Great article on the use of full court press

[DuckyNinja]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1

Okay, so it's not TOTALLY about the full court press.  But it got me thinking: What would happen if an NBA team just brought in a whole bunch of 6'4-6'9 athletes and tried this?  For the sake of example, imagine, say, Iggy, Thad, Rod Carney, Sam Young, and Elton Brand as the "center" playing full court press.  It would be the defensive version of the SSOL offense.  And there would always be mismatches on offense.  And it would be really fun to watch.  Not necessarily saying the Sixers should try it, but for a perennial basement dwellar, I don't see why not.

[RickyPryor]

Teams I've coached do two things: run, even after a made basket; and press - almost always.

The 2-2-1 zone (no one on the in-bounder; steer the pass to the desired player; trap, causing errant passes and TO's to second line - athletic - defenders; never foul; take away the sideline).  I could count 4 occasions where we overcame deficits of 20 or more in one quarter...and so I came to use it all the time.

We spent 20 minutes on it 6 days a week for months...every season.  Underclassmen actually showed up expected to know the nuances of our press.

The problem in the NBA is court size.  By spreading the floor, filling passing lanes, looking ahead, and attacking - it's pretty easy to beat a press.  And the pressing team is extremely vulnerable.  I used to PRAY for teams to press us.

[rickortreat]

A press works well against teams that have few players who can pass or see the floor whole dribbling.  Against at quick team with good ball handlers and passers, it's a recipe for disaster.

The Sixers have plenty of team speed and superior athletes, so should be fairly successful with a man to man scheme, oriented towards funneling drivers into the shot-blockers, and keeping with their man to prevent easy passing within the defense, or allowing open shots.

Most playoff worth teams have enough ball handling and passing ability to run down the court on a full press.  I thought Orlando's defense was particularly effective since they always had two or three players back before the Sixers had a chance to head up court.  And once they got down the floor, Orlando had the lane sealed up with two lines of defense, the perimiter and then interior defenders.  Considering Orlando was statistically the 2nd best defense, and ran at a faster pace than most, they would be an ideal scheme for the Sixers to mimic. 

[Joe Vancil]

Teams I've coached do two things: run, even after a made basket; and press - almost always.

The 2-2-1 zone (no one on the in-bounder; steer the pass to the desired player; trap, causing errant passes and TO's to second line - athletic - defenders; never foul; take away the sideline).  I could count 4 occasions where we overcame deficits of 20 or more in one quarter...and so I came to use it all the time.

We spent 20 minutes on it 6 days a week for months...every season.  Underclassmen actually showed up expected to know the nuances of our press.

The problem in the NBA is court size.  By spreading the floor, filling passing lanes, looking ahead, and attacking - it's pretty easy to beat a press.  And the pressing team is extremely vulnerable.  I used to PRAY for teams to press us.

Ricky,

I always found the 2-2-1 zone press to be absolute mincemeat to a point guard who is worth his salt.  A point guard that will attack this press with abandon, pushing the ball strong to the middle of the court, tends to force reaction by the second line - and at that point, the press is effectively beaten.  And even when the press generates a turnover, I don't feel that the d-to-o transition is nearly as smooth and quick.

My preference - stealing a page from the '83 Sixer team - is the 1-2-1-1 full-court zone press.  Granted, there's a LOT of pressure on the half-court guy (1-2-*1*-1), and that guy will make or break your press.  The reason I like this press is that a point guard isn't going to just run through it.  Now granted, it's a whole lot easier when you've got a Bobby Jones playing that half-court spot, but that press is devastating, simply because of the amount of pressure applied on the primary ball-handler.  And when offense makes a mistake, you're in a very good court balance for transition offense on the fast break.

The 2-2-1 is a whole lot more common these days than the 1-2-1-1, but I've always felt the 1-2-1-1 forces higher defensive tempo (meaning better transition basketball after the play), applies more pressure to the offense, and forces faster (and less precise) decisions by the offense.  In short, the mistakes made against the 1-2-1-1 are not only more frequent, but they're also more COSTLY.

I'm actually getting ready to start up for coaching at the Show-Me State Games again.  I'll have to check out the article - see what the going theories are these days.

[tk76-]

At least back in HS, I though more of a 1-3-1 trap was more flexible.  You could trap hard if the defense dribbles into the right sot, but you have decent floor balance and can get back into reasonable position easier then a 2-2-1.

Basically I see the 2-2-1 is a more all or nothing, desperation trap.  A 1-3-1 can be a full court, 1/2 court or conventional defense that can be used to either slow a team or trap hard in certain spots.

But maybe it does not translate well to the bigger court and higher level of play?

[RickyPryor]

Notice I made mention of 'selective inbounding'.  We immediately overplay the best ballhandler the moment the ball goes through the net.  We 'encourage' the ball, then, to be received by a second player.  This works way more often than you might think because the inbounder himself is in panic-mode, and - wala - there's a receiver wide open 7-feet in front of him.

Then, we actually WANT the ball pushed to the middle of the floor, despite the common belief that the sideline is your best friend.  Remember, the 2-2-1 is a defense designed to take advantage of mistakes.  Sideline trapping usually results in a foul.  With the ball in the middle, you now engage your best athletes (second liners).  They read the court like linebackers and anticipate errant passes (made errant by impending trapping).

Also, I don't think it's ballhandlers who beats this press...but aggressive passers, intent on making the pressing team pay.  Like a good half court offense, facing a zone...passing moves the ball quicker than does dribbling.

Oh, and to BEAT a press:  No one has ever come up with a play better than IMMEDIATE inbounding.  Our kids are taught to rip the ball from the net; step out and immediately get it back in (to a designated guard) before a pressing team has a chance to get set.

Get behind the press before they know what hit 'em...they'll call it off rather quickly.

[Joe Vancil]

At least back in HS, I though more of a 1-3-1 trap was more flexible.  You could trap hard if the defense dribbles into the right sot, but you have decent floor balance and can get back into reasonable position easier then a 2-2-1.

Basically I see the 2-2-1 is a more all or nothing, desperation trap.  A 1-3-1 can be a full court, 1/2 court or conventional defense that can be used to either slow a team or trap hard in certain spots.

But maybe it does not translate well to the bigger court and higher level of play?

The 1-3-1 isn't a press, per se, but a trap.  I've always used it as a half-court trap, and it's *VERY* effective.  It ramps up pressure on the offense, and uses the sidelines and the half-court line as additional defenders.  The only downsides to is are that first, it's an exhausting defense, and second, it works best when your defenders are both big and mobile...in which case, traditional man-to-man should also be effective and not nearly as exhausting.  But it generates turnovers moreso than man-to-man, so if you're down late in the game, or if you're looking for that boost to get you going, the 1-3-1 is about as good as anything out there.

[RickyPryor]

The 1-3-1 isn't a press, per se, but a trap.  I've always used it as a half-court trap, and it's *VERY* effective.  It ramps up pressure on the offense, and uses the sidelines and the half-court line as additional defenders.  The only downsides to is are that first, it's an exhausting defense, and second, it works best when your defenders are both big and mobile...in which case, traditional man-to-man should also be effective and not nearly as exhausting.  But it generates turnovers moreso than man-to-man, so if you're down late in the game, or if you're looking for that boost to get you going, the 1-3-1 is about as good as anything out there.

Good stuff.  Yeah, better make sure you got a kid who can 'go' all day.  Because that top "1" is brutally demanding. PLUS, as you say, it's used alot at the END of games...when he himself is likely spent.  And if he's not up to it...the whole thing is blown.

[tk76-]

You are right.  Back in HS I remember liking playing the middle of the "3" in the 1-3-1.  You basically played free safety and got lots of steals without having to run much.  You needed to be tall enough to guard the post, and be able to anticipate bad passes.  All and all a good gig for a skinny, tall kid.

Last winter I played the top ("1") in a rec league.  You are right about wearing people out.  Every time they swung the ball I felt like a pinnball or a chicken with my head cut off.  And it sets you up for some nasty blind screens if you are not careful.  It's a good way to harass a PG without risking penetration, but it is exhausting.

[Joe Vancil]

What I like to do is use a guy on top who is a phenomenal defender, but somewhat limited offensively.  By putting him out top, I build his self-confidence, I potentially put him in a position to shoot some lay-ups...which are easier shots for him, and use his defensive game to set up his offense.  Even better, the boost in confidence will give him a lift in energy...making him more effective...boosting his confidence even more....

You just try to use the adrenaline rush to get the kid through the exhaustion...keep him effective long enough to rest the guards who'll do the late-game heavy-lifting.

And even better....I've got that kid on my roster.  Exceptionally fast, exceptionally hard-working, talented defender, not a great offensive player, and an energetic kid who lives by playing off of nothing but adrenaline.  We call him "The King of Pain."

[WayOutWest]

A press would work up to the college ranks pretty effectively but it would fail miserably in the NBA for two reasons: size and speed.

In 1988 Oklahoma (sic?) pressed full court for the entire NCAA tournament.  I could not believe a team had the engergy to press all game.  It was very effective except against two teams, Louiville (sci?) and Kansas.  Louiville had Never Nervous Pervis and some 7 foot stiff, they basically gave the ball to those two big men and they easily looked over the pressing defense and broke the press 90% of the time.  Oklahoma still won that game but the strategy of throwing it over the press to defeat it was displayed for all to see and Kansas used that same strategy with Danny Manning.  Kansas pulled off the upset and a lot of it had to do with them breaking the press and putting pressure on King to defend the rim all by himself.

In the NBA there are plenty of guys who can break the press by playing above it, the Lakers used to use a press in short spurts and they used guys who where almost all 6'9 or bigger, Magic/Worthy/Green/Thompson with Coop or Scott being the only short guys.  Sometimes they would have Kareem protecting the rim and everyone was 6'9 or bigger.  That worked pretty well but you'll have a hard time finding guys that big at the 1 and 2 positions.

The other reason it wouldn't work in the NBA is the speed of the guys in the league, especially the guards.  Guys would blow by the coverage after they see the press a couple of times and you'd get 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 fastbreaks all game long.  In the case of the Magic you would get wide open 3 point shots since the matchups would be all screwed up and guys would be scrambling on defense trying to recover from the broken press.  Don't get me started on what CP3/Deron/Brooks would do to a press, even with his horrid PG skills, Rondo would probably destroy a press with speed alone.

The press in the NBA works well in situtational spurts, but as a game long strategy it would be ineffective.