Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I bet this is comical with thoughts on how to fix it and why Cal hasn’t tried.
A lot of Cals freshman teams have been decent at defense though and never have been this bad. How is every single player including the older players this bad at defense? It just doesn’t make any sense to me how all the players on the team can be this bad at itI have said this repeatedly, but here are the facts...
A. Overwhelming majority of freshmen suck on defense. As the coaches in the article even mentioned, they are concerned with scoring, not playing D, coming out of HS.
B. Playing college ball at 18 yrs old for the first time is hard enough. Having to play against 23-24 yr olds makes it even more challenging.
C. Freshmen suck at communication. That is a well documented fact across the sport.
D. Cal has chosen to construct his team this way.
Those are the facts. People consistently say Cal needs to change defense and play zone periodically throughout the game. It will not matter. You still have to communicate and rotate in a zone. Something all these freshmen suck at. Not to mention it makes rebounding even more challenging, which again, is something these freshmen suck at.
On the flip side, Cal chose to construct the roster this way. If he can't get the freshmen to turn the corner defensively, it ultimately falls on him.
it’s very alarming how every player on this team gets beat off the dribble. I just don’t understand how none of them cannot stay in front of their man.In 15 seasons, he's had 13 young teams. None of them were this bad, and some were pretty good by the time February rolled around.
Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.I have said this repeatedly, but here are the facts...
A. Overwhelming majority of freshmen suck on defense. As the coaches in the article even mentioned, they are concerned with scoring, not playing D, coming out of HS.
B. Playing college ball at 18 yrs old for the first time is hard enough. Having to play against 23-24 yr olds makes it even more challenging.
C. Freshmen suck at communication. That is a well documented fact across the sport.
D. Cal has chosen to construct his team this way.
Those are the facts. People consistently say Cal needs to change defense and play zone periodically throughout the game. It will not matter. You still have to communicate and rotate in a zone. Something all these freshmen suck at. Not to mention it makes rebounding even more challenging, which again, is something these freshmen suck at.
On the flip side, Cal chose to construct the roster this way. If he can't get the freshmen to turn the corner defensively, it ultimately falls on him.
A lot of Cals freshman teams have been decent at defense though and never have been this bad. How is every single player including the older players this bad at defense? It just doesn’t make any sense to me how all the players on the team can be this bad at it
"Who you callin' freshman?"I think a few things on that:
1. This class of freshman is very overrated, compared to past top10 players.
2. Freshman in 2024 are far more entitled than they were in 2010.
3. College ball now has 5th and 6th year players, making it more of a grown "man's" game.
4. We decided to change our coaching philosophy for the first time, bring in an "OC" essentially, and focus on offense first, defense second. Not only did defense take a back seat, but this implementation wasn't going to work overnight. A coaching/coordinator change sometimes takes a few years.
5. The SEC was kind of crappy for Cals first few years. John Wall and Co were very fortunate to not lose to Miami OH. The SEC this year seems to be better than any of Cals first few years when he was making nice runs (but I'd have to go back and check).
"Who you callin' freshman?"
- Mitchell
- Reeves
- Onyenso
I can see playing a 1-3-1 or a 2-3 for very short periods but both are extremely vulnerable to good passing teams. IMO a zone is a lazy man's way of not wanting to play M2M. M2M takes want two, effort, and communication, which most in coming freshmen have no clue. M2M also takes the whole TEAM on the same plain, communicating on picksetc. Lastly most zone team have problems rebounding. The way we play defense this year a zone would even be worse. Good post.Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
Reed"Who you callin' freshman?"
- Mitchell
- Reeves
- Onyenso
BS.I have said this repeatedly, but here are the facts...
A. Overwhelming majority of freshmen suck on defense. As the coaches in the article even mentioned, they are concerned with scoring, not playing D, coming out of HS.
B. Playing college ball at 18 yrs old for the first time is hard enough. Having to play against 23-24 yr olds makes it even more challenging.
C. Freshmen suck at communication. That is a well documented fact across the sport.
D. Cal has chosen to construct his team this way.
Those are the facts. People consistently say Cal needs to change defense and play zone periodically throughout the game. It will not matter. You still have to communicate and rotate in a zone. Something all these freshmen suck at. Not to mention it makes rebounding even more challenging, which again, is something these freshmen suck at.
On the flip side, Cal chose to construct the roster this way. If he can't get the freshmen to turn the corner defensively, it ultimately falls on him.
So you agree freshman in 2014 are the same as freshman in 2024?BS.
He's had several very young teams that played good defense. He's just not coaching it.
Zone is fine for a few possessions here and there. Definitely don’t want to “rely” on it.Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
There's a combination of factors, but I think this is the biggest. The basketball meta has changed and the way he coaches defending is no longer as effective as it was.BS.
He's had several very young teams that played good defense. He's just not coaching it.
I coached a junior high team with a 1-3-1 with the type of players I had and we won all but one game that season. Dominated teams that year. Why can't Cal figure it out at his level?I don’t understand why a coach would always stick with running just a man to man defense with the roster turnover we have each year. I would run whatever suited my roster and whatever was best against our opponents. I believe had we ran a 1-3-1 defense against Calhouns last title team, we would have won the national championship that season. Louisville destroyed them that year running that defense. Look at what the 1-3-1 did to us in Cals first tournament against WVU.
Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
The same thing can be said about any defense you run. I never said he should run it the majority of the time. I just said that we should run more than just man to man against teams that struggle against zones or aren’t great shooting teams. The 1-3-1 zone worked for WV, they beat us in that game because of it. That was a smart strategy for obvious reasons. We had a way more talented team. I completely disagree with you. “Bucket every time” lmao you’re just another one of those dudes on here that won’t admit that Cal makes mistakes. Thanks for the good laugh with the “bucket every time” sentence. Where was that against Saint Peters? That school no one heard of in 2013 Robert Morris?Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
Yes.So you agree freshman in 2014 are the same as freshman in 2024?
I see no attempt on the coaches to teach, preach or improve the defense, this season at all.
I think the idea that coaches have some magic command over their rosters is lunatic. The team is his responsibility, sure, but that isn't within 100 miles of control or choice.On the flip side, Cal chose to construct the roster this way. If he can't get the freshmen to turn the corner defensively, it ultimately falls on him.
You're in practices?I see no attempt on the coaches to teach, preach or improve the defense, this season at all.
I coached two seasons of soccer. When players are younger, age is the biggest driver of athletic success.I coached a junior high team with a 1-3-1 with the type of players I had and we won all but one game that season. Dominated teams that year. Why can't Cal figure it out at his level?
The 4 of 32 from three was worse than it sounds. I believe we missed the first 19 and at least a couple of the made ones were late and rather meaningless.Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
I know people who have been to several practices, plus I watch the same mistakes game after game after game, tell me you would think if they were working on this, some of those mistake would have been fixed by now.You're in practices?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. They got beat. To not try anything different is dumb. If we allow teams to score 15 out of 21 trips we won’t beat anyone.Fans who think zone is automatically the answer, they just don't get it.
A bad zone is guaranteed to get you beat. Even good zones are beatable - how many national titles in 30+ years of coaching does Boheim have? Who's the last team that won a national title relying on zone?
Each time you go zone, you're limiting your improvement in M2M defense. Each time you put zone defense in your practice plan, you're taking time away from improving your M2M defense
Fans and posters on here clamoring for a zone defense, especially with all our size. I'm willing to bet those were the same posters terrified that Cal was going to play "2 bigs at the same time and ruin the offense."
Now, do I agree with having a zone "in your back pocket". Yes, absolutely. But zones get beat ALL THE TIME. Tre Mitchell has routinely knocked down jumpers against the zone this year. Cal used to run the backscreen lob play against zone and it was a bucket every time. Low stack play against zone, bucket every time.
Another poster noted WVU beating us in the tourney with the 1-3-1 zone. They did, absolutely. They also gave up A TON of open perimeter looks. We lost by 7 in that game, missed 13 FTs, and shot 4-32 from 3. Now I know that team wasn't an elite 3-pt shooting team, but that was 12% on the night. Just shoot at 25% as a team and you win.
Especially when they run the same play over and over and over and we never stop it.I dont know one person on here that thinks all we need to do is run a zone to magically start winning games. I can't and will not ever understand why people continue spouting this stuff off, like it's actually being said on here. Nobody is saying it. What they are saying is obviously, #1, our man to man defense alone is not working, and has not worked all year. So let's see. Maybe throw in multiple zone types, some traps, some full court press, and oh yeah, mix some man in there too. Throw the other teams off balance. The absolute easiest thing we can do for other teams is to continue failing at the same thing we've done all year long.
Coaches don't have magic beans to plant. Calipari's critics discount -- completely -- the effect of never having the entire team present. The team practices a month or so pre-season. Then, a month and a half into the season, 3 brand new players, with drastically different skill sets, attention spans, emotions, etc got thrown into the mix. The team doesn't get to go back and have a pre-season to integrate them into the mix. And the team doesn't get to plead special circumstances and get extra practice time.I know people who have been to several practices, plus I watch the same mistakes game after game after game, tell me you would think if they were working on this, some of those mistake would have been fixed by now.
Maybe he is coaching it (he is), and these guys (and a lot of these new breed of talented players, not just at UK), just are not used to playing defense. They have never played or been asked to play defense in high school. Their most important job is to save their self on defense, rest, not pick up fouls, and use all of their energy scoring. Several of the players on the team have stated Cal is coaching they just haven't been applying 100% effort into doing it. So you can coach it all you want, but its the PLAYERS who have to execute it. The coach can not go out there and defend for them. And save the "well bench the guy not doing it". Yeah, to bring in another guy who can't defend any better, but can't score like the guy you want to take out.BS.
He's had several very young teams that played good defense. He's just not coaching it.
Stupid excuses like that do not explain making the same mistakes over and over and over game after game after game. It is called practice and most teams have drills they run over and over early in the season to make it second nature, but from what I have seen and been told Cal doesn't do that kind of stuff.Coaches don't have magic beans to plant. Calipari's critics discount -- completely -- the effect of never having the entire team present. The team practices a month or so pre-season. Then, a month and a half into the season, 3 brand new players, with drastically different skill sets, attention spans, emotions, etc got thrown into the mix. The team doesn't get to go back and have a pre-season to integrate them into the mix. And the team doesn't get to plead special circumstances and get extra practice time.
On the fly, integrate 3 7 footers into the mix? Remake the way the team functions. During the season.
Calipari's critics are loony in lots of ways. And that's one of them.