Great zone play !
http://www.box.net/shared/rnsgxalhgol36cj5mkdl
dimanche 26 juin 2011
jeudi 23 juin 2011
Defensive minded
Coaches,
Since season ended, I hope you guys are reading books and trying to improve as a coach and a person. Looking back at my season, I realized teams with football programs were really strong and had good defensive elements. I suggest you try to read football books : terminology and will to win are two omnipresent elements.
Here is an article on football defense : your team has to buy into it !
Coach M
dimanche 19 juin 2011
YouTube channel !
Coaches,
Like I said in the last posts, I decided to open a YouTube channel up.
Please visit us and take a look at our first video ; that is an experimental one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV5DivygVOE
Keep visiting us ! New start is ahead !
Coach M
Like I said in the last posts, I decided to open a YouTube channel up.
Please visit us and take a look at our first video ; that is an experimental one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV5DivygVOE
Keep visiting us ! New start is ahead !
Coach M
vendredi 10 juin 2011
Computer fixed, matchup-zone history
Coaches,
First of all, I'm going to get my fixed computer around 4 pm today... ! Will be able to post strategies ASAP.
There are several versions of the match-up defense, but most of them have the same basic rules and strategies. Perhaps, the innovator of matching up out of a zone defense was John Egli, former head coach at Penn State in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Egli called his defense a 2-3 sliding zone. Cutters would be defended by having the initial zone defender slide with the offensive player, thus changing the face of the zone.
While a player at Syracuse, Jim Boeheim teamed with the great Dave Bing. One night, the Orangemen couldn’t handle Penn State’s defense, and the Nittany Lions upset them. That led to Boeheim becoming a devotee of the 2-3 match-up zone. His Syracuse teams have used this defense since the late 1970’s.
Across the Keystone State, the University of Pittsburgh began utilizing a new type of match-up defense. They initiated their zone from a 1-2-2 alignment and played zone with man-to-man principles. The defense kept changing shape to match the offense, and someone cleverly noted that the Panthers’ defense was like an amoeba constantly changing its shape.
Tim Grgurich left his assistant coaching job at Pittsburgh to join Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV. Tark let Grgurich install a new form of amoeba defense out of the 1-1-3 alignment. This defense added an element of pressure and trapping to the standard match-up zone, forcing steals, turnovers, and an up-tempo pace. The Runnin’ Rebels made this defense popular nationwide when they destroyed Duke by more than 30 points in the 1990 NCAA Championship game and then fielded the most dominant modern day team a year later. The Blue Devils figured out how to attack it and pulled off the upset of the year in the 1991 Final Four over the 34-0 Rebels.
Source :
Coach M
First of all, I'm going to get my fixed computer around 4 pm today... ! Will be able to post strategies ASAP.
Second, in this off-season, I think it's time for all of us to expend our knowledge a little bit more. For my part, I decided to really get into the matchup zone ; not just learning the slides by heart, but understanding the whole philosophy. In order to accomplish that, I needed to know where it all starts from... Here's an exerpt from a great Vandy writter:
There are several versions of the match-up defense, but most of them have the same basic rules and strategies. Perhaps, the innovator of matching up out of a zone defense was John Egli, former head coach at Penn State in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Egli called his defense a 2-3 sliding zone. Cutters would be defended by having the initial zone defender slide with the offensive player, thus changing the face of the zone.
While a player at Syracuse, Jim Boeheim teamed with the great Dave Bing. One night, the Orangemen couldn’t handle Penn State’s defense, and the Nittany Lions upset them. That led to Boeheim becoming a devotee of the 2-3 match-up zone. His Syracuse teams have used this defense since the late 1970’s.
Across the Keystone State, the University of Pittsburgh began utilizing a new type of match-up defense. They initiated their zone from a 1-2-2 alignment and played zone with man-to-man principles. The defense kept changing shape to match the offense, and someone cleverly noted that the Panthers’ defense was like an amoeba constantly changing its shape.
Tim Grgurich left his assistant coaching job at Pittsburgh to join Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV. Tark let Grgurich install a new form of amoeba defense out of the 1-1-3 alignment. This defense added an element of pressure and trapping to the standard match-up zone, forcing steals, turnovers, and an up-tempo pace. The Runnin’ Rebels made this defense popular nationwide when they destroyed Duke by more than 30 points in the 1990 NCAA Championship game and then fielded the most dominant modern day team a year later. The Blue Devils figured out how to attack it and pulled off the upset of the year in the 1991 Final Four over the 34-0 Rebels.
Source :
http://vanderbilt.scout.com/2/489772.html
Enjoy summertime, and visit us daily !Coach M
vendredi 3 juin 2011
New stuff !
Coaches,
Our first animated diagrams about to come out during weekend or beginning of next week...
Gotta visit us daily !
Coach M
NB My main CPU is getting fixed up ... Please be patient for the next report ..
Our first animated diagrams about to come out during weekend or beginning of next week...
Gotta visit us daily !
Coach M
NB My main CPU is getting fixed up ... Please be patient for the next report ..
lundi 30 mai 2011
Lack of posts
Coaches,
Please excuse my recent lack of posts ... We've been working on a lot of new projects, taking Hoopjunkies to a whole other level.
Stay tuned, we got really good stuff coming up!
Coach M
Please excuse my recent lack of posts ... We've been working on a lot of new projects, taking Hoopjunkies to a whole other level.
Stay tuned, we got really good stuff coming up!
Coach M
dimanche 8 mai 2011
CELEBRATE : NCAA 2011 CHAMPIONSHIP GAME IS AVAILABLE !
Connecticut versus Butler.
Dogs versus dogs.
Correct season(#9 in Big East standings) versus correct season(13-5 in conference play)
A #3 seed versus a #8 seed.
What can we expect from that game?
Well, for a lot of people, that was one of the most horrible National Championship Game of all time. For coaches, maybe you did not see the execution you would’ve like to. For Kemba fans, you were happy he won MOP Trophy, but he didn’t have an incredible night. But for an analyst, a hardcore hoop-junkie or a defense militant, you had a real good time watching that game, and you watched it over and over again.
Shot were definitely not falling for both of these teams, but they had the shot they wanted most of the time. From a Butler standpoint, the execution was just awesome… Now it’s too easy to say: `` Why did they feed their bigs first on most possessions? That big white guy couldn’t make a single lay-up``.
Well, I will leave that up to Coach Stevens.
However, Butler got a lot of quality looks to the rack, against a ridiculously superior team in terms of size, strength and athleticism. UConn also had way more pure talent.
When you look at the Bulldogs defense, words that come to mind are solid, physical, communication and collective effort. Every defender is on the same page. If you still don’t know what I am talking about, just look at their out-of-bounds defense. It’s perfect. They didn’t get scored of the Huskies’ first out-of-bounds (under the basket) option a single time ; UConn are known for having great stack baseline out-of-bounds plays, and scoring right away.
We thought Kemba and Lamb couldn’t be matched up: wrong.
We thought UConn would destroy Butler from the inside: wrong.
If we look at Calhoun’ squad, they had a remarkable run to the Championship, and congratulations to them. They had great defensive possessions, they ran their sets the way they wanted (except for the fact that Butler were too physical at times). They just couldn’t execute most of their out-of-bounds plays.
The offensive end:
• Butler used a lot of last year’ sets. In addition to post their big guys up, Coach S tried to get Shelvin Mack involved a lot on the perimeter. One sad thing is that Matt Howard never really got started. His refreshing perimeter pop-game could’ve made the difference, but the lack of post-ups did not help the Bulldogs. However, both thumbs up to Butler’s rebounding, winning the offensive battle 20 to 17 !
• Connecticut’s plays were versatile: at one time, they will try to give their big post-ups; at other times, they will spend all 24 seconds trying to get Kemba Walker a shot. Coming out of screens, the Huskies struggled to match Butler’s physical play, plus(+) Butler’ switching defense didn’t help them with the number of screens the Huskies set.
Finally, that game was fun to watch, and analyze. The next 26 plays are the ones both teams ran during the Final Game. They did not score on every one of them, but like I said, both Butler and UConn had good looks to the basket. Even if the defensive end was incredible, we cannot ignore the fact that the offensive performance was very poor. At times, Butler/UConn looked like they only relied on their pick-and-roll isolation game to score.
HERE IS THE LINK TO PURCHASE THE REPORT (2$) :
Thanks to the buyers, and contact us for questions and requests !
Dogs versus dogs.
Correct season(#9 in Big East standings) versus correct season(13-5 in conference play)
A #3 seed versus a #8 seed.
What can we expect from that game?
Well, for a lot of people, that was one of the most horrible National Championship Game of all time. For coaches, maybe you did not see the execution you would’ve like to. For Kemba fans, you were happy he won MOP Trophy, but he didn’t have an incredible night. But for an analyst, a hardcore hoop-junkie or a defense militant, you had a real good time watching that game, and you watched it over and over again.
Shot were definitely not falling for both of these teams, but they had the shot they wanted most of the time. From a Butler standpoint, the execution was just awesome… Now it’s too easy to say: `` Why did they feed their bigs first on most possessions? That big white guy couldn’t make a single lay-up``.
Well, I will leave that up to Coach Stevens.
However, Butler got a lot of quality looks to the rack, against a ridiculously superior team in terms of size, strength and athleticism. UConn also had way more pure talent.
When you look at the Bulldogs defense, words that come to mind are solid, physical, communication and collective effort. Every defender is on the same page. If you still don’t know what I am talking about, just look at their out-of-bounds defense. It’s perfect. They didn’t get scored of the Huskies’ first out-of-bounds (under the basket) option a single time ; UConn are known for having great stack baseline out-of-bounds plays, and scoring right away.
We thought Kemba and Lamb couldn’t be matched up: wrong.
We thought UConn would destroy Butler from the inside: wrong.
If we look at Calhoun’ squad, they had a remarkable run to the Championship, and congratulations to them. They had great defensive possessions, they ran their sets the way they wanted (except for the fact that Butler were too physical at times). They just couldn’t execute most of their out-of-bounds plays.
The offensive end:
• Butler used a lot of last year’ sets. In addition to post their big guys up, Coach S tried to get Shelvin Mack involved a lot on the perimeter. One sad thing is that Matt Howard never really got started. His refreshing perimeter pop-game could’ve made the difference, but the lack of post-ups did not help the Bulldogs. However, both thumbs up to Butler’s rebounding, winning the offensive battle 20 to 17 !
• Connecticut’s plays were versatile: at one time, they will try to give their big post-ups; at other times, they will spend all 24 seconds trying to get Kemba Walker a shot. Coming out of screens, the Huskies struggled to match Butler’s physical play, plus(+) Butler’ switching defense didn’t help them with the number of screens the Huskies set.
Finally, that game was fun to watch, and analyze. The next 26 plays are the ones both teams ran during the Final Game. They did not score on every one of them, but like I said, both Butler and UConn had good looks to the basket. Even if the defensive end was incredible, we cannot ignore the fact that the offensive performance was very poor. At times, Butler/UConn looked like they only relied on their pick-and-roll isolation game to score.
HERE IS THE LINK TO PURCHASE THE REPORT (2$) :
Thanks to the buyers, and contact us for questions and requests !
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)