Don't like running a gimmick d, and don't mind facing them. Gimmick d's usually leave huge openings somewhere.

 

With that, I will say I have gotten away a little bit from man to man defense, used to run it almost exclusively, even when it hurt to do it. We have gone more to a 1-3-1 and run it kind of like a hybrid zone-man. It covers up for some of our lack of quickness and speed on my middle school group, while still incorporating a lot of man principles. I don't see a lot of 1-3-1 with the teams we play, so some might call it a "junk" d. I don't see it that way though.

 

My 7th/8th grade cut combo team has played man to man every game and have not been very competitive. At halftime this weekend, The kids asked to play zone during the beat down they were taking. We agreed to let them give it a go even though we really hadn't practiced it. After being down something like 34-4 at half, we ended up winning the second half and losing 42-16. Not a fan of what we did. We are playing in a "B" league where the kids have all been cut from the "A" team. Almost every team in the league plays a zone. Pretty easy to shut down the other team when they don't have the ability make a shot from the outside and you just pack it into a zone. I'd like to see a couple of the kids develop and I think man to man would give them their best chance to learn the game and become better basketball players. We will probably try the zone the next game as we feel the kids need a W. What the kids failed to realize is that part of the reason we were in the game in the second half is because the press was called off (after 20 point margin) and the other team utilized the bench a bit more.

I guess we will see how it goes next game.

To look at a gimmick as a negative? To look at it as something like a stall offense?

Even with the zone defense (2-3 at Syracuse, John Chaney's 1-3-1 matchup), they can have a gimmick-type look to them. I don't see it as a negative all the time.

Just a question to the ones that say they play MTM exclusively...do you ever press? And if so, do you exclusively man press?

My 7th/8th grade cut combo team has played man to man every game and have not been very competitive. At halftime this weekend, The kids asked to play zone during the beat down they were taking. We agreed to let them give it a go even though we really hadn't practiced it. After being down something like 34-4 at half, we ended up winning the second half and losing 42-16. Not a fan of what we did. We are playing in a "B" league where the kids have all been cut from the "A" team. Almost every team in the league plays a zone. Pretty easy to shut down the other team when they don't have the ability make a shot from the outside and you just pack it into a zone. I'd like to see a couple of the kids develop and I think man to man would give them their best chance to learn the game and become better basketball players. We will probably try the zone the next game as we feel the kids need a W. What the kids failed to realize is that part of the reason we were in the game in the second half is because the press was called off (after 20 point margin) and the other team utilized the bench a bit more.

I guess we will see how it goes next game.

 

I love the fact that you've played m2m all year. It's ridiculous, in my opinion, to play a zone defense in a youth league geared toward development. In elementary and middle school, zone teaches kids NOTHING productive. Coaches use zone at this level because they can't teach proper m2m (ever heard of the shell drill?). I can't recall anyone ever saying about a player, "not sure about his man defense, but he can sure play a mean zone".

Any thing other than straight m2m or the 2/3 zone which are most commonly deployed, but everyone has their own thoughts..

Its old school and silly to think there is just one or two base defenses that should be played. You can't play M2M if the other team is quicker, faster and more athletic. You would be foolish to play a 2-3 zone against a team that shoots the 3 well. A smart coach knows what kind of team he has and adjusts his defensive strategy based on their matchup that game. A good defensive approach will keep the other team off balance, it will not allow them to become comfortable on offense, it will limit their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. I also think it helps to change defenses throughout the game, don't let the other team's offense get comfortable.

 

And if you are a fan of a M2M defense, then what M2M system do you prefer? And please don't just say "help defense." There are lots of different M2M systems you can run, each with its own philosophy on where the help comes from, if it is designed to come at all... where and who rotates? It's not as simple as just "guarding your man."

Here are some variations on the "chaser" defense:

 

Defence - Chaser

You coach gimmicks for one of 3 reasons -

 

1 - your kids cannot play man/a traditional zone

 

2 - you do not know how to teach m2m correctly and completely

 

3 - change of pace/more to scout

 

 

More coaches fall into 1 and mostly 2, than 3 from my experience.

 

I know one that his base D is a triangle and 2, but you know what else his teams can do, get up in your hind end and play man if he chooses.

 

I can be a great teacher of man D. I can teach great man principles in the zone. That doesn't mean the players can then go out and execute.

 

To me the face-guarding D is often a great way to go on a perimeter player. You take a kid like Bolden that is really good with the ball at either scoring or creating for others. Why even let him touch it? Make the other 4 come up with a way to beat you? Is that a bad thing? Is that bad for the game? Hell no. It's smart D. Same with Pangallo. Very, very good PG. Why let him get the big boys set up for the shots they want? Take him out completely.

 

It REALLY works when the other coaches can't come up with a way to either a)beat it or b)make the defender pay physically. I saw games last year where the person being denied just stood off to the side and watched. No effort made to get him the ball. If the coach is going to make it that easy.....

I can be a great teacher of man D. I can teach great man principles in the zone. That doesn't mean the players can then go out and execute.

 

To me the face-guarding D is often a great way to go on a perimeter player. You take a kid like Bolden that is really good with the ball at either scoring or creating for others. Why even let him touch it? Make the other 4 come up with a way to beat you? Is that a bad thing? Is that bad for the game? Hell no. It's smart D. Same with Pangallo. Very, very good PG. Why let him get the big boys set up for the shots they want? Take him out completely.

 

It REALLY works when the other coaches can't come up with a way to either a)beat it or b)make the defender pay physically. I saw games last year where the person being denied just stood off to the side and watched. No effort made to get him the ball. If the coach is going to make it that easy.....

 

That kinda goes to the change of pace. Like I said, I've used them all, to play anything takes great man principles.

 

Shelby Valley played man but mostly a 1-2-2 the year they won, I didn't look at it like a gimmick then.....it was a philosophy.

 

Gimmicks are like throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks....I might have answered wrong based on that. Lol.

I can be a great teacher of man D. I can teach great man principles in the zone. That doesn't mean the players can then go out and execute.

 

To me the face-guarding D is often a great way to go on a perimeter player. You take a kid like Bolden that is really good with the ball at either scoring or creating for others. Why even let him touch it? Make the other 4 come up with a way to beat you? Is that a bad thing? Is that bad for the game? Hell no. It's smart D. Same with Pangallo. Very, very good PG. Why let him get the big boys set up for the shots they want? Take him out completely.

 

It REALLY works when the other coaches can't come up with a way to either a)beat it or b)make the defender pay physically. I saw games last year where the person being denied just stood off to the side and watched. No effort made to get him the ball. If the coach is going to make it that easy.....

I didn't see CovCath denying Pangallo the ball as a gimmick. I thought it was man to man and they denied the PG the ball. It is just like over playing passing lanes. If it is part of your overall philosophy, it isn't a gimmick.

In my opinion whether you play man 2 man or zone is kind of irrelevant. The key to defense is actually playing defense. Even in a zone the defender still needs to be able to guard the man that is in their zone. I actually think that playing a zone defense is fundamentally harder than man 2 man, because you have to identify which player to guard each time a player comes into your zone and when to pass him back off to a teammate when he leaves your zone. There may be less movement across the floor, but there needs to be much more awareness and the actual defending part should be no different.

 

To me, the biggest problem these days is a defensive players lack of desire to actually stay on defense and play defense. So many times in high school ball and during the summer especially, I see a kids man get by them and they just run back to get on offense. Talent is too good to think that a person will never get beat off the dribble and there isn't much you can do when your screened off the ball, but the key to a good defender is being able to react onto the opening created by the play. Expect your help to pick up the man you were on and then switch over and block out his player. Whether a team is playing in man to man coverage or any type of zone just determines what part of the floor they are going to cover. Once you identify the person that you are defending; whether it be a set person each play or an individual that comes into you area of coverage, the defender still has to break down, deny the passing lanes, deny the penetration, and actually defend the ball. The fundamental that is being forgotten is to actually defend the opponent.

 

In response to the actual question, I would say that a gimmick defense is one that creates imbalance in the defense. Such as putting two men on a single post player and leaving 3v4 on the rest of the team, or a box and one where you are not necessarily respecting the presence of defenders in the zone, but trying to focus on 1 player. We had a situation in youth league where we had to go 4 on 5 due to lack of players...this was gimmicky I think also.

NO such thing as a Ginnick Defense. Your practice and it helps your team win then I just call it defense.

 

A coach has 1 job and that is to put his team in position to win. So unless he plays with 6 guys I dont consider anything a gimmick.

I teach ball/line man to man as the primary base man d...pressuring/overplaying the passing lanes when ball is one pass away, especially the entry pass from the top to a wing player to start the offense. It has it's strengths, but has it's weaknesses as well, especially when discerning where the help is coming from when your point is beat off the dribble. And if you have a slow and or fairly un-athletic team, it's very hard to do.

 

I used to be very stubborn and make all my teams play man, even to the detriment of the team, and almost never played zone unless up big on someone. I have softened that stance a LOT the past two years, and I think my teams have been better for it. Still nothing like being able to play a smothering man to man though, IF your team can do it.

What does a gimmick defense look like? At what point does a defense become a gimmick D?

 

Gimmick defense = you are one of the few who do it, and it's probably such because you can't have sustainable success doing it and/or it only takes you so far.

 

Something you use situationally like a box and one, triangle and two, that is well known, doesn't qualify, IMO. Same goes for 1-3-1 (as BigVMan23 described).

 

You are gimmicky when you are Grinnell and you press with four players near the inbounder and hope that it's successful in creating a turnover 15% of the time because that's what you'll need most nights to just outscore most people you'll play.

 

Gimmick defense = something that will have little to no chance of success, no matter how well you execute it, when you run it against a team that's nearly as good or better than you in terms of talent.