tissaw and Dan Meagher in the frontcourt, you can't defend anyone man to man and Duke couldn't. Still, the philosophy was set and K was able to recruit talent to be successful later on.

I've been watching Rick Majerus's offense at SLU for the past two years as most of their games are viewable somewhere. Majerus gets praised for his superior offensive schemes and it's as close to watching a Bob Knight halfcourt offense as you'll see. Aside from all the screening, cutting and spacing you see in that offense, you also have solid post play as a cornerstone to it. It's set up this way. You use ball screens to set up pick and roll situations, and use back door cuts if a help defender drifts too far away from his man. If those aren't available, you set up a post entry pass. If that doesn't work you swing it out and try to hit an open jump shooter, or have the guard drive off a high ball screen. Buzz is trying to implement the same offense here and there are periods where it looks very fluid and gets open shots. The problem has been our complete lack of a big who is a threat to score in the post, or a guard who can consistently finish in the lane.

The hope is that we can secure a skilled big man who provides the post threat that makes the whole thing go. We haven't done it yet, and from the looks of things it's questionable whethere buzz will be here long enough to bring one in.

Defensively, I know he wants to play man and my observation from listening and watching is that he has all the x and o knowledge he needs. In man, we do everything everyone else does with hedging on top of the key ball screen, switching when needed, fighting through stagger screens to follow a shooter from one wing through the lane to the other, providing help side D, the whole ball of wax. He's used 2-3 zone as a desperation way to keep bigs out of foul trouble or to stop easy penetration in the lane.

My take from the offensive and defensive xs and os is that buzz's system will work, but it's like any other system, it takes talent, size, speed, athleticism, and a few shooters for it to come together.

The confounding x and o thing I don't understand about buzz is how we go about offensive rebounding. I asked a question in December on his show about offensive rebounding. What he said made sense, but I haven't seen our team using it. He said that when the shot goes up he wants two players to crash the glass, usually the four and five, unless the four takes a perimeter shot then the three hits the glass. One player then rotates to mid-court and two drop to stop the break. That sounds good, but time after time this year, I saw very little attempt to hit the offensive glass. I mean a shot would go up, and there wouldn't be a Wake player in the picture, no one within 20' of the rim.

I have no way of knowing if he suspended his offensive rebounding system because he thought stopping the break was more important, or if the players forgot what they were supposed to do. It would be inconsistent to say we're implementing a system and then abandon the offensive rebounding part of it, and if that's what happened it's not good. If our players couldn't remember the offensive rebounding system in the heat of the moment then someone has to decipher if the coaching was bad, or the player's retention of information was bad.

In summary, I've limited this discussion to xs and os as the OP asked, making no comment on buzzin, wait and see, or out, or defending buzz in any way. This is my take on what I've seen and heard for two years and what I believe to be buzz's x and o philosophy, nothing more.

Thanks and you've helped me understand what's happening a lot more. I remember when Buzz was hired there was a lot of talk about match-up zone, etc., and just didn't know what he's trying to implement. The lack of rebounding is troubling. If you could address why the defense is not creating turnovers and pressuring the ball more that would be great. Is it lack of athleticism among some players or is the scheme?

 

[Beachdeac82]

I'm going to keep with your attempt to look at this from a purely x and o perspective. My take is that buzz has excellent x and o knowledge and wants to implement his "system" regardless of the talent on hand. When Wellman says that the program has sacrificed short term fixes for long-term success, I believe this is what he means.

Which is why comparisons to Coach K's 2nd and 3rd years are on point because K said then that he was going to implement his style regardless of the talent on hand. His AD Butters gave him the green light to do just that and it's worked out well. That meant full-time man defense those two years when Duke did not have the personnel to use it. When you're playing Engelland and Emma in the backcourt, and Mike Tissaw and Dan Meagher in the frontcourt, you can't defend anyone man to man and Duke couldn't. Still, the philosophy was set and K was able to recruit talent to be successful later on.

I've been watching Rick Majerus's offense at SLU for the past two years as most of their games are viewable somewhere. Majerus gets praised for his superior offensive schemes and it's as close to watching a Bob Knight halfcourt offense as you'll see. Aside from all the screening, cutting and spacing you see in that offense, you also have solid post play as a cornerstone to it. It's set up this way. You use ball screens to set up pick and roll situations, and use back door cuts if a help defender drifts too far away from his man. If those aren't available, you set up a post entry pass. If that doesn't work you swing it out and try to hit an open jump shooter, or have the guard drive off a high ball screen. Buzz is trying to implement the same offense here and there are periods where it looks very fluid and gets open shots. The problem has been our complete lack of a big who is a threat to score in the post, or a guard who can consistently finish in the lane.

The hope is that we can secure a skilled big man who provides the post threat that makes the whole thing go. We haven't done it yet, and from the looks of things it's questionable whethere buzz will be here long enough to bring one in.

Defensively, I know he wants to play man and my observation from listening and watching is that he has all the x and o knowledge he needs. In man, we do everything everyone else does with hedging on top of the key ball screen, switching when needed, fighting through stagger screens to follow a shooter from one wing through the lane to the other, providing help side D, the whole ball of wax. He's used 2-3 zone as a desperation way to keep bigs out of foul trouble or to stop easy penetration in the lane.

My take from the offensive and defensive xs and os is that buzz's system will work, but it's like any other system, it takes talent, size, speed, athleticism, and a few shooters for it to come together.

The confounding x and o thing I don't understand about buzz is how we go about offensive rebounding. I asked a question in December on his show about offensive rebounding. What he said made sense, but I haven't seen our team using it. He said that when the shot goes up he wants two players to crash the glass, usually the four and five, unless the four takes a perimeter shot then the three hits the glass. One player then rotates to mid-court and two drop to stop the break. That sounds good, but time after time this year, I saw very little attempt to hit the offensive glass. I mean a shot would go up, and there wouldn't be a Wake player in the picture, no one within 20' of the rim.

I have no way of knowing if he suspended his offensive rebounding system because he thought stopping the break was more important, or if the players forgot what they were supposed to do. It would be inconsistent to say we're implementing a system and then abandon the offensive rebounding part of it, and if that's what happened it's not good. If our players couldn't remember the offensive rebounding system in the heat of the moment then someone has to decipher if the coaching was bad, or the player's retention of information was bad.

In summary, I've limited this discussion to xs and os as the OP asked, making no comment on buzzin, wait and see, or out, or defending buzz in any way. This is my take on what I've seen and heard for two years and what I believe to be buzz's x and o philosophy, nothing more.

Excellent observations/points.

 

[thedeacfan]

... The confounding x and o thing I don't understand about buzz is how we go about offensive rebounding. I asked a question in December on his show about offensive rebounding. What he said made sense, but I haven't seen our team using it. He said that when the shot goes up he wants two players to crash the glass, usually the four and five, unless the four takes a perimeter shot then the three hits the glass. One player then rotates to mid-court and two drop to stop the break. That sounds good, but time after time this year, I saw very little attempt to hit the offensive glass. I mean a shot would go up, and there wouldn't be a Wake player in the picture, no one within 20' of the rim. ...

Niether does anyone else. And there is no need to blame the players. Someone else posted a few weeks ago that the best rank his college teams have ever had on offensive rebounding is 321 out of 345. (And I think that 321 is for this year.) It is apparently impossible to adequately perform as to offensive rebounding with Buzz's offensive scheme. That is a stunning indictment of his "system".

 

[deacfreke2]

Thanks and you've helped me understand what's happening a lot more. I remember when Buzz was hired there was a lot of talk about match-up zone, etc., and just didn't know what he's trying to implement. The lack of rebounding is troubling. If you could address why the defense is not creating turnovers and pressuring the ball more that would be great. Is it lack of athleticism among some players or is the scheme?

I tend to think of a problem with a lack of creating turnovers as more of an athletic thing than a scheme thing. With D, you've got two goals, keeping them from getting good shots and scoring, or stealing the ball before they have a chance to score. It's easier to do things that prevent a team from getting good shots than it is to take the ball away from them. You can force them out of the lane by packing the D in there tight with the hopes that they'll miss a high percentage of open jumpers. It's much more difficult to take the ball away from a dribbler, deflect a pass, or steal the pass outright. To accomplish turnovers like that you need players with good quickness, good jumping ability, ability to break into a passing lane and recover quickly if they don't make the steal.

So looking at our team, our PG is a good on ball defender but not tall nor a great leaper. Our 2 has a little height, but isn't quick nor a great leaper. Our 3 has what it takes to be a good defender with quickness, leaping ability and excellent hands. Our 4 and 5 players weren't going to take the ball from me or you, much less a D1level player. Off the bench, there wasn't anyone meeting the criteria although I could've seen Fields being a decent defender but there were just too many holes in his game to give him time to see.

Skip overemphasized the idea of stealing the ball to create easy baskets while Dino preferred to make it hard to score. Probably most coaches would be somewhere in the middle.

 

[ncsportsnut1]

I tend to think of a problem with a lack of creating turnovers as more of an athletic thing than a scheme thing. With D, you've got two goals, keeping them from getting good shots and scoring, or stealing the ball before they have a chance to score. It's easier to do things that prevent a team from getting good shots than it is to take the ball away from them. You can force them out of the lane by packing the D in there tight with the hopes that they'll miss a high percentage of open jumpers. It's much more difficult to take the ball away from a dribbler, deflect a pass, or steal the pass outright. To accomplish turnovers like that you need players with good quickness, good jumping ability, ability to break into a passing lane and recover quickly if they don't make the steal.

So looking at our team, our PG is a good on ball defender but not tall nor a great leaper. Our 2 has a little height, but isn't quick nor a great leaper. Our 3 has what it takes to be a good defender with quickness, leaping ability and excellent hands. Our 4 and 5 players weren't going to take the ball from me or you, much less a D1level player. Off the bench, there wasn't anyone meeting the criteria although I could've seen Fields being a decent defender but there were just too many holes in his game to give him time to see.

Skip overemphasized the idea of stealing the ball to create easy baskets while Dino preferred to make it hard to score. Probably most coaches would be somewhere in the middle.

Thanks and things are definitely a little easier to understand.