Sean Miller

[Olsondogg]

I really wish Hank was our coach. His genius could be better served than shouting at the TV and posting on a message board.

Fans are allowed to grouse.

Gonzaga's ball movement was a thing a beauty. Around the horn. Then still another pass before a bullet pass to someone sitting all alone under the net. I think it happened twice.

That kind of stuff for Arizona seems like three years ago.

Ah, the ol' "fans are allowed to bitch" argument.

Well, fans are allowed to call fans out for needless bitching, especially when evidence to the contrary is found.

Sounds like you found your new team, and coach to support for that matter. In fact, he's the coach with a consistent top 20 team that has gone far longer than Miller without a Final 4 appearance. So, in the end, good luck with that fandom.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Imagine Gonzaga without best Pg (Wlliams-Goss), 6-8 forward (Williams) and best scoring guard (Matthews) and staying within 7 of a fully manned Arizona team. They accounted for 30 points yesterday.

Starters would be: Perkins, Melson, Tillie, Collins, Karnowski.

I'd never say your view (or point) is wrong.

But Gonzaga had it's bad luck last year. When I watched that game yesterday I said to myself: Wow, what a fabulously coached team. (Until yesterday, I had no idea Mark Few had it that much together as a coach.) Gonzaga reminded me of Aaron Gordon's team at Arizona when Miller was younger and his troops were fully bought in to a system which matched, crucially, the personnel on hand.

To Longhorned's point (or maybe its mine), I don't think Miller can adjust his personnel to what he actually has on the bench. I believe it's possible if Miller found he had an offensive juggernaut sitting on his bench, but a team, also, lacking in defensive acumen, he'd wouldn't know what to do.


Indeed, I think SM would continue pounding the square peg into the round hole.

Even harder.

That describes an awfully incompetent coach. So, time for a new coach?

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

Do you enjoy rising? How about firing? I feel like you would, maybe it's something about the packline.

[rgdeuce]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

[Merkin]

[rgdeuce]

I really wish Hank was our coach. His genius could be better served than shouting at the TV and posting on a message board.

Fans are allowed to grouse.

Gonzaga's ball movement was a thing a beauty. Around the horn. Then still another pass before a bullet pass to someone sitting all alone under the net. I think it happened twice.

That kind of stuff for Arizona seems like three years ago.

Gonzaga also starts a 5th year senior, a graduate senior, a 3rd year sophomore, and two 4th year juniors. They don't experience even close to our turnover and they are bringing in a high number of experienced upperclassmen. A far cry from having 7 scholarship players, three of whom are freshmen, plus a JUCO transfer in his first year of D1 hoops that was brought in to be the 5th or 6th guy off the bench. All that ball movement has seemingly done them well in the tournament though, since 2004 they have been a 1, 2, or 3 seed five times and only made the elite eight once. Big difference between being high early and having the higher ceiling for March; I am sure you remember of 20 plus point thrashing of them a few years back. Some of their recent tournament losses include: 3 points to number 10 Syracuse, 14 points to Duke, 23 points to us, 6 to #9 Wichita State, 7 to #2 Ohio State, 22 to #3 BYU, 22 to #1 Syracuse, 21 to #1 UNC, 6 to #10 Davidson, 13 to #7 Indiana, 2 to #2 UCLA, 2 to #6 Texas Tech, 19 to #10 Nevada. Some of those are against really good teams or teams that made the final four, but they sure do get blown out of the water quite a bit.

[Jefe]

.755 winning percentage through 257 games. Lute finished at .731 over 1,061 games. I hope Sean gets to 1,062

[legallykenny]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

[Hank of sb]

So much wrong with HANK's post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

I know what PER means, but I don't know what you mean.

I believe--like Bill Walton--that offense wins championships. I also believe that watching SM's teams, like I have, has become a laborious process. Miller's teams, for sure, are not offensively minded.

The reason why I feel offense is more important than defense is that defense (again this is me) is an attitude, whereas offense is a skill. Once a team starts to realize (think) they are really good offensively, the defense kicks in. Why? Because the team, through its offense, senses their potential. At that point they buckle down. Basketball becomes more fun. (Even defense.) This year's UCLA team (or Gonzaga this year) would be an example of what I'm talking about.

I believe Coach Sean Miller has an Xavier mindset. A mindset--a defensive one-- that is better suited for Xavier.

[dcZONAfan]

I know what PER means, but I don't know what you mean.

I believe--like Bill Walton--that offense wins championships. I also believe that watching SM's teams, like I have, has become a laborious process. Miller's teams, for sure, are not offensively minded.

The reason why I feel offense is more important than defense is that defense (again this is me) is an attitude, whereas offense is a skill. Once a team starts to realize (think) they are really good offensively, the defense kicks in. Why? Because the team, through its offense, senses their potential. At that point they buckle down. Basketball becomes more fun. (Even defense.) This year's UCLA team (or Gonzaga this year) would be an example of what I'm talking about.

I believe Coach Sean Miller has an Xavier mindset. A mindset--a defensive one-- that is better suited for Xavier.

Hank, please take this as personally as possible. I think you're better suited for PGU. Maybe try your hand over there for a while?

[dcZONAfan]

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

So....let's examine, shall we?

Rondae - stayed two years, was having a great rookie year before breaking ankle (it was his ankle, right?), slow to recover and struggled at the beginning of this year. A defensive stud is what he will be in the NBA. Not very PER friendly, maybe?
Solo - progressed so much over 4 years he was drafted in the first round as a senior. Is in the league because he can play defense. Does that show up in PER?
Stanley - left after 1 season. IS 20 YEARS OLD. Had a very solid rookie year
Gordon - left after 1 season. IS 21 YEARS OLD. Simply can't shoot. Miller to blame for that? Was he supposed to fix that in one year when the magic haven't in 2 1/2?

[TucsonClip]

PER is largely an offensive encompassing statistic. Moreover, Gordon and RHJ are elite defenders, who also possess elite athleticism, but have a lot to work on offensively. I never thought Stanley would be a star, but rather a guy who plays in the league for a long time and is solid on both ends. He's got to develop his offense a bit more

However, Gordon is struggling after being moved to a new position and used unlike he ever has in his entire life. He was really good at PF last year, and is struggling this season. Every statistic reflects that outside his on/off offensive splits.

RHJ is really struggling this season in all aspects of the game. Still, last season, RHJ ranked 5th out of 65 small forwards in defensive real-plus minus (which is a good defensive evaluation tool) and also the Nets were 8.2 points per 100 possessions better defensively with him on the floor, which is really good.

The problem with the guys we have put in the NBA lately, is they all have struggled to create offense off the dribble. Thats a key trait to be a really good NBA player. Our guys were drafted on athleticism and upside. We've yet to land that one, really good, skilled offensive player. Lauri is hands down the best one of the bunch so far, and Ayton seems to be in that range as well. Two different kind of players that Miller really hasnt landed before. Guys with elite size for the position, can create offense at their position and, at least in Lauri's case, high usage + high efficiency.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

Players in the mid 20's are hit or miss in terms of playing 3 years in the league, period. Solo and Rondae both will, so I would class them overperformers.

Stanley is having a bad second year. That's a fair criticism.

Gordon has had a dicey start, but his sophmore year was very good. We'll see how he develops.

[Harvey Specter]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

Arizona, for as many lottery picks and decent pros we have produced, have an alumni group with a serious lack of NBA star power/ all-star games.

Elliott, Stoudamire, Bibby, Terry, Iguodala... very good players with nice careers - no superstars. Lots of high draft choices fizzled.

Give Millers alumni some time. (FWIW I love Rondae, but thought his potential as a pro was way overrated all along).

[rgdeuce]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

Aaron Gordon's PER was 17 last season in just his second year at age 20 after missing half his rookie season. Rondae's was over 14 as a rookie. Solo's was 12 last year. If you wanna run with a small sample size of this early season where every wildcat got off to a brutal start for whatever reason, cool. PER also isnt the best measurement for guys who are very valuable defenders unless they are racking up blocks and steals. So essentially, what all of those guys do very well is completely neglected. These guys are all what, 21 and younger (outside of D Will and Solo)? D Will is the only guy who u can say has underperformed for his draft spot and thats of no fault to Miller. And Solo was a late first round pick that the Pacers may have reached a little for, but he's still in the league and well paid when quite a few mid to late first rounders dont have jobs/significant roles. The young guys are upside guys who defend very well.

[HiCat]

Post-game Sean Miller UC Irvine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9njbnq_M3YY" target="_blank


Coach always classy. Learn something after each interview.

[Longhorned]

Miller is obviously right and I'm wrong, but the part I have trouble agreeing with is causal belief that playing zone defense makes your man-to-man defense worse. You need to have at least one zone defense in your arsenal because no matter how good your man-to-man is, you're inevitably going to play an offense able to exploit advantages against individual defenders' limitations, especially with individual match-ups. A zone defense stops the bleeding, stops runs, and resets momentum so you can make other in-game adjustments, and it throws a wrench in critical defensive possessions at the end of games.

The challenge of a coaching staff is to teach an effective zone while holding players accountable for maintaining their roles in your bread-and-butter man-to-man defense. It strikes me as unimaginatve, and kind of a cop-out, to stick to a philosophy of strict man-to-man.

UC Irvine was one of my favorite games in the Miller era because, for the time, it proved to me that there's a limit to which Miller will continue to avoid switching to a zone. It's an extreme limit (foul trouble with only seven scholarship players), but there's a limit, and it's at least somewhere along the trajectory where K switched to zone and turned around Duke's season two years ago and led them all the way to a tourney title. I hope this is the start of some fluidity.

I mean, what if you really do want to play a small stretch with Lauri, Pinder or Comanche, and Ristic against potent offense in an elimination game deep in the tourney?

[Olsondogg]

I think it is simple. People hate that Miller is stubborn, and he is one of the most stubborn coaches out there. I remember back in the day, when asked about playing Perry at the center position he commented about not having size, as Kreal was sitting right next to him on the bench.

I think there is a limit for sure that Miller will change what he sees as the "way we do things"...but it is in extreme circumstances. NJ playing PG at Florida, playing zone, wearing certain brands of shirts without suit jackets....

My hope is that before too many more games go along, we have a deeper bench and the zone never appears again.

[TucsonClip]

When the coaches I played for at all levels, told us we were playing zone for x session in practice, we all rejoiced.

That should be all you need to know about what Miller thinks about zone defenses.

[Longhorned]

My hope is that before too many more games go along, we have a deeper bench and the zone never appears again.

There's still those moments in the ebb and flow of games or, worse, what we saw in a couple of games with Ashley who couldn't defend his man isolation. And when we get PJC and Trier back, we still have the 3 as a taped-together position. The flexibility of moving Lauri to the 3 for a couple of possessions is hard to do in the pack-line against a good wing.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I agree with Miller. There are a few factors at play.

The first is the extent to which we have talented players that are frequently one or two and done. If there's a team that can effectively toggle from the principles of man and zone, it's a very experienced team. Guys with a lot of teaching under their belt. We will not necessarily have that as a result of a lot of highly regarded player. That renders our teaching cycle shorter than it would be for a team with all 4 year guys.

Next, if you don't have a ton of teaching time, zone is a bad idea. Zone, moreso than man, relies on the team concept and an understanding. The base idea in man is always D your guy up. Zone has a more complex basic aim. It's true that you camouflage individual lackings in a zone, but the reverse is true. You can waste individual gift if a player doesn't understand it.

Packline, more than most man defenses, also relies on the principle of help and rotation. I'd assume our freshmen are playing packline for the first time. How to help and recover and rotations are at the least unfamiliar. Do you steal from their packline development to implement zone when you have 4 of 7 scholarship guys in their first year here?

Rolling out a crappy zone is not effective. The amount of work it takes to build an effective zone has an opportunity cost. People tend to vastly underrate the amount of work it takes to be good at a defense. Against a good team, you don't just tell your team to play 2-3 and expect it works. Against a bad team, you don't need a zone.

[Longhorned]

When the coaches I played for at all levels, told us we were playing zone for x session in practice, we all rejoiced.

That should be all you need to know about what Miller thinks about zone defenses.

How much practice time did Arizona devote to the 2-3 against Irvine? How much would they need to practice it to switch to it for a couple of possessions in a rare game?

[Longhorned]

I agree with Miller. There are a few factors at play.

The first is the extent to which we have talented players that are frequently one or two and done. If there's a team that can effectively toggle from the principles of man and zone, it's a very experienced team. Guys with a lot of teaching under their belt. We will not necessarily have that as a result of a lot of highly regarded player. That renders our teaching cycle shorter than it would be for a team with all 4 year guys.

Next, if you don't have a ton of teaching time, zone is a bad idea. Zone, moreso than man, relies on the team concept and an understanding. The base idea in man is always D your guy up. Zone has a more complex basic aim. It's true that you camouflage individual lackings in a zone, but the reverse is true. You can waste individual gift if a player doesn't understand it.

Packline, more than most man defenses, also relies on the principle of help and rotation. I'd assume our freshmen are playing packline for the first time. How to help and recover and rotations are at the least unfamiliar. Do you steal from their packline development to implement zone when you have 4 of 7 scholarship guys in their first year here?

Rolling out a crappy zone is not effective. The amount of work it takes to build an effective zone has an opportunity cost. People tend to vastly underrate the amount of work it takes to be good at a defense. Against a good team, you don't just tell your team to play 2-3 and expect it works. Against a bad team, you don't need a zone.

Like I said, I know I'm wrong, but I don't buy what you're saying. And I can't point to data, but in watching games, offenses have a lot of difficulty moving from a changed defensive scheme to exploiting the change on the first possession they encounter it. I'm not talking about Lute switching to a 1-3-1 for the second half of a game. I'm talking about one or two possessions in a 2-3 in rare cases. (And I don't mean defending an inbounds pass under the basket in a blowout game)

[Spaceman Spiff]

I agree with Miller. There are a few factors at play.

The first is the extent to which we have talented players that are frequently one or two and done. If there's a team that can effectively toggle from the principles of man and zone, it's a very experienced team. Guys with a lot of teaching under their belt. We will not necessarily have that as a result of a lot of highly regarded player. That renders our teaching cycle shorter than it would be for a team with all 4 year guys.

Next, if you don't have a ton of teaching time, zone is a bad idea. Zone, moreso than man, relies on the team concept and an understanding. The base idea in man is always D your guy up. Zone has a more complex basic aim. It's true that you camouflage individual lackings in a zone, but the reverse is true. You can waste individual gift if a player doesn't understand it.

Packline, more than most man defenses, also relies on the principle of help and rotation. I'd assume our freshmen are playing packline for the first time. How to help and recover and rotations are at the least unfamiliar. Do you steal from their packline development to implement zone when you have 4 of 7 scholarship guys in their first year here?

Rolling out a crappy zone is not effective. The amount of work it takes to build an effective zone has an opportunity cost. People tend to vastly underrate the amount of work it takes to be good at a defense. Against a good team, you don't just tell your team to play 2-3 and expect it works. Against a bad team, you don't need a zone.

Like I said, I know I'm wrong, but I don't buy what you're saying. And I can't point to data, but in watching games, offenses have a lot of difficulty moving from a changed defensive scheme to exploiting the change on the first possession they encounter it. I'm not talking about Lute switching to a 1-3-1 for the second half of a game. I'm talking about one or two possessions in rare cases.

I don't know. A zone can throw a wrench in, but you can also blow the execution as a defense. Or they can make a shot.

It winds up balancing those percentages vs the percentages you are generating with the base D. Neither option is without risk, but does the risk/reward balance in a way where it is worth it?

The idea of a zone as a change of pace is the easiest one, and on that point, I understand both sides. I understand the idea of a single possession interruption. I understand the idea that the balancing lies in favor of just maintaining the thing you know you do well.

[Olsondogg]

My hope is that before too many more games go along, we have a deeper bench and the zone never appears again.

There's still those moments in the ebb and flow of games or, worse, what we saw in a couple of games with Ashley who couldn't defend his man isolation. And when we get PJC and Trier back, we still have the 3 as a taped-together position. The flexibility of moving Lauri to the 3 for a couple of possessions is hard to do in the pack-line against a good wing.

Yes. But people look at the zone that we aren't playing as the holy grail. I just don't get that impression. Is it nice to throw it in a possession or two in a game to confuse an offense? Sure. But it isn't the end all. If a player isn't a great defender in man to man, chances are they will be exposed in a zone as well.

Good wings are hard to defend period. Which is why they are good wings.

[gumby]

I'm all for situational zone, and this situation calls for it.

But there is a reason predominately man-to-man teams advance to Final Fours and championships. Zone-dominate teams are the exception.

[Spaceman Spiff]

My hope is that before too many more games go along, we have a deeper bench and the zone never appears again.

There's still those moments in the ebb and flow of games or, worse, what we saw in a couple of games with Ashley who couldn't defend his man isolation. And when we get PJC and Trier back, we still have the 3 as a taped-together position. The flexibility of moving Lauri to the 3 for a couple of possessions is hard to do in the pack-line against a good wing.

Yes. But people look at the zone that we aren't playing as the holy grail. I just don't get that impression. Is it nice to throw it in a possession or two in a game to confuse an offense? Sure. But it isn't the end all. If a player isn't a great defender in man to man, chances are they will be exposed in a zone as well.

Good wings are hard to defend period. Which is why they are good wings.

I think part of it is a grass is greener thing. If we lose, the best strategy is the one we didn't employ. All fans (myself included) are guilty of pointing towards the idea that there is a way to win every game, and that the loss is a strategic decision that went wrong.

Sometimes, all an alternate strategy would mean is losing by 4-5 more points than we actually did. Sometimes it might change the outcome. The natural tendency is to assume the latter, but there's never really a certainty.

[EVCat]

The pack-line has some zone idea…not in execution, but in the idea that we are packed to this line, so we have 5 players covering this area and we are not extending out of it on overplays, because 5 people being in the closer proximity of the pack line allows for more chance of doubles, help defense, and rebounding.

Before hoops purists lose their mind that I am saying pack line is a zone, or has zone principles, I am not. But it is based on an idea that you can defend only so much space with 5 players and if you do this, and well, you leave little space for the other team to operate within the areas that actually generate most scoring.

Having a zone you can flip to is nice. Lute used to do it. It is much easier when you are playing with 3rd and 4th year players who you aren’t teaching your basic principles to in a short window of NCAA-restricted pre-season practice and season practices where game plan dominates before they leave school in one or two years. Junior and senior dominated teams that have the packline down and have the offense down and have played the conference opponents that dominate the schedule multiple times and don’t need as much game planning work can afford time to work on a nice switch-up zone.

But when 3 of your 7 players are true freshmen and one is a true sophomore, you are still trying to break AAU defensive lapses, teach the packline, work on offensive flow, etc, and teaching them what Ivan Rabb does or how to play Nigel Williams-Goss. You do not have time to dedicate to a 1-3-1, and if you do try to fit it in and it is not given proper time, you are giving up offensive rebounds, dribble penetration, and threes without any closeout because the players are not playing the principles of a zone defense well, because they have not played zone, or did in high school where the zone was “you stand here and don’t foul anyone, and the other 4 can guard people.”

If you had the development time, it would be awesome to have a couple of zones to throw in, especially at end-half possessions or out of a time-out where you can destroy a set play. Lute did that often. But a poor zone is worse than the worst man defense.

And Sean Miller is a young coach. He is learning. He is stubborn and with reason…he has been very successful. But he is probably facing a situation this year unlike any he has faced in relation to what he thought he would have in off-season planning vs what he has on game day. And we have seen him break his zone prohibition from time to time. He will learn, and he will add it as he sees fit. But the reality is you can’t push the left trigger and square and have the players play a 2-3 match up with principle purity. He has to both introduce it when it can be, then see whether it is effective at all.

That last part seems to be the part fans refuse to consider. Maybe he is practicing zone when possible and we just suck at it?

[TucsonClip]

When the coaches I played for at all levels, told us we were playing zone for x session in practice, we all rejoiced.

That should be all you need to know about what Miller thinks about zone defenses.

How much practice time did Arizona devote to the 2-3 against Irvine? How much would they need to practice it to switch to it for a couple of possessions in a rare game?

Im sure they spent some time on it, but I doubt it was more than a session or 10-15 minutes per practice. Guys develop really bad habits playing zone, mainly thinking they can take a break and ball watch to rest their legs if they are tired.

[legallykenny]

I think the insistence of going with a packline, w/o a Gordon or Rondae on the bench mind you, is too much to ask.

In my example, Coach has a group of young studs who must walk the plank (understand/get/practice the packline) before they get to practice offense. Understanding the packline is apparently hard, even harder if the personnel is not right.

As for offense, I have to ask: Does Miller even have an offense, a real one? Or is Miller's offense along the lines that "defense creates offense?" So lets practice 'offense' today guys, Miller says. Which means lets practice the packline.....some more!

I have never seen half-court sets, I have never seen anything approaching a Lute-style motion. There seem to have been few to zero fast-breaks. Just a lot of lumbering to the other end; a lot of waiting till the ball arrives.

Hence, as its been said before, Miller is one-dimensional, ridiculously stubborn, all the while providing a tedious product for our TV viewing.

Like last year.

Why would a 5* want to come here?

If Ayton does not qualify, the walls might well come down.

But "incompetent?" Not the right word.

That said, I've almost seen enough.

So much wrong with this post. First off, the pack line is not dependent on having a Rondae or a Gordon out there. Not sure where you are getting the thought that they must nail down the defense before they ever get to practice the offense. I've never been a part of or seen a basketball practice in my life where a coach introduces a defense to a team and spends the entire 2-3 hours running that defense until moving on to something else. Regardless, after the introductions/walk throughs/instruction, you roll the ball out and guess what, you have five offensive players actually working on offense to give the other five live practice with the defense. If you think they aren't transitioning to other concepts and drills throughout practice, many related to the offensive side of the ball, you are crazy.

The offensive efficiency rankings I posted above have seemingly been ignored. I am far from the first person to point this out on this site, but this keeps being brought up. Miller is a defensive-minded coach and I would say it has suited him well. The guys' tournament winning percentage is excellent, his teams are consistently very good to great and he is universally considered one of the 10 best college coaches in the game. Speaking generally, you chose one facet that will get the most focus and the other side takes a hit because players only have so much energy. If the focus is on defense, you don't run a high-speed, high-powered offense. If you are running a Steve Nash fast and flying offense, your half-court defense is taking a hit. Miller's offense is simple and efficient (evidenced by the KenPom rankings), take care of the ball and take the open shot, and then pull out something crazy out of the playbook when a big bucket is needed. It's akin to how the Seahawks played when when they had Lynch. Seahawks have a bend but don't break defense (pack line), run the ball to control the clock and keep the defense off the field as much as possible (keep defenses legs fresh), eventually opponents legs get worn out and there is a wear down (seahawks do it by running, we do it with our size and physicality and making the opposing offense work their asses off to get a good shot), and then the opposing defense leaves big gaping holes (a Marshawn Lynch run or a long Russell Wilson pass). Miller's offense may not be the prettiest thing, but it is effective in the grand scheme and when we are defending how we should, we do not lose many games. Consistency is important in maintaining program success and success within the season (and especially important in the NCAA tournament). It also keeps us in just about every game. Off offensive nights happen and thats when giants who dont defend lose. On our off offensive nights, the defense keeps things close and hopefully at the end, you get a few easy buckets or someone steps up and hits a big shot.

Why would a 5 star want to come here? That is a rather silly question. To play under a coach who will have you as fundamentally sound, basketball smart, and help mold you into a player who will be an excellent defender in the NBA, more than just about any coach in college save maybe Calipari. Read up on the praise NBA execs and GMs have given Miller and the guys he has sent to the league in their rookie seasons. Those guys are more advanced defensively and with basketball smarts than many guys who have been in the league 2,3, even 4 years. Rondae and Gordon wouldn't be starting in the NBA had they not played for just about any other coach. Solomon Hill would have been out of the league. TJ McConnell never would have been in the league. It's easy to find a young player who can score and slash and dunk. A few go on to be stars in the league but many do not even get their second contract. It is not easy to find a great defender who is fundamentally sound and smart. Remember, the average recruit doesn't go to college to satisfy fans like you, they come here to get better and prepare themselves for the next level. All that aside from Arizona being, right now, one of the top 5 "it" programs in the country with outstanding facilities.

I take it you're not a believer in PER for NBA players? Rondae, Solo, Stanley and Gordon are not exactly lighting up the league.
Has any Arizona player in the Miller ear performed to his draft position other than TJ? If anything, most have vastly underperformed.

Arizona, for as many lottery picks and decent pros we have produced, have an alumni group with a serious lack of NBA star power/ all-star games.

Elliott, Stoudamire, Bibby, Terry, Iguodala... very good players with nice careers - no superstars. Lots of high draft choices fizzled.

Give Millers alumni some time. (FWIW I love Rondae, but thought his potential as a pro was way overrated all along).

Of the 5 guys you specifically mentioned, only 2 came in with anywhere near the hype out of high school that the Miller recruits in question are. Maybe that's part of what colors my view of underperformance. When Lute signed Damon, Terry, Iggy, etc., no one expected them to have 15 year 100+ MM careers. When Miller signed SJ and Gordon, they were already viewed as guys who were lock top 5 or 10 picks before even stepping on campus. Rondae was a bit lower but still a McD's. They went on to be picked in that range (though I remember getting thrashed on here for saying I didn't see SJ's NBA potential) and haven't yet lived up to it. So it's not clear to me that guys are coming in to the program and getting better in a way that prepares them for the NBA.

[Chicat]

Iggy yes. People expected him to be a long time pro. Terry and Damon though, you're right. They exceeded expectations.

[legallykenny]

Iggy yes. People expected him to be a long time pro. Terry and Damon though, you're right. They exceeded expectations.

He came in rated lower than Rondae (though same tier if you look at it that way). Both left after two years.
Let's hope Rondae's career ramps the way Iggy's did, but I don't expect it.

I think we learn a lot with next year's class. It seems Miller has stopped chasing star ratings a bit because he's never going to match Cal and K at that. Hopefully he's made the right evaluation on the lower ranked guys and coaches them up.

[Chicat]

Iggy yes. People expected him to be a long time pro. Terry and Damon though, you're right. They exceeded expectations.

He came in rated lower than Rondae (though same tier if you look at it that way). Both left after two years.
Let's hope Rondae's career ramps the way Iggy's did, but I don't expect it.

Iggy committed to Arkansas so early that I think people stopped evaluating him. When he came to Zona he had blown up so much scouts were wondering if he'd be a 1-&-done.

I don't know that Rondae has the offensive potential to be as good as Iguadala. He's not the ballhandler or passer Iggy is. But maybe he can become one. Wish he hadn't missed so much time last year. Feel like those few months set him back a whole year.

[ChooChooCat]

Iggy yes. People expected him to be a long time pro. Terry and Damon though, you're right. They exceeded expectations.

He came in rated lower than Rondae (though same tier if you look at it that way). Both left after two years.
Let's hope Rondae's career ramps the way Iggy's did, but I don't expect it.

I think we learn a lot with next year's class. It seems Miller has stopped chasing star ratings a bit because he's never going to match Cal and K at that. Hopefully he's made the right evaluation on the lower ranked guys and coaches them up.

Iguodala was a point forward with a high defensive ceiling. Rondae is a high level athlete who was an elite defender. There's a reason their early successes have been different, one was more naturally gifted on the offensive side of the ball than the other. Also Iguodala couldn't shoot leaving arizona under a much better offensive coach much like Rondae after a better defensive coach. Iguodala learned how to shoot after college, lets hope Rondae can too.

Also I have a problem with both blaming and praising coaches for the future success or failures of their players when their players do not stay to be upperclassmen. 1-2 years of teaching isn't enough to make a guy an all-pro unless he was one entering college like Mike Bibby for instance. Outside of Bibby and Arenas, Arizona's most successful pros all stayed to their upperclassmen years. That's not a coincidence.

[rgdeuce]

When the coaches I played for at all levels, told us we were playing zone for x session in practice, we all rejoiced.

That should be all you need to know about what Miller thinks about zone defenses.

How much practice time did Arizona devote to the 2-3 against Irvine? How much would they need to practice it to switch to it for a couple of possessions in a rare game?

Like I said, I know I'm wrong, but I don't buy what you're saying. And I can't point to data, but in watching games, offenses have a lot of difficulty moving from a changed defensive scheme to exploiting the change on the first possession they encounter it. I'm not talking about Lute switching to a 1-3-1 for the second half of a game. I'm talking about one or two possessions in a 2-3 in rare cases. (And I don't mean defending an inbounds pass under the basket in a blowout game)

Clip and Spliff have pretty much answered all that needs to be said about why Miller is stubborn. Only things I would like to add, regardless if Miller is devoting 15-30 minutes over the course of a few practices, or much more for a zone, that amount of time could be dedicated to improving the packline with a group of guys (Kobi, Rawle, Pinder, Lauri) who are learning it in their first years at Arizona. Further, as a defense that is highly dependent on team defense, it gets those who already know it to various degrees integrated with the new guys.

We had this discussion last year and my position remains the same: It is very important to not underestimate the value of each and every minute for each and every practice. To the average person and even most players, it seems like there are so many practices and plenty of time to do whatever. That is not the case, especially for a coach like CSM who has high expectations and wants to make his team as complete as possible. Every year listen to a presser and hear Miller harp on the value of practices and the "limited amount of time" the NCAA gives them these days. He says that for a reason. Another example that you would have only seen last night if you were at the game: there was a full time out in the second half with (IIRC) roughly 6 minutes left in the game. The game was over. We were up by more than 20, Irvine was just playing to keep their pride. Irvine's coach broke their huddle in well under a minute. Miller's mouth never once stopped moving for the entire timeout, several minutes past when UCIs coach stopped. Then the horn sounded and Miller was still going for several seconds after the team needed to get back to the floor. That tells u all you need to know about CSM.

So I get it. Miller wants the packline perfected and he wants the defense to be elite come March. He knows that you need every second of every practice for that to happen and the team to be solid in the other aspects of the game. Every second you take away from the packline D in favor of another D makes it that much harder to become elite at it. THis is not even factoring in the just as valuable game minutes before the conference season starts. In addition, as noted by Spliff and Clip, playing man makes you a better individual and team defender. So you can be very good at the pack line and have a below average zone in your back pocket, or you can have no zone and the chance to be elite at the packline, which is the better defense to begin with and makes his players better in the long run (and for the next level). The way I look at it: you could have two bachelors degrees and therefore think you have a better chance in the job market because u have a more diverse range of jobs you could apply for; or you could have used the 2 years u used to get that second bachelors and gotten your masters in the one. In which scenario are you better off in most cases?

Miller has only gone to the zone because of depth issues due to injury. It was the same last year as well to a degree, along with guys just not getting it and not having people to replace them with. With a full roster, best believe Miller doesnt give a crap about performance in November and December if it comes at the expense of wasting practice game and practice minutes for the end goal. You dont get it, you come out and you go in. If you still dont get it, you dont play til u do. That is how you learn and get better, his hands have just been tied these last two years because we dont have that luxury because of all the injuries/other issues.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Iggy yes. People expected him to be a long time pro. Terry and Damon though, you're right. They exceeded expectations.

He came in rated lower than Rondae (though same tier if you look at it that way). Both left after two years.
Let's hope Rondae's career ramps the way Iggy's did, but I don't expect it.

I think we learn a lot with next year's class. It seems Miller has stopped chasing star ratings a bit because he's never going to match Cal and K at that. Hopefully he's made the right evaluation on the lower ranked guys and coaches them up.

Recruiting has changed a lot. In the 90's, I played in the AAU circuit, and it was nothing. There were 2-3 major events. Vegas was the big one, and players could fly under the radar far more easily then.

Terry, Damon, they would have been scrutinized 100x more nowadays. Time colors things, because for the guys who overperformed, plenty of players we forget didn't have an impact. It was easier to recruit the diamonds in the rough, but there just isn't much rough left.

The percentage of guys who make it doesn't change. The amount of hype for the incoming guys has, very drastically.

[EVCat]

Of the 5 guys you specifically mentioned, only 2 came in with anywhere near the hype out of high school that the Miller recruits in question are. Maybe that's part of what colors my view of underperformance. When Lute signed Damon, Terry, Iggy, etc., no one expected them to have 15 year 100+ MM careers. When Miller signed SJ and Gordon, they were already viewed as guys who were lock top 5 or 10 picks before even stepping on campus. Rondae was a bit lower but still a McD's. They went on to be picked in that range (though I remember getting thrashed on here for saying I didn't see SJ's NBA potential) and haven't yet lived up to it. So it's not clear to me that guys are coming in to the program and getting better in a way that prepares them for the NBA.

Damon played for 4 years

JT played for 4 years.

Iggy was an exception to the rule, having only 2 years before heading onto the pros.

There are very few picks these days outside the top 2 or 3 that make huge impacts in their first couple of years, and even more that never pan out. Because one and done and way more impact from Europe have made the lottery a virtual guessing game. You could say the same thing about lots of programs and their players picked mid-lottery.

Damon, JT, etc, weren't top 10 rated high school players, but were clearly good players. And got a full college education in top level opponents, big stage games, and top level coaching. Sean Miller got one year (or 7 months) with Stanley, one (same...7 months) with AG, and two with Rondae. He got a rare 3 with TJ. TJ exceeded expectations. Solo was a 4 year player, and has outperformed his expectations by quite a bit.

I don't know if it is fair to judge the impact of a coach that gets a player in October then says goodbye to him forever the following April.

I also don't think comparing the translation from top rated college player to NBA contributor in an era when a Euro or foreign player being selected was a shock to an era where a global market is competing for very few job openings is equal.

[Spaceman Spiff]

That's an interesting point that I'd honestly forgotten. Aaron Gordon would be a senior this year.

The one and done phenomenon also affects how we view the development at the next level. If Aaron had stayed until his junior year, his year this year in the NBA wouldn't be a disappointment.

[HiCat]

We talking bout practice..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI" target="_blank


Sean Miller will ‘probably’ have to shorten Wildcats’ practice time

Trying to improve in practice while being mindful of keeping players fresh is difficult for this Arizona team
by Ryan Kelapire@RKelapire Dec 7, 2016, 4:20pm PST

http://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketball ... s-injuries" target="_blank

[rgdeuce]

Give Millers alumni some time. (FWIW I love Rondae, but thought his potential as a pro was way overrated all along).

Of the 5 guys you specifically mentioned, only 2 came in with anywhere near the hype out of high school that the Miller recruits in question are. Maybe that's part of what colors my view of underperformance. When Lute signed Damon, Terry, Iggy, etc., no one expected them to have 15 year 100+ MM careers. When Miller signed SJ and Gordon, they were already viewed as guys who were lock top 5 or 10 picks before even stepping on campus. Rondae was a bit lower but still a McD's. They went on to be picked in that range (though I remember getting thrashed on here for saying I didn't see SJ's NBA potential) and haven't yet lived up to it. So it's not clear to me that guys are coming in to the program and getting better in a way that prepares them for the NBA.

The counter argument to that is, Lute had 4 years to work with most of those guys, Miller is lucky if he gets 2 with most of his. And if you are going to give credit to Lute for coaching up Damon and Terry, then you have to give credit to Miller for coaching a guy who was a 3/4 star recruit and making him arguably the best player in the nation and the number 2 pick in the draft. Clearly, with D-Will, Miller got him to a point where u cant get much higher and the ball was dropped after he was drafted, if it wasnt his physical limitations (or both). You also have to give him credit for Solomon Hill, who I'm sure not many expected to have more than an outside shot at being a pro (national composite ranking 39), and he just got big money and was a starter before he shot himself out of that role. And TJ McConnell, who goes without saying.

I don't agree with the SJ and Gordon being lock top 5-10 picks even before stepping on campus, at least as freshmen. Those were two guys who had tons of questions about their shooting. SJ alleviated some of those at Arizona, and Gordon still had plenty but had so much upside, size and stepped up his overall, non-shooting game at Arizona so much he went high. Upside and projected potential goes into those HS scouting ratings and its easy to forget that upside and projected potential are factored into draft decisions too. Is it Miller's fault the Wolves took D Will at number 2 in a week draft? If the NBA said, hes a tweener, I am passing until 10, is he a bust at that slot in a week draft? No. We look at a 5 star, top 10 recruit and assume he is a one and done, but there is still work that has to be done in their time at Arizona and they have to elevate themselves to that projection (or close) if they want an NBA team to draft them in the top 10 and among foreign players and sophomores-seniors. And what happens with Lauri if he is a top 5 pick in maybe the deepest draft in history, and he goes on to be an NBA all star for years? We going to hail Sean Miller as the god who made him what he is? I mean he was what, a composite 22 ranking? No, that would be silly, you just had to watch the kid for 5 minutes from the jump and know he was a special player. For every Tarczewski there is an Isaiah Fox. The game is different now, both college and NBA, and it isnt always cut and dry.

[Puerco]

I've always been a fan of having the zone around as a tool to be used when there was some advantage to using it. But the arguments above about,
1) It taking a lot of practice time to become decent at it, and
2) Players are less experienced on the whole these days
really ring true to me. I think I can accept those as valid arguments against using the zone when your roster is full of kids who won't stay more than a couple of years.

Good job, guys.

[rgdeuce]

I will say this: as much as I dislike basic zones, when we came out in the 2-3 half court trap last game and extended out to timeline, that was beautiful to watch. We only did that once though. I'm only a fan of the pack line because I believe in its effectiveness, but I am a sucker for anything with high pressure/trapping.

[84Cat]

I will say this: as much as I dislike basic zones, when we came out in the 2-3 half court trap last game and extended out to timeline, that was beautiful to watch. We only did that once though. I'm only a fan of the pack line because I believe in its effectiveness, but I am a sucker for anything with high pressure/trapping.

Our high school team played man on missed shots and a trapping 1-2-2 full court press on made shots. It wasn't as effective as the season grew on but man it was fun to play.

[rgdeuce]

We ran a 1-2-2 viking (half court) press on my JV squad. Good for about two or three steals off intercepted passes and 6 easy points off the bench if you played the 3. I stopped eating when one of our bigs went down and I had to play the 4.

[Olsondogg]

I don't doubt that Miller has taught some zone in practices, for certain situations. But lets be real, does anyone really respect a zone on here and thinks it can win anything when Carmello is not on the floor?

[Spaceman Spiff]

I will say this: as much as I dislike basic zones, when we came out in the 2-3 half court trap last game and extended out to timeline, that was beautiful to watch. We only did that once though. I'm only a fan of the pack line because I believe in its effectiveness, but I am a sucker for anything with high pressure/trapping.

Our high school team played man on missed shots and a trapping 1-2-2 full court press on made shots. It wasn't as effective as the season grew on but man it was fun to play.

IMO, zone is sort of like full court pressing. It tends to be way more effective on the lower levels and decline in efficiency the better the opposition is.

When's the last time an NBA team consistently employed zone or a press? I honestly can't remember a single one. A guy like Chris Paul isn't going to flinch if you throw a zone or press at him. On the HS level, they can be very effective because the guys who know the game well enough to beat them are so few and far between.

[rgdeuce]

I will say this: as much as I dislike basic zones, when we came out in the 2-3 half court trap last game and extended out to timeline, that was beautiful to watch. We only did that once though. I'm only a fan of the pack line because I believe in its effectiveness, but I am a sucker for anything with high pressure/trapping.

Our high school team played man on missed shots and a trapping 1-2-2 full court press on made shots. It wasn't as effective as the season grew on but man it was fun to play.

IMO, zone is sort of like full court pressing. It tends to be way more effective on the lower levels and decline in efficiency the better the opposition is.

When's the last time an NBA team consistently employed zone or a press? I honestly can't remember a single one. A guy like Chris Paul isn't going to flinch if you throw a zone or press at him. On the HS level, they can be very effective because the guys who know the game well enough to beat them are so few and far between.

Hence Rick Pitino's success in the NBA

[gumby]

We ran a 1-2-2 viking (half court) press on my JV squad. Good for about two or three steals off intercepted passes and 6 easy points off the bench if you played the 3. I stopped eating when one of our bigs went down and I had to play the 4.

Ran that on 5th and 6th grade teams. Never had a close game. Most teams couldn't get ball past half court.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I will say this: as much as I dislike basic zones, when we came out in the 2-3 half court trap last game and extended out to timeline, that was beautiful to watch. We only did that once though. I'm only a fan of the pack line because I believe in its effectiveness, but I am a sucker for anything with high pressure/trapping.

Our high school team played man on missed shots and a trapping 1-2-2 full court press on made shots. It wasn't as effective as the season grew on but man it was fun to play.

IMO, zone is sort of like full court pressing. It tends to be way more effective on the lower levels and decline in efficiency the better the opposition is.

When's the last time an NBA team consistently employed zone or a press? I honestly can't remember a single one. A guy like Chris Paul isn't going to flinch if you throw a zone or press at him. On the HS level, they can be very effective because the guys who know the game well enough to beat them are so few and far between.

Hence Rick Pitino's success in the NBA

Good memory. I forgot that short, ill fated experiment with Boston. It's been a minute, although a minute in Pitino time is like 15 seconds.

[Longhorned]

Basically everyone but the Trump supporters knew he was conning them. It was never about the people v. elites. Most voters were on the same side, but too many got duped by a career con artist.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Basically everyone but the Trump supporters knew he was conning them. It was never about the people v. elites. Most voters were on the same side, but too many got duped by a career con artist.

I think you may be discussing Sean Miller on a higher plane than I am because I don't really get how this plays into the zone/man distinction.