[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

Thanks Qwerty. 

To expand, what if Dodson could take and make shots from the elbow.  She told us last week after the Cal game that she has been practicing them but that Tara has not given her the green light yet.  How many times was she left wide open, unmolested, at the elbow with the ball?  Everyone knew she was just a ball distributor there.  But if she makes three shots in a row from that spot--as Fingall has done once or twice-- the whole defensive scheme begins to collapse.  As it did against McPhee. That is why having 5 shooters on the floor is necessary.

[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

Thanks Qwerty. 

To expand, what if Dodson could take and make shots from the elbow.  She told us last week after the Cal game that she has been practicing them but that Tara has not given her the green light yet.  How many times was she left wide open, unmolested, at the elbow with the ball?  Everyone knew she was just a ball distributor there.  But if she makes three shots in a row from that spot--as Fingall has done once or twice-- the whole defensive scheme begins to collapse.  As it did against McPhee. That is why having 5 shooters on the floor is necessary.