StopThePumpFakesShav
All American
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 9,205
For most teams, it may be true that you can’t win a title in zone for 240 minutes. But what about one that has the number 1 offense?
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!I know some people here scoff at this and say stuff like, "You can't simulate real game experience!" but there's these things called practices where they could be working quite intensively on m2m while still winning games with the zone. Somehow others coaches have their teams' m2m defenses ready to go at the beginning of the season without having played tried it in a game.
See? Told ya.
Anyway, have you ever watched Kentucky play defense?
You're not going to win a title playing a shitty m2m that's worse than your zone, especially if that m2m gives you bad losses that hurt seeding (hopefully this won't happen in ACC play like every other year).
Not sure if it proves the rule, but the opposite. I don't think there is a rule that freshmen can't play defense. I think freshmen under Coach K can't play an aggressive overplay defense that requires a ton of communication and doesn't have much benefit to it over other defenses even when played perfectly by seniors. I mean, seriously: What is the point of it? It doesn't force turnovers anymore. And Ken Pomeroy published something showing that defense controls three-point percentage less than any other part of the offense besides FT percentage. The only thing is does well is limit three-point attempts. Is that worth it to make yourself vulnerable to any team with penetrating guards or who can run a decent pick and roll?See? Told ya.
Anyway, have you ever watched Kentucky play defense?
yeah - they are the exception that proves the rule. Cal does a great job getting his frosh to play d. much better than k.
As for needing to improve our man to man, isn't there a more conservative version of man we could improve on? Something that still involves some pressure from our guards but has our bigs stay home in the lane?
I should also maybe ask: how would we describe Cal's defense? What exactly is his scheme?
As for needing to improve our man to man, isn't there a more conservative version of man we could improve on? Something that still involves some pressure from our guards but has our bigs stay home in the lane?
One obvious downside is defending ball screens vs guards who are threats to pull-up from 3. But I say adjust when you face one of those.As for needing to improve our man to man, isn't there a more conservative version of man we could improve on? Something that still involves some pressure from our guards but has our bigs stay home in the lane?
I've wondered the same lately. Just keep the bigs in the post to discourage penetration and perhaps improve defensive rebounding, etc. Let the other three guys do whatever – whether they're playing a zone or a 3-person man thing. Seems so pointless to have Carter and Bagley switching onto guards and then trying to race back into the post, or leaving Grayson and Duval down there to try to defend against layups or block dunk attempts.
I'm sure there are downsides to this type of defense, but I'll let the smarter people explain what they are.
But as I think I've said before, I don't really have any idea what K's goals on defense are anymore.
This matches my eye test. When I rewatch the game from last night and the Florida game, as I inevitably will, I will try to play closer attention to the positioning of our bigs.I don't think it has scaled back that far. Duke has still been beaten backdoor several times because they are too aggressively denying one pass away. Also, our bigs are still hard hedging pretty far out often causing confusion on if they are or are not switching, and the help-recovery has too far to go.
I should add that the zone rotations haven't exactly been stellar, but at least it seems to force a lot more jumpers instead of layups.