This zone can be nasty Cal might of found him something with it. Will he be stubborn and not use it much? Press then fall back into Zone. I believe this could be this teams bread and butter IMO.
ZONE
- Thread starter buckkiller
- Start date
I agree BK. The zone sparked the 18-0 run. Our length and athleticism will cause teams fits in the zone.
It's hard for opponents to use pick and roll against the zone. That's what was killing us in first half.
By January it can really be good I wouldn't mind Zone %60-65 percent of the game. I like how the announcer said the Zone will be good but you can't win all your games with it or something to that affect. I said tell that to Scumacuse and they don't have the players we have. This teams bread and butter will be press then falling back into the zone. It won us the game.
Mods you can put this in the other ZONE thread.
Lol not to bring up Tubby but his zone allways sucked it seemed. Every time Tubby went to it, teams got back Into games that I can remember lol.
Lol not to bring up Tubby but his zone allways sucked it seemed. Every time Tubby went to it, teams got back Into games that I can remember lol.
We turned this game around when we went to a zone. The ONLY complaint I've had with Cal since he's been here has been his absolute refusal to play zone some when when our man defense has gotten shredded. You've got to be able to play multiple defenses to win a title unless you've got a Davis to erase mistakes.
Last edited:
By end of the season I want to see maybe 10-15%.
Sprinkled in here and there.
Sprinkled in here and there.
If we had been able to play some zone, our 38-0 team would've been 40-0 National Champs. I still see Booker getting caught in BAD switches in the Wisky game. The length that team had would've made a zone impeneratrable. .
You could tell UK had practiced the zone defense and they looked good playing it. There will be times this year I think Cal will use it. Good to hear.
It looks like this teams bread and butter soon as it gets honed and sharper it will be deadly
Great teams can play multiple defenses. You've got to be able to switch it up based on matchups. We don't need to play zone the majority of the time or even half the time. But, we do need to be able to play it when warranted. I've been screaming this for nine years. It's all about matchups.
We will use it a little each game but I can see Cal still using the man to man . Against a good shooting team is when Cal will use the man to man.
Sorry but this is an abnormal long team and it gets honed it will shout down anyone in country. Its goi g yo hive teams fits in march. I can see a KU or UL in march going 6-8 minutes without scoring. If your a team and gave average length and height and not much athletes then yes a good ten will shreds it. This UK is a freakish long team and will be away above average zone team. Oh wait your a KU fan you all count helms banners as NCAA championships! My bad forgot y'all 's basketball IQ as a fan base is way below average.
As he should. We're always going to be a predominately man defensive team, as we should be. But, when you can't stop penetration or if a team's big man is destroying you, you need to be able to switch it up. Besides all the strategic reasons for switching up your defense, it also makes it tougher on the opposing team's offense and can change the flow of the game when it's needed.
Cal will occasionally use it and then stop when it is working and frustrate us. Just like this game it was killing them so what did we do? Go back to man to man and let them keep it close. I think we would have won by 20+ if we kept with it. I'd go 75%+ zone to start the year and then slowly work in more man to man as the year goes on. I think it might be a better use of the length then getting beat off the dribble in man to man by quicker shorter players.
True. Kentucky has great length, which the zone negates (most teams are playing Syracuse's type zone) that length as the player plays an area. You find the holes in the zone, you score easily.
Once your team gets used to playing with each other, their man defense will improve and Calipari will stop using it.
It worked very well, and I wish we would use it some throughout the season. But, I don't think Cal will lean on it very often down the stretch. He just doesn't like it for some reason.
I don't think you want to see that zone as much as you think you do. Couple of good guards would have shredded it.
The questions you need to be asking is why we had to go to a zone a against a poor team like that and why was it effective? Look at the experience on the team and you'll get your answer. When they get their man to man figured out, we won't see zone anymore.
The questions you need to be asking is why we had to go to a zone a against a poor team like that and why was it effective? Look at the experience on the team and you'll get your answer. When they get their man to man figured out, we won't see zone anymore.
Do not look for it much more than we got tonight. He said in the post-game interview that if you teach zone too much, you aren't teaching them how to really play defense.
Pope and crew had no answer for the zone tonight. Think I'll call in Monday's show and remind Cal to watch the game tape from the 2nd half!
All I know is it worked well when we used it. I'd rather win with the zone then lose trying to force them to get better at man to man. I'm not saying 100% zone, but play a lot more now and slowly try and go away from it as the players get better. Especially need to play it if we struggle to stay in front of the other team's players and give up easy baskets or get into foul trouble.
The obvious answer is that Cal is prepping them for the NBA, and the NBA doesn't play zone. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, our defenses are always good by season's end. Cal doesn't NEED the zone.
But yes, part of this is teaching them how things work in the NBA. What sense is there having the, play zone when the NBA rarely uses it?
But yes, part of this is teaching them how things work in the NBA. What sense is there having the, play zone when the NBA rarely uses it?
I'm a man-to-man guy myself. But that zone was awesome tonight, and fun to watch. Would love to see more of it. But we've got several guys who have struggled guarding off the dribble, even in the exhibitions, and that has to get better.
I don't necessarily think Cal found anything. Usually any normal coach always looks at different defenses to see how the team looks. It's just Cal is so stubborn that he costs himself wins and titles for not using what works to defeat another opponent.
I've played under dozens of coaches when I used to play and not a single one said this so and so defense is the one we are going to run and that's it.
Good coaches never stick to one thing and that's it.
Teams are built differently, some teams you need man to man, others zone while some a mix to throw them different looks to confuse them.
Play the same thing and they know exactly what you are going to do.
Not true at all. How is a match up zone any different than man to match up on shooters? Said it a thousand times but a n athletic hustling match up zone (preferably 3/2 not 2/3) can be just as ball hawking and provide just as much man on man principles as straight man defense, just without the CHASING that leads to fatigue, fouls and breakdowns that lead to easy passes to open men when the defense has to rotate to help.
And the big difference is an athletic zone with length can lead to way more deflections per last night. Hard to get any deflections against man unless you cheat in the passing lane.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe to win basketball games for the University of Kentucky, which should ALWAYS be the #1 goal. And yes, there are times when we need to play some zone. Not being able to play any zone has cost us a couple of national titles.
Didn’t screen much in 2012, and 2015. Man to man won a championship, took us to the finals and took us 38 and 0. I don’t disagree about multiple styles of defense but saying that playing more zone might have won more games also should imply we might have lost some that we didn’t.
Tyler was but ONE player on that roster. We had one of the tallest and longest teams in the history of college basketball that year. He wasn't even a starter. Your response is moronic beyond description.
This is a "players first" program. Zone defense to win minuscule college basketball games goes against the players first model.
Go
Go back and watch the Wisconsin game again and get back with me. Playing nothing but man in that game cost us dearly. Booker got destroyed repeatedly on bad switches. As for the 2012 title team, we had Davis to erase mistakes all other players made. We funneled drives to the basket for Davis to clean up. We don't have that and haven't had it since then.
Go back and watch the Wisconsin game again and get back with me. Playing nothing but man in that game cost us dearly. Booker got destroyed repeatedly on bad switches. As for the 2012 title team, we had Davis to erase mistakes all other players made. We funneled drives to the basket for Davis to clean up. We don't have that and haven't had it since then.
