Gophers poor 3-pt defense

Donate To GopherHole
B

Block M

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
818
Points
113
I am sure many of you saw this as well, but you can see the opponent's wide-open three point shot coming long before it actually occurs. The Gophers weak-side defenders wander to close to the lane area get fall asleep watching the ball when its on the strong side. They are too far away to defend the shot when the ball is (inevitably) kicked out, skipped, or reversed to the weak side shooter. Its not that they don't close out hard; its just that that are too far away to start with.

There was one glaring example late in the 2nd half (Gophers may have been in a zone) where Rodney was actually in the paint when ball went strong side, leaving his guy all by himself in the corner. I told my son "watch this"; about 8 seconds later, ball swung to the weakside corner and the guy buried the 3 over Rodney.

Now I am a big Tubby fan, but the fact that this team makes the same mistake over, and over, and over reflects very poorly on him.
 

Block M said:
I am sure many of you saw this as well, but you can see the opponent's wide-open three point shot coming long before it actually occurs. The Gophers weak-side defenders wander to close to the lane area get fall asleep watching the ball when its on the strong side. They are too far away to defend the shot when the ball is (inevitably) kicked out, skipped, or reversed to the weak side shooter. Its not that they don't close out hard; its just that that are too far away to start with.

There was one glaring example late in the 2nd half (Gophers may have been in a zone) where Rodney was actually in the paint when ball went strong side, leaving his guy all by himself in the corner. I told my son "watch this"; about 8 seconds later, ball swung to the weakside corner and the guy buried the 3 over Rodney.

Now I am a big Tubby fan, but the fact that this team makes the same mistake over, and over, and over reflects very poorly on him.
Click to expand...


I am of the impression that is part of Tubby's weakside sag ball-line defense and not a "mistake".
 

I think it is a product of a designed defense, but it is also a problem. Inevitably, we run into a team with a 3-point shooter who is able to consistently drain wide open threes. Then we lose to that team, and people post on Gopherhole that there was nothing we could have done about it because the shooter just got hot.
 

HE'S SUCH A GREAT COACH HE DESIGNS THE DEFENSE TO ALLOW OPEN WEAKSIDE THREE POINTERS!!! HE ALSO REFUSES TO ADJUST SAID DEFENSE AGAINST TEAMS WITH NOTHING INSIDE. THAT IS WHY MICHIGAN KILLS US.

WOW TUBBY IS A GREAT COACH AND RECRUITER LOL. HE COACHES TO NOT DEFEND THE THREE AND HE DOESNT RECRUIT ANYONE WHO CAN HIT A THREE.
 

Dirk Diggler said:
HE'S SUCH A GREAT COACH HE DESIGNS THE DEFENSE TO ALLOW OPEN WEAKSIDE THREE POINTERS!!! HE ALSO REFUSES TO ADJUST SAID DEFENSE AGAINST TEAMS WITH NOTHING INSIDE. THAT IS WHY MICHIGAN KILLS US.

WOW TUBBY IS A GREAT COACH AND RECRUITER LOL. HE COACHES TO NOT DEFEND THE THREE AND HE DOESNT RECRUIT ANYONE WHO CAN HIT A THREE.
Click to expand...
Do you ever make a new argument?
 


I coached in the era before the 3 pt shot. Every clinic I ever went too with big time coaches lecturing on "proper defense" stressed weak-side help. Anything to make the penetrator give up the ball, take away the layup. You were supposed to know where the ball was at all times. If your opponent penetrates you "help" out. Make them shoot from farther away. This was what weak side help was supposed to do. Stop the close in shot in favor of a longer shot. Worked well back in those days.

Now with the 3 pt shot that philosophy has obviously many flaws. Taking away a layup or a short jump and forcing a longer shot is more costly than it used to be.

Tubby's defense seems to be a little dated to me. Often we at least 3 players surrounding the ball. That player easily passes to a waiting player who often sinks the 3. Our guy flys by trying to stop it but is almost always late.

Seems to me we should adjust a bit in our defensive philosophy.
 

gbbfan said:
I coached in the era before the 3 pt shot. Every clinic I ever went too with big time coaches lecturing on "proper defense" stressed weak-side help. Anything to make the penetrator give up the ball, take away the layup. You were supposed to know where the ball was at all times. If your opponent penetrates you "help" out. Make them shoot from farther away. This was what weak side help was supposed to do. Stop the close in shot in favor of a longer shot. Worked well back in those days.

Now with the 3 pt shot that philosophy has obviously many flaws. Taking away a layup or a short jump and forcing a longer shot is more costly than it used to be.

Tubby's defense seems to be a little dated to me. Often we at least 3 players surrounding the ball. That player easily passes to a waiting player who often sinks the 3. Our guy flys by trying to stop it but is almost always late.

Seems to me we should adjust a bit in our defensive philosophy.
Click to expand...
My coaches (I played in the last couple years) stressed weak side help as well. But there was a lot about fast rotating. If you are 2 passes away sag into the middle, if you are one pass away up tight on your man. Don't allow any cross-court passes was a big theme.
 

Below is info from the Big Ten site. This will either get fixed or it will be a constant source of pain. We are second to last in 3pt percentage on offense and dead last on 3 pt percentage on defense. We have made 34 and given 58 in 8 games so we have lost an average of 9 points per game on threes. Only 1 loss so that's good. Time will tell what happens against Big Ten level competition. This is a team that CAN win in the Big Ten but the margin for error will be thin and we are not likely to get any laughers in the BT. Stuff like free throw percentage and 3 point shooting are going to be huge. Sounds obvious - but it's true.

3-POINT FG PCT G 3FGM 3FGA Pct
1. Indiana 7 46 103 .447
2. Wisconsin 7 76 172 .442
3. Nebraska 6 44 113 .389
4. Purdue 8 74 192 .385
5. Iowa 7 49 128 .383
6. Michigan 7 52 150 .347
7. Ohio State 7 35 101 .347
8. Northwestern 6 47 140 .336
9. Illinois 7 41 127 .323
10. Penn State 8 63 196 .321
11. Minnesota 8 34 107 .318
12. Michigan State 7 33 124 .266

3-POINT FG PCT DEFENSE G 3FGM 3FGA Pct
1. Wisconsin 7 19 79 .241
2. Michigan State 7 36 139 .259
3. Northwestern 6 34 121 .281
4. Ohio State 7 43 137 .314
5. Indiana 7 38 120 .317
6. Michigan 7 42 131 .321
7. Nebraska 6 42 130 .323
8. Purdue 8 48 144 .333
9. Illinois 7 45 130 .346
10. Penn State 8 67 179 .374
11. Iowa 7 48 126 .381
12. Minnesota 8 58 151 .384
 

Virginia Tech shot nearly 50% from three point land, yet only scored 55 points. They also only shot seven free throws. They had a good night shooting from the outside. Imagine if they didn't. They might not have broken 40.

The numbers bga1 posted don't mean a whole lot as it's way too early. Does our 3-point defense need to get better? Yes, but I just don't think it's as big of a deal as some make it out to be. Overall we still play pretty good defense.
 



I have constantly mentioned in threads that Tubby's defense is old school and the current game requires you to guard the three pointer. I was encouraged that Tubby mentioned that they need to get better at covering the three pointer during his press conference. He changed alot for last nights game in regards to his coaching philosophy. I believe he will change his strategy and begin shutting the three pointer down or at a minimum shut down the best three point shooter on each team.
 


Tubby has said his teams weak 3pt defense is a concern - yes it is Tubby. Look for changes. Let's see what he has up his sleeve.
 

Dirk Diggler said:
HE'S SUCH A GREAT COACH HE DESIGNS THE DEFENSE TO ALLOW OPEN WEAKSIDE THREE POINTERS!!! HE ALSO REFUSES TO ADJUST SAID DEFENSE AGAINST TEAMS WITH NOTHING INSIDE. THAT IS WHY MICHIGAN KILLS US.

WOW TUBBY IS A GREAT COACH AND RECRUITER LOL. HE COACHES TO NOT DEFEND THE THREE AND HE DOESNT RECRUIT ANYONE WHO CAN HIT A THREE.
Click to expand...

Why are you yelling at me?
 



zambam said:
My coaches (I played in the last couple years) stressed weak side help as well. But there was a lot about fast rotating. If you are 2 passes away sag into the middle, if you are one pass away up tight on your man. Don't allow any cross-court passes was a big theme.
Click to expand...

That's supposed to happen, but I think our weak side defenders are sagging a little too far into the lane. The defenders along the baseline (often rodney), who are supposed to get to the weak corner (where we get killed often) are entirely too lax. If they had their backs square to the baseline and a step out closer to the corner, they would be able to turn and get out there.

I think part of the reasons we may crash the lane a bit more are:
1)We have consistently been a better rebounding team, they may want to be crashing the glass more than they should

2)Our guards can't stay in front of anyone on the perimeter (or get killed on screens) and allow drives, thus making the big men in the lane step up to stop them before the rack

3)Our big men have defensive deficiencies because the often don't move their feet fast enough (looking at you ralph) especially against really skilled big men. The other players guarding the perimeter have to come down a bit more to help

Thoughts from the hoopers?
 

If you hold 'em to 55 pts and win, I guess I don't care whether they scored on 2s or 3s. Their pct. on 2 pointers was what?
 

CrocShots said:
That's supposed to happen, but I think our weak side defenders are sagging a little too far into the lane. The defenders along the baseline (often rodney), who are supposed to get to the weak corner (where we get killed often) are entirely too lax. If they had their backs square to the baseline and a step out closer to the corner, they would be able to turn and get out there.

I think part of the reasons we may crash the lane a bit more are:
1)We have consistently been a better rebounding team, they may want to be crashing the glass more than they should

2)Our guards can't stay in front of anyone on the perimeter (or get killed on screens) and allow drives, thus making the big men in the lane step up to stop them before the rack

3)Our big men have defensive deficiencies because the often don't move their feet fast enough (looking at you ralph) especially against really skilled big men. The other players guarding the perimeter have to come down a bit more to help

Thoughts from the hoopers?
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. Also I think our defenders need to do a better job of getting out on cross court passes. Players on my high school team could pick those off, you'd think D1 players would at least be able to get out on their guy
 

zambam said:
Agreed on all points. Also I think our defenders need to do a better job of getting out on cross court passes. Players on my high school team could pick those off, you'd think D1 players would at least be able to get out on their guy
Click to expand...

Yup. Teams do it to us ALL THE TIME
 

Dirk Diggler said:
HE'S SUCH A GREAT COACH HE DESIGNS THE DEFENSE TO ALLOW OPEN WEAKSIDE THREE POINTERS!!! HE ALSO REFUSES TO ADJUST SAID DEFENSE AGAINST TEAMS WITH NOTHING INSIDE. THAT IS WHY MICHIGAN KILLS US.

WOW TUBBY IS A GREAT COACH AND RECRUITER LOL. HE COACHES TO NOT DEFEND THE THREE AND HE DOESNT RECRUIT ANYONE WHO CAN HIT A THREE.
Click to expand...

I used to think nothing could be worse than listening to Friend of Tubby ramble on non stop about how great Tubby is....but listening to you say the same negative thing over and over about Tubby is ten times more annoying.
 

If the best shot an opposing team can take is the weak-side 3 pointer, that sounds like a well designed defense to me.
 

I agree with the original poster, though I do value the point made that the Gophers still held Virginia Tech under 60 despite the Hokies shooting so well from 3. My main issue is that the "help" provided by the weakside defender is so often not needed and that we will continue to see teams shoot better than expected from 3 against the Gophers simply because we allow an easier look than other teams.
 

XMan said:
I used to think nothing could be worse than listening to Friend of Tubby ramble on non stop about how great Tubby is....but listening to you say the same negative thing over and over about Tubby is ten times more annoying.
Click to expand...

More annoying than the homers around here being happy to be average?
 

Dirk Diggler said:
HE'S SUCH A GREAT COACH HE DESIGNS THE DEFENSE TO ALLOW OPEN WEAKSIDE THREE POINTERS!!! HE ALSO REFUSES TO ADJUST SAID DEFENSE AGAINST TEAMS WITH NOTHING INSIDE. THAT IS WHY MICHIGAN KILLS US.

WOW TUBBY IS A GREAT COACH AND RECRUITER LOL. HE COACHES TO NOT DEFEND THE THREE AND HE DOESNT RECRUIT ANYONE WHO CAN HIT A THREE.
Click to expand...

If there is one complaint I would have in the way Tubby's defense is designed, not enough adjustments are made in preparation for a specific apponent. At times people get open that are knock down shooters that I don't think you should ever give two inches to much less sag in to help out on the weak side and leave completely open. But that is Tubby's philospophy and that is the way he has played it here for five years. He assumes enough quickness to recover and get back to the open man, obviously it doesn't always work, sometime it rarely works.
 

THIS. It's ok to give the weakside guy some 3-point shooting room if he's not a good 3-point shooter. It's not if that guy can knock down 3's. It's worse if he's the team's best shooter. It's terrible and downright dumb if he's the team's best scorer. No matter the opponent, Tubby doesn't seem to make adjustments to take away good opposing shooters. The key to successful defense usually is to slow down a team's best player. Tubby's Gophers don't even seem to notice where that best player is on the floor.

Somebody like Hoffarber may have made 10-15 3's in a game...if he was against the Gophers; we'd have never covered him and simply let him knock them down one after the other.

I've been complaining about this subject for 4 years now. Many different players have come through the system, but the result is always the same; thus it's the system; at some point coach needs to make the adjustments.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom