This team needs to have a zone defense in its Arsenal !
- Thread starter Cornered Weasel
- Start date
Hoping Cal using it some at LSU means he'll keep practicing it and using it when needed.
Actually every team in college needs to have a zone defense in its arsenal. Being a one dimensional team and knowing we are going to play man 95% of the time makes us an easier team to prepare for. Last years best defensive team in the modern era got easier and easier to score on as the year progressed as teams knew what we were going to do and as such could create easier shots for themselves.
A team that struggles at rebounding shouldn't play zone. Some may not believe this but rebounding out of a zone is more aggravating that out of a man defense .
This team desperately needs some zone. Then Ulis can't get switched on a big guy, our lack of interior defense won't be exposed, and Murray can be hidden. Willis can be hidden, too. This team's composition screams zone.
He didn't say he doesn't know it, did he? I just heard him say he doesn't play it because they don't play in the NBA.
It reminds me of the Texas A&M game last year. The scouting report said they were poor perimeter shooters but live to drive to the basket. Instead of zoning them and winning easily, we played man to man and struggled to win. We let them spread of out and use their quickness against our heighth.
That would be a stupid excuse, as a coach you owe to your team to give them every chance possible to win, if playing a zone against a certain team is the best way to win that game then that should be in your arsenal.
I agree and I agree with ukwazoo. I'm a big man 2 man guy but other than Ulis we don't have the quickness out front to stay in front of the ball. We are exerting a lot of energy on a defense that isn't working. That has to have an effect on our shooting at the other end. I'm not saying we should strictly play a zone but it should be something we use to stop a run or protect guys who are in foul trouble so they can stay in the game. Lee fouled out in 6 minutes the other night. Once we get comfortable playing a zone I think it could be effective with our length. We have more length than we have girth. Play to your length.
It almost seems like cal would rather lose playing m2m than playing zone.
I'm not a big zone fan but do recognize that a good zone can come in handy against certain teams.
I don't think that they can rebound much worse, and playing some zone may help keep Lee and Poythress out of some foul trouble. If they suck at it, you can always go back man to man in a hurry. Not Cal's game, but he might have to consider it.
He has to adapt his D. Not playing zone in 2013 cost us a NCAA bid. Look what Wiltjer did for Team Canada and Gonzaga when hid with a zone.
LSU beat us by setting one pick and getting in to the lane. Teams have capitalized on that simple tactic since Cal has been here. We are WAY to predictable.
Our defense from last night and rebounding all year can't get any worse so why not change something up??
LSU beat us by setting one pick and getting in to the lane. Teams have capitalized on that simple tactic since Cal has been here. We are WAY to predictable.
Our defense from last night and rebounding all year can't get any worse so why not change something up??
If last year's team had played some zone, we would be defending NCAA Champions. A zone defense would have helped a lot against Wisconsin. I got tired seeing us have Booker on Kaminsky when we continually got caught in bad switches. Cal is just not going to play much if any zone, even though we would greatly benefit from it on a lot of occasions.
A zone helps keep opposing guards out of the lane and it helps keep your bigs out of foul trouble.
We would have beaten UCONN in the 2014 title game if we had a good zone.
That's why UofL destroyed them twice that year.
Overall, I definitely prefer man to man defense, but every coach should be prepared to use a zone and not be too stubborn to use it from time to time.
We would have beaten UCONN in the 2014 title game if we had a good zone.
That's why UofL destroyed them twice that year.
Overall, I definitely prefer man to man defense, but every coach should be prepared to use a zone and not be too stubborn to use it from time to time.
Cal is hard headed...he let Johnny Jones punk him twice on out of bounds plays under their basket...because he plays man in those situations. He drives me crazy with his lack of caring for dead ball strategy. We just lob it to the corner and settle.
Ben Holland a mam 2 man guy zoned A&M last night and almost pulled the upset. A&M was horrible against the zone.
Ben Holland a mam 2 man guy zoned A&M last night and almost pulled the upset. A&M was horrible against the zone.
Cal's stubbornness about not playing zone is because they don't play it at the next level. I'm sure I'm not alone in not really caring all that much about the NBA. If it works at the college level and can lead to more wins at the college level, then use a freakin zone against teams that don't shoot well from the outside.
So many people calling Cal out , must not be real fans ( sarcasm alert ) . Yes COACH SHOULD HAVE THE TEAM ABLE TO PLAY SOME DAMN ZONE D !!!!!!!! It isnt Calculus .
First, I don't think you can expect that Cal will play any significant amount of zone. Just not gonna happen. Can whine about it but it is what it is. I actually thought last years team would have lent itself well to a zone, but then again, they couldn't defend a screen or pick for spit so maybe not. This team, playing three guards, doesn't lend itself so well to playing zone.
Second, a zone will very likely not help rebounding. It is often easier to rebound out of man to man, the exception being where you are fronting. Just easier to get position.
Third, we have some issue playing as a team already, dealing with screens, etc. I think due to lack of communication on the floor, but could be lot of other reasons as well. Whatever weaknesses you have man to man can be amplified by a zone.
Zones in basketball are a funny thing. Easy to play a zone. Very very difficult to play zone well. I don't expect to see zone except maybe due to injury or foul trouble. I'm not sure it would fix a thing. I'm almost certain Cal will not implement one so the discussion is pointless anyway.
Second, a zone will very likely not help rebounding. It is often easier to rebound out of man to man, the exception being where you are fronting. Just easier to get position.
Third, we have some issue playing as a team already, dealing with screens, etc. I think due to lack of communication on the floor, but could be lot of other reasons as well. Whatever weaknesses you have man to man can be amplified by a zone.
Zones in basketball are a funny thing. Easy to play a zone. Very very difficult to play zone well. I don't expect to see zone except maybe due to injury or foul trouble. I'm not sure it would fix a thing. I'm almost certain Cal will not implement one so the discussion is pointless anyway.
Every college team should have a zone defense of some variety in it's arsenal. It's one of the basic fundamentals of team basketball.
I'm not going to say that if we had played zone we would have beaten LSU (or Wisconsin, or UCONN, etc.) but to not at least have the option to run it in a game where m2m isn't working is just foolish, IMO.
Also, if playing zone gets us out of this 3 guard lineup, then that would be an added bonus.
I'm not going to say that if we had played zone we would have beaten LSU (or Wisconsin, or UCONN, etc.) but to not at least have the option to run it in a game where m2m isn't working is just foolish, IMO.
Also, if playing zone gets us out of this 3 guard lineup, then that would be an added bonus.
insanity= doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
Never hurts to try something different till you find what this team does best.
What they need to focus on is winning games while they're in college. The NBA can develop them to suit their style. Just about every school in the nation plays zone to some extent.
Thanks for the thoughts. Not advocating that we become a predominantly zone team, but it sure would be an upgrade vs certain opponents. I see how our offense has struggled mightily over the past few years when we face one.
I remember Cal said a couple of years ago that he was going to contact Boeheim to pick his brain regarding playing some zone D. Not sure how that panned out.
I remember Cal said a couple of years ago that he was going to contact Boeheim to pick his brain regarding playing some zone D. Not sure how that panned out.
Actually playing zone defense isn't a very big deal. I played it. It's all about awareness, keeping proper spacing, and knowing where to be. It's not rocket science. You've just got to make quick movements and decisions.
I also don't want us to become a predominately zone team. But, Cal has always said he varies the style he plays to fit the players he has each year. Well, he's only half right. He does it on the offensive end but not the defensive end. He also doesn't do it to fit the opponent he's playing. There are times that we would be better off using a zone defense. That has been my biggest issue with Cal. As others have said, we should at least use it when it most benefits us. Playing nothing but man makes it easier for every opponent we play to game plan for us. Why make their job easier???
In my opinion the only advantage of playing a zone is that you can practice against it. Very few teams use it as their primary defense, in fact Syracuse is only team I know of that does.
The reasons some use the zone is because they are in foul trouble,, out maned in size, slow a foot, tired, just to try something different. None of those are good.
My opinion is that if you can't play Man to Man, you will also have problems playing a zone. You have to move quickly whatever you are playing. JMHO
Because you are not assigned a player to guard it makes blocking out difficult.
I hope coach does not play a zone, unless all else fails.- in other words there is no hope
Like I said. Easy to play, difficult to play well. A team that can pass well, pass on the interior and has any sort of 15 foot jump shot will kill a zone unless the zone functions really well. I've never seen a team with a good zone that didn't have a much better man to man.
Bottom line is, it's a crutch. Won't help this team.
Maybe not, but lack of a (any) defense did. 40 yrs ago, I taught an eight grade an effective 1-3-1 zone in (2 sessions) in preparation for a tournament. WE WON........The opposing coach said he couldn't run his offense because we didn't play the zone right.
I was just a volunteer parent.....am I really supposed to know?
Maybe not, but lack of a (any) defense did. 40 yrs ago, I taught an eight grade an effective 1-3-1 zone in (2 sessions) in preparation for a tournament. WE WON........The opposing coach said he couldn't run his offense because we didn't play the zone right.
But you must have been amazing congrats, it's a tough job.
In my opinion the only advantage of playing a zone is that you can practice against it. Very few teams use it as their primary defense, in fact Syracuse is only team I know of that does.
The reasons some use the zone is because they are in foul trouble,, out maned in size, slow a foot, tired, just to try something different. None of those are good.
My opinion is that if you can't play Man to Man, you will also have problems playing a zone. You have to move quickly whatever you are playing. JMHO
Because you are not assigned a player to guard it makes blocking out difficult.
I hope coach does not play a zone, unless all else fails.- in other words there is no hope
2015 Duke team proves you to be wrong.
Cuse plays man D as often as we play zone and they are still putting guys in the league
Thanks, it was just an eight grade tournament........but we weren't supposed to win.
(one of my 8th graders started varsity the next year)
Similar threads
