This is reason #58 you have to play zone. Fits a shorter rotation better with less chance to foul.
Please Coach Cal End the...
- Thread starter C5matt_rivals373900
- Start date
And less chance to rebound. And poorer 3 pt defense. And the fact that our zone sucks compared to man to man.
Coach is going to play 7 - 8 guys. And you guys want to take the minutes away from 3.
Fortunately Cal has MUCH more sense than this.
kybassfan, the second half ZONE D is what helped us cut the lead to 9 points with about 7 minutes to go. We held FL to no field goals for about 4-5 minutes in one stretch
Also, the zone is better against 3 point shooting than our M2M. Our M2M allows opposing guards to penetrate and pitch out to wide open 3-point shooters.
If Cal had played it from the start, I believe we'd never have gotten down by double digits, much less 20 points down. Cal doesn't like it probably because he doesn't want to teach it. Oh yeah, and it doesn't prepare the kids for the NBA. Players first, ya know.
Also, the zone is better against 3 point shooting than our M2M. Our M2M allows opposing guards to penetrate and pitch out to wide open 3-point shooters.
If Cal had played it from the start, I believe we'd never have gotten down by double digits, much less 20 points down. Cal doesn't like it probably because he doesn't want to teach it. Oh yeah, and it doesn't prepare the kids for the NBA. Players first, ya know.
When I watch the lobs over the zone for dunks because the bigs are too far out on floor to prevent it, its easy to understand why CAL can't stay in a zone long. Its good for a change of "paste" but they don't do well enough to do it the whole game.
Like kbass, I think there are games when our guys suck at playing zone. You seem to be agenda bearing with Cal, call him he can handle your complaints.
Right. . .
Is that is in the CLOD talking points or something? We held FL to no field goals because they finally stopped crapping three pointers. If we’d played zone in first half we’d have been down further and much more in the hole on rebounding margin.
Most open 3’s came from the zone collapsing on the ball and they kicked it out. The M2M was at least getting a little pressure on the shooter. We have the only zone in existence that allows a dump to the baseline for an easy bucket, time after time after time after time after time. . .
Our zone is piss weak and has Impeded the development of our man to man. We’ve played more zone this year and our defense is it’s weakest ever under Cal. As I said early in the year if we are playing any significant amount of zone this late, something has gone horrifically wrong.
The zone you remember from church league DOES NOT WORK in college. You cannot play an effective zone unless you are proficient in M2M.
Playing people that don't deserve to play because he has no one else.
People need to make their minds up. Either Diallo is pitiful and the reason we've lost games OR we lost to FL because the evil refs conspired to take our best player out early with fouls.
He can't be our "best guy" and "so pitiful" at the same time.
Or maybe, just maybe, some "fans" may want to get off the kid's butt and have faith that Cal knows what the hell he is doing. I think they really believe that if THEY were coaching instead we'd have 5 more titles by now.
He can't be our "best guy" and "so pitiful" at the same time.
Or maybe, just maybe, some "fans" may want to get off the kid's butt and have faith that Cal knows what the hell he is doing. I think they really believe that if THEY were coaching instead we'd have 5 more titles by now.
Starting to think that bassfan does not know a zone when he sees one
BS. - duke won their last NCAA title with a 6 Ft freshman PG and K played primarily 6-7 players - we can win more consistently from here on out with a Hami (and Richards) getting significantly reduced minutes!!
That's what gets me. Why start us from a hole every game?? I understand we need a little depth and they have to play some but why not wait and see if we can get Nick and Hami in a few minutes later, maybe with a lead.
Yeah, I understand not giving up on those two, but why do they have to start?
You simply can't play those two together, but they start every game for some strange reason. I don't get it.
I do believe Cal knows what he's doing. I wonder if either one of those guys have enough talent to matter
Players develop at different rates, they may not turn a corner this year but they for sure will not if we leave them on the bench. Nobody knows and it’s all opinions, let’s just hope for the best.
Hami has had adequate time to show improvement. He had a leg up on the freshmen coming in but still hasn't settled into his role. If he would embrace defense as his area of contribution it would help his game. Right now if he misses his opening couple of shots he's DONE. Someone with his athletic abilities should provide the team with more.
What does "6 feet tall" have to do with it? Hey, let's take a look at the teams that have been winning national championships:
Last year's Final Four MVP (Berry) as only 6 feet tall, the year before that Villanova won it with a tiny four guard lineup with the smallest guy being the Final Four MVP, the year before that the Final Four MVP (Tyus Jones) for Duke was yet again only 6 feet tall, the year before that the Final Four MVP (Shabazz Napier) was a guy only around 6 feet who totally carried UConn to the title; the year before that BOTH of UL's starting guards barely scraped 6 feet, etc., etc.
If you think height is a valid reason not to start Green, well then that's just dumb. The teams that win national championships virtually always have at least one guy around that height in their starting lineup (and often that seems to be the guy most important to the title run).
Last edited:
There are three guards on the team not named Brad Calipari. One of them is 6 foot, which limits your roster flexibility in ways that having a bigger guard wouldn't, particularly when he isn't our primary ball handler and we switch everything on defense. If you have three SGA's, you can play those differently than if you have three of Quade Green. This doesn't feel like a controversial statement.
Therefore, if you only have three guards on the roster, giving up on one of them and burying him completely leaves you zero flexibility in substitutions (unless you want Knox, who is already too slow laterally to guard SFs chasing around a SG), or in case of foul or injury trouble.
We've seen Quade be hit in the eye and miss games and have a back injury, which is the type of thing that often flares up again.
No one is arguing that Diallo is the better player. We're explaining why Cal keeps going with Diallo in order to keep him engaged mentally. If you bring him off the bench for 4 minutes a game, he's gone in case you need him. His confidence is already rocked. You're seeing Cal and the team try to build him back up. It's why they clapped and hugged him following the game the other night when he played well.
Cal knows his guys. He knows he can bring Washington or Gabriel in and they'll play fine. Other guys don't respond that way.
You have to be able to play good individual man to man to be able to play good zone as an individual. The problem is aau ball doesn’t teach good defense fundamentals. As a player I always enjoyed playing a 1-3-1, it also allows you to cover outside shots. Also, playing different defenses during a game can help slow down your opponents’ offense, always keeping them off balance.
I have to agree on one thing in particular, if not the comments on zone effectiveness.
We are witness to the failure of AAU ball to teach any sound basketball principles, especially those relating to team basketball. It has a become an platform to show case individual athleticism only. I think this has gotten progressively worse in the last 3 - 4 years.
Poe respectively, go back and watch any game and compare how many lobs we give up in Man to Man vs Zone and do the same for 3 pointers. Everyone has a hard time getting over the false stereo type of what a zone does or doesn't do and picks out one example.
I just gave a real life example of how they compared in a 10 minute stretch in the UF game and could do so with many more.
Again, I agree you shouldn't use any defense all the time and it helps to change it up. And it matters who you are playing and whether they have quicker guards or not, but for this team as a whole there is no question and it's not even close minute for minute that the zone produces less 3 pointers, less layups/dunks, and less fouls than man to man. We should be 65/35 zone team.
And I'll add this: That is with us playing a soft zone IMO. Just think what would happen we really played an extended aggressive matchup zone. Then this team would shine.
A
anon_013cn8yrfncx2
Guest
You are right. Any defense gets better as the aggressiveness/energy level increases. Our zone started out that way the first few games and we were getting turnovers out of a 2-3. Then we hit a patch where our backline decided to stand there like statues and we got abused like you talked about.
I just think an aggressive matchup zone can be just like an aggressive man to man without the chasing and fouling. And you have the option to trap out of it as well. But you are right the back line guys have to be alert with their head on a swivel to react.