Uh, your argument is you left a guy shooting 40% on the year from three open for a reason the majority of the game? He’s made those all year. If you think the zone was the reason and not the dude being completely gassed at the end of the game, enough to call it “obvious,” then it should have been effective for the rest of the game. It wasn’t. You can’t say “see this outcome” here’s the only cause. You also can’t look at 5 minutes of a game and draw many conclusions, but the zone wasn’t the reason Duke lost the game, nor was it the reason Zion didn’t get enough touches. I’m not going to argue about it anymore, if you think that zone was effective, in spite of all the evidence, that’s your prerogative. I’d love to play it again with a healthy team or even just a team that’s practiced together.
Of course they have good players, but a basketball game is a team game, and losing your PG 5 minutes into the game with no real backup is obviously going to have a massive effect on the game. If the team had played without Tre (and Cam) for a few games, they woulda probably be fine. But they didn’t/haven’t and it showed. It’s why I’ve spent the entire year saying Tre Jones is the most important player on Duke. This is pretty obvious. They almost won the game anyway. Or less nicely said:
Yes, that's my argument. Pretty evident to anyone who watched the game. The Cuse guards weren't even attempting to contest any of his threes by the last portion of the second half. They literally just let him shoot them without even bothering to run out at him. But, yeah, you're right. A team that relies almost entirely on their defense decided to let a 40% three-point shooter who was shooting 0% on the night have open looks during a tightly contested game on accident. I guess Duke should work more on conditioning in practice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jason, you should write a strongly worded letter to the social media manager at Duke and the editors of The Chronicle for this egregious mistake of a tweet
I’m not going to argue about it anymore, if you think that zone was effective, in spite of all the evidence, that’s your prerogative. I’d love to play it again with a healthy team or even just a team that’s practiced together. But yeah the student newspaper angle is great.
“We had open shots, they were threes,” Krzyzewski said. “They were clogging the lane, so I don’t fault my guys for that. It’s not a game plan, it’s what’s there.” Emphasis mine.
Why do you feel the need to do this? Is it because you couldn’t make a good argument before? So now you’re taking quotes that also don’t make the argument you think they do and ... are doing what exactly?
"We were just letting them shoot the 3," Battle said. "Just backing up and trying to limit Zion's touches as much as possible." You see, when you're debating something, typically you provide references and sources. I stated my claim and backed it up with legit game facts and quotes from your own coach. You rattled off Zion's stat line, which no one was debating was fantastic, and then talked about the guys who didn't play tonight, which, also, no one was debating.
I honestly don’t understand watching that game and going “yeah the zone did it that’s what I’m gonna double down on” with a straight face. But you do you. Have a good night.
The zone did what it was supposed to do in overtime and won Syracuse the game, and I'll triple down on that with a straight face. Many blessings. Enjoy your evening.
Cool. I hope more people zone Duke. You’re still wrong and didn’t make a single argument to back that up. Stop quoting me. It’s annoying now.