if you can't play man to man def you can't play for Cal

[whhs22]

looking back when Cal first got here and he made the comment, if you can't play I can't hide you. I think most were thinking he can't hide you on the Offensive end.

I'm all for lock down D and aggressive play. but we still gotta score, so we may need to adjust on the D side to get and be able to keep In our best scoring threats. right now we have 2 teams. have guys who can score but can't play D and guys who can play D but can't score.

in the past a guy like KW was special on the offensive side , had a couple games were he scored over 30 that year. but because he could not play a man to man D he had to leave.

I'm just throwing it out their for conversation. should we adjust our D when certain guys on the floor? because I'm going to tell you now Mulder and Willis are going to have problems getting in if Cal thinks a guy like Hawk or Briscoe or Mathews can bring half of their scoring. cal is a D guy period.

 

[JC for 3]

.....and the downside of it all (in my eyes) is at least defensively, Cal is committing to being one dimensional. Why make it easier for opposing teams to figure you out?

 

[whhs22]

yea JC I was thinking the same thing. not every play can play lock down D. but not every player can hit a 22 ft jump shot either.

at this point maybe it's time to start hiding and protecting some players on D. I'll just ask it. is our best team not able to get on the floor because Cal is determined to play man to man lock down D?

 

[bigbluedon]

yea JC I was thinking the same thing. not every play can play lock down D. but not every player can hit a 22 ft jump shot either.

at this point maybe it's time to start hiding and protecting some players on D. I'll just ask it. is our best team not able to get on the floor because Cal is determined to play man to man lock down D?

Yes this has something to do with it. He is very stubborn and thinks he should just win his way. Great coaches make adjustments. Play more zone if necessary. With this group, it's probably necessary.

 

[RipThru]

Theoretically, that's true. But Murray can't guard anybody.

 

[JC for 3]

"is our best team not able to get on the floor because Cal is determined to play man to man lock down D?" ...Exhibit A- Derek Willis. Despite the fact that he can provide offense from the perimeter as well as at the rim, he gets very limited minutes because of his defense. You know what you're getting with Derek. A good shooter that can score, but has trouble defending. This team needs to have people on the floor that can SCORE. Going to zone D would certainly 'hide' (for lack of a better term) some of the players' defensive problems.

 

[Chuckinden]

Theoretically, that's true. But Murray can't guard anybody.

Then don't be afraid to pay zone. It's really a good defense, especially with all the touch fouls being called now.

BTW, I believe the quote Cal made was, "I can't hide you in this offense".

 

[RipThru]

I agree with the premise of all this; but not all players are created equal. What I mean by that is, kids like Mulder and Willis don't play because Cal says they can't guard; meanwhile, Murray is always getting beat off the bounce which constantly puts the help D into rotation. Murray is special on the offensive end, and will play in the NBA one day. Cal won't sit him or hold him to the same standards defensively because of that.

 

[RipThru]

Then don't be afraid to pay zone. It's really a good defense, especially with all the touch fouls being called now.

BTW, I believe the quote Cal made was, "I can't hide you in this offense".

My belief is that Cal won't play zone because there's no zone in the NBA. He's trying to get guys to the league, and ready for the league, and playing man benefits the players even if it doesn't benefit the team.

 

[Chuckinden]

My belief is that Cal won't play zone because there's no zone in the NBA. He's trying to get guys to the league, and ready for the league, and playing man benefits the players even if it doesn't benefit the team.

I understand the theory, but that would definitely mean he's putting the players ahead of the program and that's wrong.

 

[brianpoe]

I am a believer that man defense is far and away the best... if you can do it well.

Of all Cal's teams this one would probably benefit from a zone more than any other.


Willis - obvious
Skal - IMO he is not that great on the block one on one
Murray - is better than most say but he is not a lock down defender and gets caught in screens way too easily - plus a zone could rest him a bit more.

Ulis - great in the open floor but obviously gets hurt closer in and could benefit
Mulder - did fine to me last game but Cal obviously thinks he has flaws on the defensive end so I'm guesing a zone would benefit him too.


When your top 5 offensive players could really use it, I would do it more often.


Hawkins, Briscoe, Mathews, Poy and Lee are solid in man - this lineup would average a total of 25 points a game.

 

[wobycat]

My belief is that Cal won't play zone because there's no zone in the NBA. He's trying to get guys to the league, and ready for the league, and playing man benefits the players even if it doesn't benefit the team.

That's ridiculous to have that mindset if he does. These guys come in here not having to play d in high school because their athleticism carries them. He should adjust accordingly for the sake of winning and be honest to the player who can't play one on one.

 

[brianpoe]

I agree with the premise of all this; but not all players are created equal. What I mean by that is, kids like Mulder and Willis don't play because Cal says they can't guard; meanwhile, Murray is always getting beat off the bounce which constantly puts the help D into rotation. Murray is special on the offensive end, and will play in the NBA one day. Cal won't sit him or hold him to the same standards defensively because of that.

Not because he will play in the NBA but because of what you said - Special on the offensive end (which is why he will play in the NBA, btw).

 

[RipThru]

I understand the theory, but that would definitely mean he's putting the players ahead of the program and that's wrong.

He's made no secret its "players first"....

 

[brianpoe]

My belief is that Cal won't play zone because there's no zone in the NBA. He's trying to get guys to the league, and ready for the league, and playing man benefits the players even if it doesn't benefit the team.

He has said this before, although I doubt it is 100% his reasoning - Cal hates zone defense and probably cant teach it as well within the time frame. But he has said those words.

 

[RipThru]

Not because he will play in the NBA but because of what you said - Special on the offensive end (which is why he will play in the NBA, btw).

Agree with your comments. Just giving my take on why Mulder and Willis don't play more. Both are talented offensively, or at least have that rep coming in. Willis, gets beat, he gets pulled from the game and everyone says "he's not playing because he can't guard". Same with Mulder. Meanwhile, Murray is terrible defensively. I realize he was a HS PG, but he has little to no chance of guarding a good college PG, much less a pro PG.

 

[kybassfan]

This is actually a funny aspect of Cal's hiring. When we first got him, the general consensus was no more methodical offense, no more man to man only defense (ala BCG). I was quite bemused at the time. I'd watched Calipari coach at both Memphis and UMASS. As his career progress, he got more and more obsessed with defense. By the time he came to us, he had made the transition to "play defense or you don't play". His offenses were matched to the opponents weaknesses but were basically, penetrate, get to the rim or pass back out if the defense collapsed.

I don't know why some fans were so far off base. The university knew exactly what they were getting. Its paid off many many times over.

The guy is defense, first, last, always. He's always been focused on man to man. Not saying he won't change, but his history says he is very unlikely to do so. He was that way when we hired him. If we're lucky, he'll be that way when he retires. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any significant amount of zone.

 

[JC for 3]

If Cal has not used ANY practice time to this point on the concept of playing zone, than in Cal's own words, that's on him.

 

[jameslee32]

I agree they have become one-dimensional defensively as we have a couple players who are also one-dimensional. A zone would surely help but not if it's ineffective but something has to change with this defense. Effort plays a huge role though and those effort guys are starting for a reason. When they get in foul trouble, we need a Skal, Humphries, Hawkins, Matthews, Willis to maintain the status quo. Else it gets ugly quickly.

Freshmen defenders can have all the physical attributes of a Skal, Humphries or Matthews but essentially, they are made not born. Guys like Willis and Hawkins probably are who they are and all they will ever be.

 

[brianpoe]

Agree with your comments. Just giving my take on why Mulder and Willis don't play more. Both are talented offensively, or at least have that rep coming in. Willis, gets beat, he gets pulled from the game and everyone says "he's not playing because he can't guard". Same with Mulder. Meanwhile, Murray is terrible defensively. I realize he was a HS PG, but he has little to no chance of guarding a good college PG, much less a pro PG.

I dont disagree, I think Derek's mistakes come in the form of "very obvious failure and a basket is scored" type of situations.

Murray has gotten better, he was atrocious in the beginning. But I cannot disagree with who he would guard in the NBA. Also when he loses his man he usually gets backside help which poor Willis has not received so it may not be as obvious. Murray gets destroyed on screens often as well.

I watched Mulder last game and didnt see near the defensive issues, i am going to go back and look again later today but the kid played pretty tough to me. He was not Gary Payton but I didnt see him get beat, he held his man, hit a 3, made free throws and rebounded like a man - outplayed Briscoe in my opinon by a long shot.

I prefer man, but if this team is going to have such pathetic in game lapses on offense and defense we should probably zone more to get better shooters in the game and stop pretending that Skal is a stopper, Willis will ever be one, Tyler can stop drives to the paint, or that Murray is a defensive gem. They simply are not.

This not an atheltic bunch with great bball IQ's in my opinion.

Alex and Lee are very athletic - low bball IQ and lack offensive production.
Briscoe - great defender - no offense
Mathews - see Briscoe
Dom - until last game, see Mathews

Tough to win under these roster circumstances.

 

[brianpoe]

If Cal has not used ANY practice time to this point on the concept of playing zone, than in Cal's own words, that's on him.

In Cal's defense, zone principles can take awhile and he has a very short time to get them to learn to play man decently. It would be nice to be able to mix it up a bit.

 

[ClockCalamity]

I understand the theory, but that would definitely mean he's putting the players ahead of the program and that's wrong.

Then you disagree with Cal's whole philosophy. He's said, time and time again, that this is a "Players first program". He then parlay's this into getting the best recruits - normally. I assume you'd rather have Cal not get the best players he can and coach them up like, I don't know, Fifteeno? You either buy what he's selling, or you don't.

 

[Graves51]

My belief is that Cal won't play zone because there's no zone in the NBA. He's trying to get guys to the league, and ready for the league, and playing man benefits the players even if it doesn't benefit the team.

a minor league team to the NBA, that's what we have become. Players more important than program, sad.

 

[calamitybone]

While I believe it's probably good to have a 2-3 zone in your back pocket when you run into a bad matchup or foul trouble, there's a reason it's the primary defense of elementary school girls and Syracuse.

 

[rolaid]

Theoretically, that's true. But Murray can't guard anybody.

True

 

[Blueaz]

He has said this before, although I doubt it is 100% his reasoning - Cal hates zone defense and probably cant teach it as well within the time frame. But he has said those words.

IMO "time frame"'is the key. Usually our best players have been under Cal. less than 2 years. Most at one year. With all the personnel and personality changes, I don't think; he thinks he can teach them and make them cohesive unit to make a zone work. Jmo.

 

[RipThru]

While I believe it's probably good to have a 2-3 zone in your back pocket when you run into a bad matchup or foul trouble, there's a reason it's the primary defense of elementary school girls and Syracuse.

I respectfully disagree with this. Even most high school coaches have 20-30 sets to run against a man to man. There's only so much you can do against a zone....screen the top, screen the middle, screen the baseline. An active zone with some players that have length can be very hard to score against.

 

[Atrain7732]

a minor league team to the NBA, that's what we have become. Players more important than program, sad.

The only thing that is sad here is this post. You sound like a butt hurt rival fan. Those are the only people I ever see calling us a minor league NBA program. What exactly about that is a bad thing first of all? It is not exactly the terrible and sad attribute that you obviously feel it is. This whole idea that we are an NBA team means that Cal has recruited at such an elite level that we truly could compete and we look like an NBA squad. Not such a bad thing IMO. When I hear butt hurt rival fans such as yourself proclaim such things as if it is a derogatory remark, I usually just tell them Thank You. As a UK fan it is always our goal to have the most talented team in the country, you just affirmed to me that we do in your opinion. So thanks buddy. Appreciate the compliment.

As to the players are more important BS--some people are just never gonna learn. Frankly, if you have not figured out yet that Cal wants to win at least as much, if not more, than any other coach out there then I don't know what to tell you. If you are truly a UK fan, I suggest you go root for another team b/c you obviously lack the basic comprehension skills needed to figure out that when Cal says things like "player first" it is 100% geared towards recruiting. He understands that the more talented players we get, the better on the court results are going to be. It is not hard to comprehend. Cal has done an amazing job at UK in every facet. He is a perfect fit for UK. As stated, if you want a real stand up guy like Pitino who puts himself before all of the recruits and the University, go for it buddy. Become a UL fan. have to say we won't miss you here if this post is indicative of your opinion.

 

[3kidsandme]

The zone is not going to make this team mature faster. Even a zone takes great effort. Something this team lacks right now. We got whipped by a surging LSU team on the road it happens. We are a good team not great. Great thing is there is not one great team this year.

 

[CUT-NETS]

I agree with the premise of all this; but not all players are created equal. What I mean by that is, kids like Mulder and Willis don't play because Cal says they can't guard; meanwhile, Murray is always getting beat off the bounce which constantly puts the help D into rotation. Murray is special on the offensive end, and will play in the NBA one day. Cal won't sit him or hold him to the same standards defensively because of that.

@brianpoe I said essentially the same thing in another post. I talked about how players with NBA aspirations get the nod over players without. I talked about how it was Cal's recruiting pitch "I can't hide you here." Translation: "I will play you no matter what, regardless of your mistakes". I said the same thing Rip said. It appears you agree with me based on your liking this post, yet you disagreed with me in the other thread.

So which one is it? Do you think Cal gives favoritism to NBA bound players? Or not?

 

[UKnCincy]

I understand the theory, but that would definitely mean he's putting the players ahead of the program and that's wrong.

Putting players ahead of the program is never wrong. Universities exist to develop and prepare individuals. I'm glad Cal has a similar philosophy.

You enable all kinds of bad things when you value an organization over the people who comprise it. It is also a very short-sighted mindset to have. If you value individuals more than the organization itself, then more often than not, the organization will also be more successful than the other way around.

I sincerely hope that Cal continues to put the players in the program first. If that means I have to watch a frustrating season after seeing four final fours in five years, then so be it.

 

[Atrain7732]

@brianpoe I said essentially the same thing in another post. I talked about how players with NBA aspirations get the nod over players without. I talked about how it was Cal's recruiting pitch "I can't hide you here." Translation: "I will play you no matter what, regardless of your mistakes". I said the same thing Rip said. It appears you agree with me based on your liking this post, yet you disagreed with me in the other thread.

So which one is it? Do you think Cal gives favoritism to NBA bound players? Or not?

Giving "favoritism" to NBA players is not what this is about. It is a fan thing to label it as such. Cal, as a lot of coaches do, gives "favoritism" to the players with the most upside and the most potential. Sometimes, it is to the short term detriment of the team. Almost always, it is to the long term benefit.

Are fans truly suggesting that players with more upside should not be favored to players who are more limited athletically and have less overall talent? Because that is exactly what is at the crux of this argument. If you are suggesting that as a fan, I suggest you get over it or find another team to root for. Because Cal is a defensive guy--he recruits highly talented, athletic players. He "favors" those players maybe to a fault. That is how he has always been at UK, and how he will always be. See Kyle Wiltjer, Derrick Willis, Jon Hood, etc. Those also happen to be the kind of players that the NBA looks for--highly athletic, skilled players.

It is nowhere near the same thing as saying I will play you no matter what b/c I want you to go to the NBA more than I want to win. It is completely ridiculous to assert that and makes you sound like a troll (which might be obvious anyway). It is a complete straw man argument to say as much. Even though trolls and rival fans assert Cal just plays the NBA guys no matter what b/c he doesn't care if he wins or loses, all of the evidence is to the contrary. See Skal this year. Cal gave him some leeway at the start of the season. Now, he has not started and is playing what 15 minutes a game b/c it has become clear that he is not the highly athletic, skilled player we all, Cal included, thought he was. So what is the argument there I wonder? Skal is still projected top 10 in the draft next year, but Cal is not playing him any more than many of the other "less NBA level talent". How does that compute into this BS narrative? Answer is, it doesn't b/c it is a way for jealous butt hurt rival fans and trolls to dog Cal and UK where there is not much else for them to bitch about.

 

[MakinMusic]

Zone opens you up to all sorts of issues, especially giving up offensive rebounds. I don't like zone defense either.

 

[trinity45]

This is actually a funny aspect of Cal's hiring. When we first got him, the general consensus was no more methodical offense, no more man to man only defense (ala BCG). I was quite bemused at the time. I'd watched Calipari coach at both Memphis and UMASS. As his career progress, he got more and more obsessed with defense. By the time he came to us, he had made the transition to "play defense or you don't play". His offenses were matched to the opponents weaknesses but were basically, penetrate, get to the rim or pass back out if the defense collapsed.

I don't know why some fans were so far off base. The university knew exactly what they were getting. Its paid off many many times over.

The guy is defense, first, last, always. He's always been focused on man to man. Not saying he won't change, but his history says he is very unlikely to do so. He was that way when we hired him. If we're lucky, he'll be that way when he retires. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any significant amount of zone.

I have no problem with a defense first philosophy but I also think know your team and their abilities and know the other teams weaknesses, if playing some zone at key times exploits your opponents weaknesses then you should be able to teach and play some zone. I coached 26 years, we taught M2M first then zone and we switched defense a lot to confuse the other team, we were very good at switching defense and it gave us an edge against bigger teams.

 

[brianpoe]

@brianpoe I said essentially the same thing in another post. I talked about how players with NBA aspirations get the nod over players without. I talked about how it was Cal's recruiting pitch "I can't hide you here." Translation: "I will play you no matter what, regardless of your mistakes". I said the same thing Rip said. It appears you agree with me based on your liking this post, yet you disagreed with me in the other thread.

So which one is it? Do you think Cal gives favoritism to NBA bound players? Or not?

You obviously did not read my reply.

"Not because he will play in the NBA but because of what you said - Special on the offensive end (which is why he will play in the NBA, btw)."


Keep in mind that liking a post doesnt mean you agree with every sentence, especially when you reply to it with a different stance..

 

[CUT-NETS]

Giving "favoritism" to NBA players is not what this is about. It is a fan thing to label it as such. Cal, as a lot of coaches do, gives "favoritism" to the players with the most upside and the most potential. Sometimes, it is to the short term detriment of the team. Almost always, it is to the long term benefit.

Are fans truly suggesting that players with more upside should not be favored to players who are more limited athletically and have less overall talent? Because that is exactly what is at the crux of this argument. If you are suggesting that as a fan, I suggest you get over it or find another team to root for. Because Cal is a defensive guy--he recruits highly talented, athletic players. He "favors" those players maybe to a fault. That is how he has always been at UK, and how he will always be. See Kyle Wiltjer, Derrick Willis, Jon Hood, etc. Those also happen to be the kind of players that the NBA looks for--highly athletic, skilled players.

It is nowhere near the same thing as saying I will play you no matter what b/c I want you to go to the NBA more than I want to win. It is completely ridiculous to assert that and makes you sound like a troll (which might be obvious anyway). It is a complete straw man argument to say as much. Even though trolls and rival fans assert Cal just plays the NBA guys no matter what b/c he doesn't care if he wins or loses, all of the evidence is to the contrary. See Skal this year. Cal gave him some leeway at the start of the season. Now, he has not started and is playing what 15 minutes a game b/c it has become clear that he is not the highly athletic, skilled player we all, Cal included, thought he was. So what is the argument there I wonder? Skal is still projected top 10 in the draft next year, but Cal is not playing him any more than many of the other "less NBA level talent". How does that compute into this BS narrative? Answer is, it doesn't b/c it is a way for jealous butt hurt rival fans and trolls to dog Cal and UK where there is not much else for them to bitch about.

But see with Skal that's where you are wrong. Cal came out recently and alluded that Skal could be around next year, thus the reasoning for limiting his minutes and allowing him to come along a little more slowly. With a kid like Briscoe, who seems bound and determined to go to the league after one year he is getting minute after minute and start after start all while being the glaring weak link in our line-up. Why? Its not as if there aren't other options. Hawkins, and to a lesser extent in terms of offensively, MAtthews, or even Mulder (who showed a lot of promise against LSU).

 

[.S&C.]

Zone is for kids in middle school and woman. Cal coaches a mans game and recruits alpha dogs. They will play man, and this is something I've watched cal do for 20 years.

We've got lots of fans who've only been Paying attention to JC since he's been here and others who've followed his career closely since his UM days. I'm still baffled at how many UK fans don't know him at all. Hoenesttly, and I hate saying this, Memphis fans understand the man Much, much better than some UK fans do.

Pick it up people

 

[bluelifer]

Cal switching to predominantly zone at this point would indicate to me that he has zero faith in this team ever being able to stop someone.

He would have to keep the principles of the zone so simple that running it for more than a few possessions a game would allow opposing coaches to pick it apart. If he had several guys on the team with experience running a zone at this level, then sure, switch to it if you need to. But, he doesn't and he never will.

 

[brianpoe]

Zone is for kids in middle school and woman. Cal coaches a mans game and recruits alpha dogs. They will play man, and this is something I've watched cal do for 20 years.

We've got lots of fans who've only been Paying attention to JC since he's been here and others who've followed his career closely since his UM days. I'm still baffled at how many UK fans don't know him at all. Hoenesttly, and I hate saying this, Memphis fans understand the man Much, much better than some UK fans do.

Pick it up people

For me it is more a personnel issue than what Cal will or wont do. I never expect to see zone and was shocked we did play one for a couple of possessions vs LSU.

Our best man defenders have such little offensive ability and our best offensive guys lack on man D, simply a roster issue this year,

But I agree with you, I dont see Cal changing.

 

[.S&C.]

For me it is more a personnel issue than what Cal will or wont do. I never expect to see zone and was shocked we did play one for a couple of possessions vs LSU.

Our best man defenders have such little offensive ability and our best offensive guys lack on man D, simply a roster issue this year,

But I agree with you, I dont see Cal changing.

If cal is running zone, and again it's been this way for (going on) a few decades now, he's either losing his mind or the team sucks playing defense in his eyes. It's really that simple.

Are yiu saying that a HOF coach could be wrong?

Naw I get it. I've felt the same way before.