Monday, May 07, 2007
In defense of the "3 handler" zone offense
Note the title of this post is NOT "In defense of the traditional dump-swing zone offense". I am not arguing this. I am arguing that the traditional structure, with three handlers, two poppers, and two wings/deeps, has several advantages.
The "two handler zone offense", as explained in Jim & Zaz's book, has been steadily gaining popularity. There are plenty of good reasons for that. The best reason, really, is that the traditional dump-swing zone offense (where the middle handler just swings it back and forth and the side handlers look for a single continuation pass to a wing or popper) sucks. It's really not that hard to come up with an offense that's more effective than that, particularly when it's windy.
The other reason it has grown in popularity is that it has lots of good ideas, notably:
The key to the three-handler zone offense, in my opinion, is to have the handlers be extremely active. Basically, at any given time, one of the handlers should be acting more like a traditional popper than a handler. Let me give a handful of examples of handler action to show what I mean.
Basically, I am proposing a similar philosophy to the new two-handler set, but based out of the traditional three-handler formation. The fundamental difference is that in stead of having a full-time deep, you have an additional handler. I think that, for most teams, this is an advantage. I will give two main reasons:
The "two handler zone offense", as explained in Jim & Zaz's book, has been steadily gaining popularity. There are plenty of good reasons for that. The best reason, really, is that the traditional dump-swing zone offense (where the middle handler just swings it back and forth and the side handlers look for a single continuation pass to a wing or popper) sucks. It's really not that hard to come up with an offense that's more effective than that, particularly when it's windy.
The other reason it has grown in popularity is that it has lots of good ideas, notably:
- not losing yards on the dump
- crashing the cup and doing other things to keep the cup from staying set
- overloading an area of the defense to create an opening
- exploiting fast breaks downfield once you beat the cup
The key to the three-handler zone offense, in my opinion, is to have the handlers be extremely active. Basically, at any given time, one of the handlers should be acting more like a traditional popper than a handler. Let me give a handful of examples of handler action to show what I mean.
- One handler has the disc, forced middle, close to the middle of the field. Rather than play behind the disc for a dump, the break-side handler sets up slightly downfield, 5-10 yards directly behind the mark. This handler can move upfield to catch an inside break, or run back to catch a swing (outside break). The third handler sets up as a force-side swing, essentially playing the off-point in the same way the break-side handler is playing the mark. Late in the count, either of the handlers can move into or behind the cup for a crash or short dump.
- Forced middle on the sideline. Rather than set up dump/swing, the middle handler becomes a popper, moving downfield and attempting to find a hole in the cup or crash the cup. The far handler sets up in the middle of the field and trusts the thrower can swing it directly using an overhead or curving throw. If that pass is completed, you are in a fast break situation.
- Handler throws a short swing. The handler follows the throw and looks to receive a give-and-go pass, either inside or beyond the cup. If the give-and-go throw is completed, the cup will be out of position and the original thrower will now have an easy opportunity to hit a popper. If the cup crashes on the original thrower's cut, there should be options for a throw against the grain to a popper or a swing against the grain to the third handler.
- Wing or popper catches the disc, but doesn't have a good continuation look. Rather than throw the dump for a loss of yardage, the receiver fakes the dump, and then the handler quickly moves into the cup for a extremely short pass - often jumping just before the catch so that the handler catches the disc in the middle of the three defenders. The cup is now out of position and it's relatively easy to thread a pass to a popper or wing.
Basically, I am proposing a similar philosophy to the new two-handler set, but based out of the traditional three-handler formation. The fundamental difference is that in stead of having a full-time deep, you have an additional handler. I think that, for most teams, this is an advantage. I will give two main reasons:
- The three-handler structure leads to less reliance on overheads. Fundamentally, it requires a few more passes, with a slightly higher completion percentage per pass. It is not nearly as conservative as the traditional dump-swing zone offense, but it is closer to it than the two-handler set is. Most teams are not that great at overheads, and as such, for most teams I think this set is closer to optimal in a risk vs. reward sense.
- Having a set deep cutter makes the job of the defensive deep easier. I know that when I play the position, it is a relative relief to have one player back there who I can worry about. Yes, this keeps me from making as many plays underneath, but I am taking a cutter out in the process, and furthermore I am available to help on other deep cutters. By contrast, if I have four cutters in front of me, several of which may strike deep, it can be very hard to figure out who to play on. I may not be able to help deep on all cutters, which means the wings have to be more conservative. Furthermore, because I have to be available to help deep, I can't play in front of poppers, so I am less effective covering the underneath cutters than a short deep or wing can be.
# posted by Tarr : 5/07/2007 02:07:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Without wind, or with extremely consistent throwers, it sounds like this would work very well. But trying to swing around a cup is difficult, so you'd probably see a lot of turns from early-count blades around the cup getting turfed or caught in the wind. It also sounds like once the cup sets up around the thrower, you're giving them a few seconds to rest while the thrower assesses his options, whereas the two-handler set stresses moving the disc continually, so that the cup never gets to set and rest. Also, having three handlers gives you less of an advantage once you get through the cup.
Otherwise, I like it. If nothing else, a squirrely handler cutting around will draw the defenders and deform the cup, allowing the other handlers to find the holes and work it up.
Otherwise, I like it. If nothing else, a squirrely handler cutting around will draw the defenders and deform the cup, allowing the other handlers to find the holes and work it up.
Actually, when I run this offense I generally want to avoid blades and overheads - de-emphasize these throws, relative to the two handler set. In stead, most breaks are standard low breaks, such as the throw behind the marker to the off-handler moving upfield. If there is a quintessential throw that defines this offense, it is that throw, which is usually (for me) just a standard low reach-around throw, high-release, or scoober.
I did mention the possibility of using an overhead or curving throw to beat a force middle cup on the sideline, but that's a relatively rare situation. Much like with the two-handler set that this offense is derived from, the disc tends to stay in the middle when things are executed properly. Moreover, it's fine for the upfield handler on that sideline to come back for a reset inside or behind the cup late in the count, just like I mention in the first example.
As far as a weakened numerical advantage after breaking the cup - if the handler catches it upfield, you have as many people in front of the thrower (4) as you do when a popper catches it in a two handler set. So this is not as big a factor as you might think. Even when a popper gets the first break, the third handler can usually start streaking upfield as soon as the throw to the popper goes off, and often gets the next pass.
Again, this is just the two-handler philosophy implemented out of a three-handler structure. I'm not claiming any deep originality here, just combining old parts in a slightly new way.
Also, a correction to you assesment of the two-handler set. The two handler set (as defined by Jim & Zaz) does not really focus on denying the cup rest or moving the disc continuiously. Rather, it emphasizes moving deliberately until you break it past the cup, at which point you exploit 2-on-1 advantages to fast break. "Continuous motion" and "tiring out the cup" are hallmarks of the classic dump-swing zone offense, really.
Your comments on the upfield motion deforming the cup is definitely one of the main ideas. Once the cup starts reacting to handler motion, other upfield throws open up. Again, check the link to Idris's blog, who covers this in more detail.
I did mention the possibility of using an overhead or curving throw to beat a force middle cup on the sideline, but that's a relatively rare situation. Much like with the two-handler set that this offense is derived from, the disc tends to stay in the middle when things are executed properly. Moreover, it's fine for the upfield handler on that sideline to come back for a reset inside or behind the cup late in the count, just like I mention in the first example.
As far as a weakened numerical advantage after breaking the cup - if the handler catches it upfield, you have as many people in front of the thrower (4) as you do when a popper catches it in a two handler set. So this is not as big a factor as you might think. Even when a popper gets the first break, the third handler can usually start streaking upfield as soon as the throw to the popper goes off, and often gets the next pass.
Again, this is just the two-handler philosophy implemented out of a three-handler structure. I'm not claiming any deep originality here, just combining old parts in a slightly new way.
Also, a correction to you assesment of the two-handler set. The two handler set (as defined by Jim & Zaz) does not really focus on denying the cup rest or moving the disc continuiously. Rather, it emphasizes moving deliberately until you break it past the cup, at which point you exploit 2-on-1 advantages to fast break. "Continuous motion" and "tiring out the cup" are hallmarks of the classic dump-swing zone offense, really.
Your comments on the upfield motion deforming the cup is definitely one of the main ideas. Once the cup starts reacting to handler motion, other upfield throws open up. Again, check the link to Idris's blog, who covers this in more detail.
What I mean by continuous motion is not the dump-swing attempt to tire out the cup, but rather the idea that by keeping the cup moving, you make them less organized and more vulnerable to breaks. I am thinking about the way Rutgers runs the two-handler set, where you look to crash through, but quickly dump it back and hit the wings if the cup prevents you from breaking through after the crash. When it goes to the wing, one of the two handlers will also often cut somewhere upfield, like you say the third handler would do in the set you are talking about. In any case, the fast-break is the real goal here, and I guess both of these sets would find that successfully.
When playing against a man defense, an offensive team's objective is to use a combination of techniques that, in the end, will get a player a good shot and put the other players in good rebounding position or a good defensive position to stop the opponent's fast break if they get the ball. Against a man-to-man defense, players should use cuts and screens as the primary way to get open for shots. Cuts and screens will cause mismatches in size and ability that the offense can take advantage of for easy baskets. Effective cuts will put extreme pressure on the defenders, making it difficult for them to defend consistently.
http://increaseyourverticaljump.org
Post a Comment
http://increaseyourverticaljump.org
<< Home
