Tonight was time for a zone
- Thread starter TNCatfanforever
- Start date
Zone really helped your church league team I bet.
If you have a guy that gets in foul trouble for not moving his feet on a switch, what the hell do you think is going to happen when he has to cover an area? Oh, wait, you didn't think.
No actually I don't. I've played both. A poor coach will use a zone because he struggles teaching man to man. Their zones always suck. We simply have not demonstrated the skills necessary to play a good zone. If we do, it will be ineffective.
Exactly. I just told him basically the same thing in another thread. ignorance at its finest.
You seriously can't be this clueless. I simply refuse to believe it.
I'm not going to disagree on the effectiveness of zones but...
For years and years teams with less talent play zone due to the inability to stay with better players in man.
My gosh it gets dumber with every post. Just...wow
you don't really have anything of substance to come back with, do you? It's ok, you can admit it. We all know.
You have no clue about why a zone is played, in what situations, etc. Thats certainly ok. But you're making yourself look completely clueless by acting as if you do.
Just some friendly advice...you might wanna sit this one out.
Actually, less athletic highly skilled teams have used zones more effectively than they might be playing man to man. We have guys getting in foul trouble due to foot work, reaching rather than defending straight up in the post and failing to switch and arriving late on weak side help. These are not skills that lend themselves to good zones. The zone would simply amplify our bad habits.
No, I'm just responding in kind. You haven't made a comment which suggests you understand the topic. For example you are suggesting coach play a zone when his bigs lack the skills to execute. Under what situation would you find a piss poor zone to be effective? That's what we would have, a piss poor zone.
Like I said before, what worked in your church league won't play here.
You are spot on regarding footwork and reaching.
I'm at a loss how guarding an area is more difficult than trying to have good footwork playing man to man?
A guy that reaches, swipes, etc will do so a lot worse when he's constantly shifting to cover in his area. Lee is an excellent example (disappointing, actually as he's regressed). When he moves to provide help, he'll jump into the ball handler, swipe, move into the path rather than getting set, etc. but these skills are crucial when an opposing coach is going to attack with passing, movement into the paint or anything to get that defense to shift.
I think part of the problem is folks are looking at the guards and thinking they'd be fine in a zone. But our three point defense sucks at times. That gets even more difficult in a zone.
Marcus simply has zero feel for the game.
Bad hands, bad feet.
One of those guys you love but shake your head everytime he fumbles an easy assist.
I've explained it pretty clearly once but I realize your capacity for understanding is slim given your own words, and your continual responses about grade school & church leagues. But here's the cliff notes version.
You have no idea if our zone would be piss poor. We do know that our m2m is not very good.
Also, I never said or "suggested" that "coach play a zone when his bigs lack the skills to execute." You're just making stuff up.
there is nothing wrong with being a m2m team. There is something wrong with not even having a zone as an option.
Teams utilize a zone for different reasons...to limit drives into the lane by better clogging lanes...to compensate for a team having lesser interior m2m defensive skills...to give a "hot" offense, or one on a run, a different look...to force a team to play from the perimeter & hopefully shoot from there if a scouting report shows a lack of shooters, a smaller interior team will use it, etc. there are more, but it's not really the point. Cal is the coach, a very good one, and he has done a great job here. But to refuse to teach a zone, or employ one of any kind at any time, is not a good idea in my opinion.
We can't stay in front of our man right now. And, yes, despite your ignorant observations, a zone can help a team that's having that trouble.
I hope Cal will alter his philosophy in this area a bit. If he doesn't, I'll keep right on cheering for the Cats.
Last edited:
Yeah, I hear you. I hate to go any further with that discussion though. Problem is that we have another one just like him. Then there is Alex that does a commendable job with his own man, but gets in trouble when he tries to help out when someone else's guy gets loose. I watch that game after game and I just can't see an effective zone ever materializing.
Then there is rebounding . . .
Naw, you just babbled a bunch of words and didn't say a single thing about how you build a zone with these personnel. You bring up trivial applications that carry the assumption that the zone magically works with players that don't display the skills for it. Your whole argument is 'it worked for them', hence my church league metaphor. Problem is that the coach has to make it work with what he's got.
Duke couldn't guard their own shadows last season, coach K starts mixing in a lot of zone and they win a national championship. I am not a fan of the zone personally but this team just doesn't have the personnel to play the type of defense Cal wants. Wouldn't hurt to mix in a zone, at least when your defense is getting sliced to shreds.
Last edited:
Don't be crazy. According to coach bassfan, zones only work in church leagues.
It may not work but it certainly is worth trying. We KNOW what they are doing now is not working. Problem is, as soon as a team scored against the zone Cal would call it off.
Problem is Willis and Murray are so bad at containing the drive that they'd still getting blown by in the zone. It's not like we have a shot blocker in the middle. And our bigs are prone to stupid fouls, I don't see penetration from the wings being contained because Willis and Murray would be there. Murray routinely gives up drives and basket cuts from ball watching.
It actually isn't because you still have to contain the man in your area and stop him from driving into the paint. Willis and Murray can't stop the drive and zone won't help especially because we don't have a shot blocker.
A few problems we would have in a zone;
Willis and Murray can't stop the drive and those 2 would be our wings. Both also have low awareness on the defensive end especially Murray who gets caught ball watching and gives up basket cuts alot. Another thing is Willis routinely gives up open looks from 3 with half ass close outs. Teams would just drive those guys specifically or run someone baseline for backdoor cuts/lobs. And since these guys can't stop the drive it leaves alex out to dry and it isn't like alex is some great shot blocker and plus he is foul prone. With a shot blocker I'd agree with running some zone be cause you could funnel everything to the shot blocker but in this casee we'd be funneling to a foul prone big. Not toentire the rebound problems.
Well put and I totally agree. Cal is very stubborn and it is costing us in the long run.
Nope...never said such a thing. Debating your point is much better if you don't just make things up.
Been saying since early in the season this team needs zone in the toolbox. When your guards are getting scorched by shooters playing man and your bigs are fouling out playing man, you'd think the staff would start working some zone into our games.
cal has each team for one year, basically
instead of putting in super complex stuff, he harps on having good basketball habits and fundamentals, and always has the end goal in mind
his philosophy is to have his kids work and fight through adversity rather than parachute in to bail them out with the kind of clipboard magic you armchair adubatos dream of. i agree with him
instead of putting in super complex stuff, he harps on having good basketball habits and fundamentals, and always has the end goal in mind
his philosophy is to have his kids work and fight through adversity rather than parachute in to bail them out with the kind of clipboard magic you armchair adubatos dream of. i agree with him
this is why i think you, and people like you, are morons
CAL DID PLAY ZONE AGAINST UCONN AND IT WAS EFFECTIVE
daniels came back in for uconn and around that time uk went back to man, which for the next ten minutes or so was even more effective than the zone had been
He has no such philosophy. Cal coaches, uses timeouts, draws up sets, and is certainly animated & active while coaching on the sideline. You're wrong.
You mean like just assuming a zone will work because other coaches use one. Just ignoring the personnel you have to work with?
**3rex said, "Lets see, I can go with your ignorant take, or I can go with the fact that basically 99% of coaches at the D1 level, the d2 level, naia, juco, high school, all at the very least have some type zone in their arsenal either as an integral part of their overall defensive philosophy or as a way to change the look or pace, or to stem a run, clog lanes, etc..."
Why would 99% of coaches depend on them if they don't work with their personnel. You wanted to stick with that number.
no i'm not, you ponderous simpleton
i didn't say he didn't coach
the teaching points he harps on are not analogous to going zone
stop arguing and try listening to someone who knows the game better than you and zaytoven cat and the rest of these paeans put together
He doesn't have the philosophy you stated.
As far as his teaching points not being analogous to going zone, that's a different issue, and one that is currently being debated in many different threads. If you're correct, then many are asking why he wouldn't make an adjustment. It's not just zaytoven, or myself, and it's a valid question.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
***** OFFICIAL KENTUCKY VS TEXAS GAME THREAD *****
- Latest: Big BlueBeard
-
For the love of god stop losing to football schools- Latest: wildcat_nation28
-
-
