VTHawk
Well-Known Member
I think this is the point of the thread. It should not be that difficult for a team to learn to be a good defensive team. It all comes down to whether the head coach emphasizes this in practice everyday.
Why is it so hard to learn to play defense?
- Thread starter verlandj
- Start date
You're right they could easily dedicate less time to the offense and more time to defense. If they did, we would still be a borderline top 10 team, but without the national recognition of having the number 1 offense in the nation.
Luftgekuehlt67
Well-Known Member
You have to realize that the program is using every bit of time and resource at their disposal within the confines of the rules (and the laws of physics) to be the most effective basketball program possible. There isn't some magic dial labeled "practice defense" that's currently set at 60% that Fran is too dense (or stubborn or whatever) to crank to 100%. When, for all intents and purposes, there is no slack left, everything is a trade off.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Apparently the dial is set at 0% if the earlier comment is true.
Do they really need to spend 100% of practice time on offense when they lead the country in scoring, anyway?
I just don't buy that the team can't practice defense. Nobody is saying practice ONLY defense. But if they truly DON'T work on it, then clearly improving the D isn't a priority. Fran says we have to get better defensively, but they don't work on it?
Last edited:
Would you rather lose 92 to 88 or win 51 to 46 kinda thing... Not that it's an either or kinda thing but the makeup of our players is what lends us to this style too. As much or more so then it being Frans style.
JBo isn't a good defender
CJ is an ok defender
JW is an ok defender
CM isn't all that great of a defender. He's often asked to defend guys either way bigger or smaller and quicker then him he plays out of position alot at that end
Garza isn't a good defender
So you put them together and it is what it is.. You can draw lines on a marker board all day long emphasising D but they physically aren't capable of doing much more then they are. So outscore em instead..
They are number 1 on offense BECAUSE they spend so much time on it. If they spent less time on it, they wouldn't be number 1 anymore.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
And I couldn't care less if we have, say, the #10 offense in the nation instead of #1 if it means our defense improves from 100 to even top 40-50. I'll take that trade all day long.
I don't believe Luka, etc. are going to forget how to shoot and score if they only spend half of practice working on offense instead of all of it.
Where is it written that offense and defense have to be mutually exclusive?
I agree for the most part. I will add tho that if they spent 90% of their practice time working on defensive rotations, our defense would be a lot better. And of course, our offense would be a lot worse.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
So they're #5 or #10 instead but with better defense. They'd be a more complete team.
I'd also argue that they're #1 also in large part because they have so many weapons and are hard to guard. It's the X's and O's vs. the Jimmy's and the Joes argument.
Do you really think the difference in those numbers equates to more wins? And we aren't great on offense because our guys know how to shoot. We are great because they work on timing of plays and movement. I even heard an announcer mention it after Garza (the guy everyone is trying to stop) got an easy layup in the flow of the offense. He said "you can tell they work on it all the time".
Again, trading a worse offense for a better defense probably puts you in the same spot, just a different, less nationally relevant way to get there. Im hoping this elite offense really starts getting recruits attention.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Yes. Better defense along with our scorers would equate to more wins.
I just don't believe that our offense would suffer as much as you're suggesting if they spent some time working on the other end of the floor. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive - I'm sure there are teams that are good on both ends of the floor. Our guys won't suddenly forget how to score. As I said, I'm not suggesting working ONLY on defense, either.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
I see several teams there that are Top 10-20 in BOTH adjusted offense and defense. No one can tell me that offense has to stink because they practice defense, or vice versa. It doesn't have to be a "trade".
Last edited:
Of course you don't have to be good at one OR the other. Mostly those teams are reserved for programs with elite talent tho. It seems like the only difference of opinion we have is how much our team would drop on offense if we only practiced 50% of the time instead of 90%. Give or take on percentages obviously.
Fran would have to be the biggest idiot in the world if we could improve out defense a lot while only hurting our offense a little. I find it virtually impossible he simply hasn't thought of that idea yet.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
First, I didn't say the offense wouldn't get worse. Just not significantly worse IMO.
But I say the defense can improve because of what was mentioned earlier in this thread about the team basically not practicing defense, and I'm operating under the assumption that statement is true. If it's not, then moot point.
I have to believe practicing say 50% of the time vs basically 0-10% would have to make a noticeable improvement. Now if they already work on it 50% of the time, maybe working on it even more may not make as much difference. The law of diminishing returns.
But I really have no idea how much time is spent in practice, or what Fran thinks or knows. I'm just a fan, and have zero inside info.
As for the talent factor, that's a different discussion, but I'll agree that we may be limited by an apparent lack of foot speed. I think we have plenty of talent (i.e. skill) but not a lot of quickness. More quickness and athleticism would surely help.
My entire point is that having a good defense doesn't mean your offense has to stink or vice versa. Sounds like we agree on that point.
1980HAWKFAN
Well-Known Member
Some things you can't practice.....speed and quickness. Perkins looked really good at the defensive end...Jbo didn't. Jbo could practice 2 hours each day and twice on the weekends while Perkins sat in the stands eating a hotdog and still be a better defender. I'm not knocking Jbo because he's a valuable player when he's hitting shots for us. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Quick guards vs Jbo is a recipe for trouble whether you're in man or zone.
But if they really are practicing defense 0-10% of the time, that means they are practicing offense 90-100% of the time. I know it's easy to just assume our offense is naturally good because you watch them be good in games. But if they are truly practicing it 90-100% of the time, that has to be a major reason for their efficiency.
I think your argument is that our defense has so much room to improve that it should be easier to improve more than our offense regresses. I can get on board with that thought process, but its not necessarily correct. It's possible that with our personnel, we simply don't have a lot of room to improve. But like you said, it may all be a moot point because for all we know Fran already made practice changes. It was Mike Gesell who originally said that. There has been a lot of talk from Fran on importance of defensive improvements so I'd be surprised if a player on today's team says they rarely practiced defense.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
You may be correct. I can't really say much else without more first hand knowledge of what goes on at practice. I'd like to think (or hope) that there is at least a reasonable amount of emphasis on defense. Fran is an offense-first coach it seems, which I have no issue with, just as long as the defensive end isn't totally ignored.
One thing I recall from Iowa's better defenders in the past is that they seemed to be long and athletic. Guys like Kenyon Murray and Ray Thompson come to mind. We don't have a ton of that. Players like that who can also score are probably playing for Villanova, etc.
This team is just inside the Top 100 defensively. Not great, but I thought they were in the 200's a few years ago IIRC. So at least they are better than THAT. I'd have to dig more to see numbers from other years.
Knight78
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but it is. When I coached (granted, back in the dark ages) we ran several different defenses. One was a straight man to man. We ran two different zone defenses and a match-up zone defense. Each one had slightly different rules. Then, for full-court presses we ran a run and trap as well as a run and jump; again, each had slightly different rules. We also ran 2-2-1 and a 1-2-1-1 zone full court presses. Each different defense was predicated on who we were playing and who I had on the court. I tended to have my teams press a lot because, after all, don't players want to run and press and shoot? Of course, to do this we had to spend a lot of time on conditioning in practices.
Each defense has certain weaknesses and strengths, just like each offense has certain weaknesses and strengths. If you run only one offense, you will get stopped as the game goes longer; plus, scouts see these tendencies and the opponents tend to stop your offense. The same things can be said about defenses.
If you think it's not difficult for a team to learn to be a good defensive team, then tell me: when the team is in a run and trap, who rotates to cover the man who leaves his man to create the trap? Who then rotates to cover that man's defensive rotation? If you don't realize that all these things require split-second decisions on a player's part to decide whether to rotate one way or another or even be in position to rotate or who to rotate to or when to split between two players because of a rotation, then you've never coached and tried to get players to learn rules.
There's a lot more to defense than saying "Stay between your man and the basket".
