Bear Down Wildcats

RiseAndFire wrote:

Puerco wrote: GRINDing like having the 21st highest scoring team in the country? Focusing more than being the 20th most efficient offense in the country? All this is an obviously down year?

Your eye test results fail, R&F. Sean Miller has always had excellent offenses. If you want to see a 40 minutes of hell game, or a Paul Westhead game, then you're going to need to find another team to watch as long as Sean Miller is UA's coach.

Cool stats, unfortunately that was 21st ranked with a SOS a very weak 70 and a NonCon SOS of 210 ... tough sledding there.

I'll go with my eye test TYVM, and the lasting optic of this supposedly good offense facing Wichita St a team with tallest starter of 6'7"

It's awesome how stupendously wrong you are all the time about everything concerning the basketball program.

Welcome back Rocky!

RiseAndFire wrote:

Puerco wrote: GRINDing like having the 21st highest scoring team in the country? Focusing more than being the 20th most efficient offense in the country? All this is an obviously down year?

Your eye test results fail, R&F. Sean Miller has always had excellent offenses. If you want to see a 40 minutes of hell game, or a Paul Westhead game, then you're going to need to find another team to watch as long as Sean Miller is UA's coach.

Cool stats, unfortunately that was 21st ranked with a SOS a very weak 70 and a NonCon SOS of 210 ... tough sledding there.

I'll go with my eye test TYVM, and the lasting optic of this supposedly good offense facing Wichita St a team with tallest starter of 6'7"

I want you to do three things before you post here again:

1. Click here http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE.
2. Hover your cursor over the 'AdjD' column and note that it says 'adjusted for opponent'.
3. Notice who is #1 in the country in Kenpom's adjusted defense category.

Hopefully you'll also be able to understand that Arizona's 21st ranked offense was despite their poor SOS rather than because of it.

Jeebus, you really are bad at this game, R&F.

There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I'm sure it's a lineup we'll see. A lot of options for Miller to play with and figure out by conference play.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I'm sure it's a lineup we'll see. A lot of options for Miller to play with and figure out by conference play.

It's my guess that Trier will still start at either the 2 or the 3. I could be totally wrong though.

Hobbes wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I'm sure it's a lineup we'll see. A lot of options for Miller to play with and figure out by conference play.

It's my guess that Trier will still start at either the 2 or the 3. I could be totally wrong though.

Absolutely agree. I don't think the above is the starting lineup or the best one, just wondering about people's opinions on whether it'd work.

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I think Alkins starts over Ferguson, but Trier starts over both, and I think Allen starts over Simmons to start the season.

Offense was not our problem last year. It was a problem in a particular game, but, if anything, our offense was improved this year.

Defense, primarily perimeter defense, is where this team got let down. And point guard play, while definitely a part of offense, was terrible, yet overcome when we played teams that did not have ridiculously athletic/defensively superior guards. WSU had that, and took us right out of our game. Some of that was nerves, too, for Allen, I am sure. But, yeah, we did have an offensive weakness...PG play. We were good enough offensively all around to overcome that in most games, but we were definitely vulnerable to teams with guards who could overplay and not allow us to get into a decent position to find the post. Few teams possess the guard play to overplay on defense without getting burned. WSU happened to have that. That, mixed with a silly night shooting even when we got open, doomed us.

Our biggest potential weakness next year is still PG play. But we also have the athleticism to move the attack to multiple positions, to have multiple players bring the ball up the floor, which may mitigate the issue. Or Kobi is a legit PG and puts it to bed himself...

I'd put the chances of Trier not starting somewhere up around 0 %.

Hard to imagine Trier not starting. He was a major recruit coming in as a freshman, played big minutes when healthy, was arguably the best player on the team, and now has a year of major D1 experience.

No one is talking about Trier not starting. He didn't come back to school to not start. He will start every game he is healthy enough to play in. That is a guarantee.

Chicat wrote:

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I've got a lot of hope for how much Chance can improve over the off season. I really liked what I saw last year, at least on D. Ristic will play a big role at center next year if he's improved at all (unless his regression late in the year was real), but Commanche could overtake him as the starter. I wouldn't be surprised to see Commanche get a number of minutes at the 4 as well.

Trier is our best player. No chance in the world he comes off the bench.

Chicat wrote:

Puerco wrote:There's a lot of justified talk about playing small next year due to the depth of our backcourt, but I've been wondering about a lineup something like this:

PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic, 7-0

I mean, this may not be our best roster, and you could argue about sticking Trier in and/or Commanche in without losing too much size, but damn... This is a BIG lineup and it's at least conceivable.

What do you all think about going big next year? Personally I like the idea of going small, but if the matchups demand it I think we'll be able to go pretty big for 20-30 minutes if needed and we could probably get away with BIG for 10 or so.

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I agree with Chance at the 5. As for Ristic, I hope he can be good enough offensively to justify 10+ minutes per game. He was so bad toward the end of last year that you almost have to wonder if he will ever play meaningful minutes in an Arizona uniform again.

According to Brian Jeffries, Zeus so dominated Ristic in practice Deuce lost complete confidence in himself. Same with Anderson over Tollefsen.

Now Ristic doesn't have Zeus to deal with, only a true sophomore who never played more than 15 minutes a game, and that was v. NAU.

However, he did show a lot of promise.

Is somebody really mentally tough or competitive if they lose all confidence and whither up from playing against someone better than themselves?

The more likely scenario is that Ristic stopped getting meaningful minutes and plays called for him when Kaleb came back from injury. The "Zeus killed Ristic's confidence in practice" theory is bullshit in my opinion.

Chicat wrote:The more likely scenario is that Ristic stopped getting meaningful minutes and plays called for him when Kaleb came back from injury. The "Zeus killed Ristic's confidence in practice" theory is bullshit in my opinion.

Completely agree. Zeus stepped up his game on both ends and that's why he ate minutes, but Ristic was almost automatic from the deep block all year. If his confidence was shot you would have seen it on O.

Duse is good scorer in m2m situations on the low block, but bother him in any way and its trouble (TO, missed shot), and not a great rebounder in traffic.

Does he really fit into the type of super athletic lineups we'll have anyway? (Trier, Ferg, Kobi, Chance, Rawle)

Chicat wrote: PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic,

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I favor Comanche at the 5 also but the bolded puzzles me about bigs/perimeter - you describe the exact thing that recurs when you play m2m def exclusively! Zeus/Deus spent most time on D being drawn out to hedge screens - Alford's game-winner ring a bell?

RiseAndFire wrote:

Chicat wrote: PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic,

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I favor Comanche at the 5 also but the bolded puzzles me about bigs/perimeter - you describe the exact thing that recurs when you play m2m def exclusively! Zeus/Deus spent most time on D being drawn out to hedge screens - Alford's game-winner ring a bell?

I'm struggling to figure out why I should care what puzzles you. You've already disqualified your concerns just by trolling the way you do.

Chicat wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:

Chicat wrote: PG: Simmons, 6-5
SG: Ferguson, 6-7
SF: Smith, 6-8
PF: Markkanen, 6-11
C: Ristic,

I think we lose a lot of athleticism on the defensive end, and that's why I don't think you'll see it too often. CSM is not going to like seeing his big men drawn out to the perimeter and stuck on an island guarding some guy who is measurably quicker. Stick Chance at the 5 and I like it a whole lot better. I'm guessing that with another offseason in the weight program, he'll be tough enough to guard most Pac-12 big men and quick enough to check SFs playing out of position, especially if Lauri and Smith can provide weakside help.

I favor Comanche at the 5 also but the bolded puzzles me about bigs/perimeter - you describe the exact thing that recurs when you play m2m def exclusively! Zeus/Deus spent most time on D being drawn out to hedge screens - Alford's game-winner ring a bell?

I'm struggling to figure out why I should care what puzzles you. You've already disqualified your concerns just by trolling the way you do.

It's funny that man to man gets us back to back top five seasons in defensive efficiency and all he does is hate on man to man. Even for a troll, it's a weird thing to be so fixated on.

Miller is the best defensive coach this program has ever seen. Imagine what he could do if he played zone all the time!

Any one who favors zone defense over man to man doesn't like basketball and doesn't know wtf they're talking about. It's a situational defense and nothing more.

Yea anytime I played if I saw the other team in zone I was happy. Zone is for weak, unconditioned people.

ChooChooCat wrote:Any one who favors zone defense over man to man doesn't like basketball and doesn't know wtf they're talking about. It's a situational defense and nothing more.

I think riseandfire's points are trollishly bad. Yes, you can succeed with zone, but the same is true for man. The two defenses just offer different positives. We have been exceptionally good at man, which is the ultimate goal of any defense.

Zone can offer advantages against penetration based teams and it can camouflage players who can't move laterally as well. It is vulnerable to teams that shoot well and has distinct disadvantages in defensive rebounding. The best thing zone has going is when a team plays an athletic team that lacks shooting and discipline.

Man sets up better for Arizona, though. We have consistently had top level athletes that don't need to be camouflaged. With zone, if you are disciplined in your schemes and make shots, you can beat it. With man, you had better be able to make plays. If you're athletically outmatched, it's just not gonna happen.

Our Wiscy losses show both sides. We played great D in 13-14 and poor offense. We were bad enough that Kaminsky could tie us almost single handedly in regulation. In 14-15, we got whipped when they stopped missing shots, but zone wouldn't have changed that. You can get jumpers against a zone, and they didn't miss them.

ChooChooCat wrote:Any one who favors zone defense over man to man doesn't like basketball and doesn't know wtf they're talking about. It's a situational defense and nothing more.

They should rescind Lute Olson's membership in the HOF immediately.

Zone is to cover weakness, plain and simple. Rare are cases like Syracuse where it becomes the primary defense for a winner. UNLV used the 1-1-3 Amoeba defense, which was a zone, more of a press zone, to some strong result due to some freak athletes at the 3 and 4, especially a 4 who was strong enough to own the post, but quick enough to be responsible for everything behind him. And UNLV often backed down into a man defense, waiting to spring the Amoeba at the right time.

Lute employed zone as a switch up, and then depended on it when we couldn't stop anyone off the dribble late in his tenure. He was not a zone first coach in any way. But he did use it, when at his best, as a change up to cause opponent confusion.

And, to be clear...there is nothing wrong with having some zone practice to launch at a time you really need it, like with some bigs in foul trouble, or a team that cannot shoot but is quick off the dribble, etc. And it seems Miller has started inching toward some situational zone play. But you depend on a zone because of weakness, not because your team is enhanced by having players cover an area rather than a player...

KaibabKat wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Any one who favors zone defense over man to man doesn't like basketball and doesn't know wtf they're talking about. It's a situational defense and nothing more.

They should rescind Lute Olson's membership in the HOF immediately.

He played man and the 1-3-1. Mixing in zone defense is more than fine, especially when it's required due to your personnel not being effective enough in m2m against a particular opponent. Using zone as your base defense, which is what I believe RiseandFire is trying to get at, is stupid. I don't care how well it's worked out for that pompous prick in Syracuse that sold his soul to the devil long ago.

Lute played a 2-3 matchup zone almost exclusively his first two years at Arizona. After that he went mostly to M2M. I forget which year it was that he started the season M2M but abruptly abandoned it for the 1-3-1 when his guys just couldn't handle the former. There were a few years where the 1-3-1 did became his base defense. He was always willing to throw some surprises out there. I remember him pressing full court, running the Wooden half court zone press, and going after some exceptional shooters with a box and one. Then there was the one game only junk defense that he threw at Shaq in McKale where three players collapsed on him leaving the rest of the team to go two on four - it worked. The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

KaibabKat wrote:The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

He absolutely was.

ChooChooCat wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

He absolutely was.

This is a characteristic I value. If you have to play zone as your basic defense, something is wrong. However, zone should be a tool in the toolbox taken out and used when necessary.

Puerco wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

He absolutely was.

This is a characteristic I value. If you have to play zone as your basic defense, something is wrong. However, zone should be a tool in the toolbox taken out and used when necessary.

Like when Miller went to it this year due to bench depth issues.

But shhhhh, don't tell ol' Rise & Flail.

Puerco wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

He absolutely was.

This is a characteristic I value. If you have to play zone as your basic defense, something is wrong. However, zone should be a tool in the toolbox taken out and used when necessary.

Agreed.

ChooChooCat wrote: Using zone as your base defense, which is what I believe RiseandFire is trying to get at, is stupid.

Actually that is not at all what Im getting at, that's Spiffy's strawman that he made for himself to attack. Miller cannot stand zone (irrationally so) and I only point out Boeheim (as much as I hate him for SU's cheating/scandals) because he was able to not only win with some zone but he won two rings with exclusively zone!

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Man sets up better for Arizona, though. We have consistently had top level athletes that don't need to be camouflaged.

KaibabKat wrote:Lute ...was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

Dumb post, Jimmy Cliff. 2016 Arizona is not 2015 Arizona is not 2014, 2013, 2012 or 2011 (and all these years were top 5 classes). Bringing in top level athletes doesn't mean they will be able defend like RHJ and AG could. Every roster will by nature have different strengths and weaknesses as will the opponent you face game in and game out. It is a mistake to ignore for all these variables and continue with the same cookie-cutter approach endlessly.

Using a variety of defensive looks to ADAPT to your roster and opponent allowed Lute to put his best 5 players on the court together, regardless if they could defend like TJ, RHJ or AG or not. This would come in handy in 16/17 with the boatload of talent at the 1-3 spot, to be able to play your best overall lineup and not just your best "defensive/rebounding" lineup. Hows Miller going to go small without covering for some gaps on defense?

Chicat wrote: I'm struggling to figure out why I should care what puzzles you. You've already disqualified your concerns just by trolling the way you do.

Just funny that you describe Miller wanting to avoid a symptom specific to M2M knowing that Miller plays 99.9% M2M. Its almost like you have no idea what you're talking about!

Boeheim has only won one national title in 40 years of coaching Cuse and he won it because of one player and not his defense.

'Sup Rocky!


Be right back guys, going to look for Boeheim's second ring....

In fairness, if Boeheim has 2 rings, Miller has to have at least one. So, things are already looking up.

KaibabKat wrote:Lute played a 2-3 matchup zone almost exclusively his first two years at Arizona. After that he went mostly to M2M. I forget which year it was that he started the season M2M but abruptly abandoned it for the 1-3-1 when his guys just couldn't handle the former. There were a few years where the 1-3-1 did became his base defense. He was always willing to throw some surprises out there. I remember him pressing full court, running the Wooden half court zone press, and going after some exceptional shooters with a box and one. Then there was the one game only junk defense that he threw at Shaq in McKale where three players collapsed on him leaving the rest of the team to go two on four - it worked. The guy was a master of being adaptable to his players and to the situation at hand.

Jason Gardner was the best at defending the baseline in the 1-3-1. When Shakur took ever he tended to cheat at it, leaving the shooter open for a 3.

Lute was the master at adapting tp his players, especially on offense.

oh the horror I was thinking of the thing boeheim has multiples of while miller in 6 years of top 5 talent has none of (FFs)
I'm so so so incredibly sorry

RiseAndFire wrote:oh the horror I was thinking of the thing boeheim has multiples of while miller in 6 years of top 5 talent has none of (FFs)
I'm so so so incredibly sorry

If you believe zone is the key to a final four, essentially every stat disagrees with you. I also find it hilarious that you pimp Boeheim as a final four master because of 2 in the last four years and completely disregard that prior to that, the zone got him 3 final fours in 36 years. Maybe zones are more effective when you no longer have child molesters on your coaching staff?

Jim Boeheim in his first 12 year's of coaching: 1 Final Four, Only 1 time past the Sweet 16
Sean Miller in his first 12 year's of coaching: 0 Final Fours, 4 times past the Sweet 16

He certainly outpaced Sean by a mile!

ChooChooCat wrote:Jim Boeheim in his first 12 year's of coaching: 1 Final Four, Only 1 time past the Sweet 16
Sean Miller in his first 12 year's of coaching: 0 Final Fours, 4 times past the Sweet 16

He certainly outpaced Sean by a mile!

Boeheim has more rings than Gollum though. Worse personality though, and looks are a draw.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Jim Boeheim in his first 12 year's of coaching: 1 Final Four, Only 1 time past the Sweet 16
Sean Miller in his first 12 year's of coaching: 0 Final Fours, 4 times past the Sweet 16

He certainly outpaced Sean by a mile!

Boeheim has more rings than Gollum though. Worse personality though, and looks are a draw.

This might be the best thing I have ever read on here.

RiseAndFire wrote:oh the horror I was thinking of the thing boeheim has multiples of while miller in 6 years of top 5 talent has none of (FFs)
I'm so so so incredibly sorry

Your problem is that you post with enough conviction and confidence to make people think you know what you're talking about when in reality you don't.

See, you can be a basketball ignoramus like me and still get away with saying, 'Man, I wish Miller would consider using all the tools in his tool box. I know he's preached that Arizona will never play zone, but I would prefer to be able to keep other teams off balance just by making them prepare to face it,' and you won't get crucified around here. You might get a spirited debate, but the board will not destroy you.

On the other hand, if you come in after every loss and say, 'Miller doesn't know WTF he's doing! This defense is terrible and Miller should be playing more zone!' then of course people are going to tear you a second hole, even if they might agree with the underlying point you're trying to make.

So, go do the homework assignment I gave you higher up in the thread first, and then complete this second one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

Puerco, your take is way more reasonable than rnf. I disagree to a certain extent, but at least it merits discussion.

Teams that have early draft entrants, the coaches have limited time to teach. Having zone as a fallback, there just isn't much time for teaching. Packline takes effort by coaches, and the vast majority of time, a secondary defense is going to be something the team is worse at.

So, you bust out a zone when you face an opponent that just cannot handle a zone or when your man is being torched. Imo, you only do that in the tourney when it's do or die. Our situation has been that we've not been in those situations in the tourney. The second half in 2015 vs Wisky was as close as it gets, but even there, a zone wouldn't have helped that.

i like how spliff completely ignores possibly the greatest benefits of going with zone in a mix with m2m: the ability to hide a defensive shortcoming or two so that you can put your 5 most talented offensive players on the floor together and keep them out there longer (zone uses less energy because you're not chasing guys around screens as they do the weave endlessly, and you don't have a big out there 30ft from the basket hedging a screen and trying to recover all the time

I'm thinking that might be handy when you have 6 five star guys on the roster, and maybe we'd end up with fewer halves with " another slow start" thread being revived, and actually some offensive chemistry!

Ive never seen someone so clueless pretend they know so much. Im not just saying that, really, cannot think of someone who has this guy beat. Sports, music, life, whatever.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Puerco, your take is way more reasonable than rnf. I disagree to a certain extent, but at least it merits discussion.

Teams that have early draft entrants, the coaches have limited time to teach. Having zone as a fallback, there just isn't much time for teaching. Packline takes effort by coaches, and the vast majority of time, a secondary defense is going to be something the team is worse at.

So, you bust out a zone when you face an opponent that just cannot handle a zone or when your man is being torched. Imo, you only do that in the tourney when it's do or die. Our situation has been that we've not been in those situations in the tourney. The second half in 2015 vs Wisky was as close as it gets, but even there, a zone wouldn't have helped that.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before. I understand and appreciate all your points, and I appreciated them even more when Miller was a new coach trying to establish the culture of UA Basketball. To be honest I'm pretty ignorant of the packline intricacies, but I have the feeling that it's not so complex that a 90% - 10% split in practice time between packline and some defensive wrinkle would really hurt the team's ability to play it. Throw in a new wrinkle every once in awhile, jus to keep the bad guys uncomfortable. Kind of like how football coaches regularly sprinkle new plays into the book week to week. These kids have been playing hoops for a looong time. A little zone or something else shouldn't be too hard to absorb.

For me, this is more of a fundamental philosophy about competing in anything: sports, business, war. Do what you are best at, but continually aim to surprise your opponent at a crucial point in time.

SunTzu, [u]The Art of War[/u] wrote:“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”