Dumbest post of the day. If a zone defense is the only thing working and clearly the only chance we have to win, then that's what cal needs to do. Playing zone in order to not lose a game is not going to screw these players up for the next level, playing a zone isn't going to effect anyone's draft stock, the only harm in playing zone is giving us a better chance to win. I'm all for this preparing players for the next level stuff..... to an extent. When you're sacrificing games because you refuse to play a zone until you're down 12 points when playing a zone for a damned game isn't gonna cost a single player a single dollar off a contract then it absolutely makes zero sense. I'd actually argue playing zone might help the draft stock of some players, if you can hide green's horrendous defense by playing a zone and save him some money by scouts not getting a feel for how truly bad he is on D then why not do it?
If us playing zone gives us the best chance to win a championship come tournament time and if cal still isn't doing it under the excuse it won't prepare them for the next level I'll be truly irrate. I mean it's not gonna cost a single player a single dime on a contract playing a damned zone defense for a couple damned games. You can play man in tons of games all you want. But once it's a must win situation and if he still refuses to play zone with by far the team best equipped to play a zone in the Cal era then I'll be speechless. No one has shown the ability to score on our zone defense. So if we're not running a zone come tournament time then someone a reporter anyone needs to call Cal out and point out the fact he won't be costing any single player a single dime on a contract by playing zone. The most talented players they'll go against is themselves they can practice man and prepare themselves as a one on one defender in practice all damned day every day. There's only 35-40 games a year though and if you're playing to lose over something that won't cost a single player a dime then someone needs to say something because at that point if it's still happening it'll just sound like a petty excuse.
What's costing the player more money? Getting burned play after play by getting beat off the dribble by a player that'll never sniff the nba. Or scouts not seeing the player get burned time after time by hiding the weakness with a zone defense. What's preparing the player better? Playing man defense vs a much more talented player who'll play in the NBA in practice. Or playing man against someone that'll never sniff the League in a game and ultimately costing your team the game at the same time? I truly don't get it. Hopefully by tournament time this nonsense won't continue and he'll coach to win as apposed to coaching by 'preparing' players better by playing a type of defense that won't help or hurt there draft stock in anyway. Getting burned off the dribble hurts your stock if anything, so one could argue hiding that weakness would make the player more money. I feel like it's more important to get the player there and secure that first contract as apposed to the player not possibly getting there because scouts are worried about woeful man defense they saw from said player all season.
But who am I to say anything I'm just another idiot with an opinion that doesn't know anything.