Bear Down Wildcats

Nm

Totally. This is one ugly game

There aren't many possessions, and the Beavers are shooting 50%. That allows them to get back into that zone. That bad half has a ton to do with our defense. Beavers are able to go right to the hoop.

We're also 322nd nationally in lowest 3PA per game, so yeah I would absolutely zone this Arizona team.

Same story vs the Washington schools. End up winning by decent margin because they get tired. Pretty similar story throughout Miller's tenure here, struggle against the zone.

They need to push the ball up the court quickly. The team has few or no answer when a team sets in the zone. This where a lack of a true PG hurts. Need to attack and not sit back.

I think the zone is a white flag. You can make it respectful for a bit if you can get Arizona out of its rhythm and making too many passes in the clogged lanes. But Arizona will break it at the elbow, or in tonight's case attack off the dribble and overwhelm your athletic disadvantage.

CalStateTempe wrote:Totally. This is one ugly game

OSU couldn't play with us, so they were trying to make it as ugly as possible.

We've been shredding them on the boards, which we need to do vs a zone. Heck, as often as we've inexplicably lost or struggled in Corvallis, this is a masterpiece.

Lauri's been really off all night. To win comfortably despite that and the slow start isn't bad.

Longhorned wrote:I think the zone is a white flag. You can make it respectful for a bit if you can get Arizona out of its rhythm and making too many passes in the clogged lanes. But Arizona will break it at the elbow, or in tonight's case attack off the dribble and overwhelm your athletic disadvantage.

Or beat the zone down the floor and push the pace. Something this team should do more of with Trier back in the fold.

In all seriousness, I'm happy with this. This was the trap game to end all trap games, we had a rough first half and we'll win by close to 20.

loomer wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I think the zone is a white flag. You can make it respectful for a bit if you can get Arizona out of its rhythm and making too many passes in the clogged lanes. But Arizona will break it at the elbow, or in tonight's case attack off the dribble and overwhelm your athletic disadvantage.

Or beat the zone down the floor and push the pace. Something this team should do more of with Trier back in the fold.

I hope the plan would be to beat any defense down the floor.

loomer wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I think the zone is a white flag. You can make it respectful for a bit if you can get Arizona out of its rhythm and making too many passes in the clogged lanes. But Arizona will break it at the elbow, or in tonight's case attack off the dribble and overwhelm your athletic disadvantage.

Or beat the zone down the floor and push the pace. Something this team should do more of with Trier back in the fold.

Did you see that when, for the first time ever, Trier couldn't beat the 1-on-4 fast break, and so he jumped left while pushing his right-handed shot in front of his nearest defender and banked it in?

Pretty similar story vs the Washington schools at home. But eventually they get tired and we win by a decent margin, too much talent, depth and all. Struggles v. the zone has been a mild annoyance in Miller's tenure. Slow starts galore.

The team has few or no answer when the other team sets itself in the zone defense. @ UCLA, they cut the lead to 4 using the zone temporarily and definitely slowed down the offense - but eventually ran out of gas and were too tired. They need to push the ball up quickly so the opposition doesn't get set. This is where a lack of a good true PG hurts.

Do you think there is a stat service that compares Arizonas record vs teams that majority zone and majorit man?

Agree spiff, compared to nightmares of years past, that was a decent win. Corvallis has a way of being a graveyard for cats teams.

The point of this post applies to any bad team playing any good team. Slow it down and ugly it up. At the very least the score will be closer.

Puerco wrote:The point of this post applies to any bad team playing any good team. Slow it down and ugly it up. At the very least the score will be closer.

Yes, fewer possessions, and separate a more athletic team from what its players can do athletically. If you can combine that with really efficient, clock-eating offense on your own end, you might even win. But usually that will require having one of your own guys who the other team can't defend one-on-one.

The reason why past Arizona teams under Miller were more prone to losing those games is because they didn't have players who could generate their own offense. They also had a center who couldn't catch a pass.

Unless I had an elite M2M defensive team, I'd be zoning us up or at least mixing a zone in. Pretty much any team in our region come tournament time should have this ready to go.

We're helpless against it, the better the team is and/or more talented the team is, the more effective it is

That's 4 straight games going up against it and being completely lost against it. 4 is a pattern. If Alford tried coaching for once he probably would've won that game.

Had 18 pts at the half vs Oregon, didn't reach 30pts until 11:15 left in the second half.

Teams have been playing zone against us all year. We just sucked all the way around - missed open shots, terrible passes, poor handles and no aggressiveness on the boards. We sucked when the Ducks played man-to-man as well.

The sky is not falling. Lick our wounds and move on...

NYCat wrote:We're helpless against it, the better the team is and/or more talented the team is, the more effective it is

That's 4 straight games going up against it and being completely lost against it. 4 is a pattern. If Alford tried coaching for once he probably would've won that game.

Had 18 pts at the half vs Oregon, didn't reach 30pts until 11:15 left in the second half.

Agree. Our problems with the zone really started against Utah. Coach Krysto showed that a matchup 2-3 coupled with shading a wing out against Lauri would cause AZ problems. He gave a blueprint to the rest of the conference and Miller hasn't coached his way out of it yet. I am afraid of the UCLA game if Alford pulls his head out and zones us the whole game.

I don't buy the "Trier screwed up the chemistry"/"Team needed a wakeup call"/"Slow starts"/"Poor Effort" excuses one bit. Its our problem with the zone that has been biting us.....and the team has clearly been getting frustrated by it.

How much zone do you think we practice against? I'm sure our scout team zones in practice but that's not the best competition. I'm sure our starters aren't great at playing zone bc they never have in college (another reason to stick to M2M at all times right ). Just thinking most of our effective "practice" against it is during games when it counts, and get a team that plays it better than our scout team can and it throws us for a loop. Sometimes for a 1/2, sometimes the whole game. We kill M2M for the most part bc we practice against good competition who plays it well every day.

Miller's teams almost always (with few exceptions like today) play good/great D, but I think his commitment/stubborness to M2M ends up hurting our offense by not being able to practice against a good zone.

I'll agree with the OP, zone is the way to go against Arizona. I also point out that Arizona has lost a total of three games this year.

here comes another zone?

Cal crushes ASU . . . with a zone?
by Nick Kranz Feb 8, 2017, 11:48pm PST
Cuonzo Martin shuns his signature defense and gets rewarded with perhaps Cal’s best performance of the season
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/20 ... ith-a-zone

Looks like Cals $1.5M coach adapted his strategy to suit his personnel and match ups. I wonder what that's like ?

Cal's coach and program are also far less successful than Arizona's

RiseAndFire wrote:here comes another zone?

Cal crushes ASU . . . with a zone?
by Nick Kranz Feb 8, 2017, 11:48pm PST
Cuonzo Martin shuns his signature defense and gets rewarded with perhaps Cal’s best performance of the season
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/20 ... ith-a-zone

Looks like Cals $1.5M coach adapted his strategy to suit his personnel and match ups. I wonder what that's like ?

yeah man, fuggit. fire miller, cuonzo should be our guy!

RiseAndFire wrote:here comes another zone?

Cal crushes ASU . . . with a zone?
by Nick Kranz Feb 8, 2017, 11:48pm PST
Cuonzo Martin shuns his signature defense and gets rewarded with perhaps Cal’s best performance of the season
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/20 ... ith-a-zone

Looks like Cals $1.5M coach adapted his strategy to suit his personnel and match ups. I wonder what that's like ?

It seems like it would be like having NCAA tourney appearances in two of eight years with one Sweet 16 appearance and one first round exit based on Cuonzo's career record.

This year, specifically, it would mean we would be 4th in the Pac instead of alone in first. It would mean being unranked instead of being ranked in the top ten.

I mean, what is there not to like?

Correct me if I am wrong but I didnt see much zone last night. Maybe that is why Lauri played better and we won by almost 20.

Buh-bye, Ernie. You've been fired by the board.

So if a Sean Miller team played this Arizona team, would he use zone against us? And if not, should he be fired?

I'm going to pose this question to a tree that fell in the forest. What's that? You didn't hear it?

Never mind.

A team that doesn't regularly play some zone should not zone. Not us, not anyone. A bad zone is 10X worse than the worst M2M.

But, yeah...if a zone is at all part of a regular defensive game plan for a team, and they have practiced it and ran it in games, then any coach worth their weight should up the amount of zone they usually play when they see us on the court. Without a doubt. Not because we are helpless against it (we have seen zone damn near every game and have won damn near every game), but because it is more effective against our team than man, all things nearly even.

I would love to see an exclusive M2M team try to implement a zone in 2 to 4 days of practice and bring that shit on the court against us, though. We'd have about 15-20 offensive rebounds and get enough open 3 looks to get them totally out of shape/principles. Once you get a zone out of shape (a good one won't do that), it is an offenses best Christmas gift ever. Open lanes, times when no one stops ball because the defenders think the other has it, un-boxed put backs.

It's the same reason we should NOT play zone. Teams that don't regularly utilize it are awful in it. You don't just stick a zone into the game plan on Monday for Thursday use and expect it to be effective.

I do think sometimes fans think everyone sucks vs a zone because it does slow teams down and require a few more turns of the key to unlock. But you have to count 2nd chance opportunities off of zone-created O-boards in the overall effectiveness. If a zone slows us down and we shoot 44% instead of 48%, but get 6 more O boards because the zone gives up O boards, the net is a wash or a gain. Yet sometimes, all a fan sees is the lower percentage shooting and the longer possession.

Umm... Didn't we use a zone to great effect against UDub? Doesn't that blow your first paragraph's premise out of the water?

I don't like zone. I don't like when we play against it, and I don't like when we play it. However, I do like that we CAN play it if we get some benefit from doing so. Nice to have another tool in the toolbox.

gumby wrote:I'm going to pose this question to a tree that fell in the forest. What's that? You didn't hear it?

Never mind.

Thanks for answering the question, senator.

Puerco wrote:Umm... Didn't we use a zone to great effect against UDub? Doesn't that blow your first paragraph's premise out of the water?

I don't like zone. I don't like when we play against it, and I don't like when we play it. However, I do like that we CAN play it if we get some benefit from doing so. Nice to have another tool in the toolbox.

My guess is that he'll say we do practice it, rather than just throw it out there.

Puerco wrote:

gumby wrote:I'm going to pose this question to a tree that fell in the forest. What's that? You didn't hear it?

Never mind.

Thanks for answering the question, senator.

Careful, you're brushing up against Rule 19 by calling me such a vile name.

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:

gumby wrote:I'm going to pose this question to a tree that fell in the forest. What's that? You didn't hear it?

Never mind.

Thanks for answering the question, senator.

Careful, you're brushing up against Rule 19 by calling me such a vile name.

Nevertheless, you persist.

I feel it's Warrented.

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:Umm... Didn't we use a zone to great effect against UDub? Doesn't that blow your first paragraph's premise out of the water?

I don't like zone. I don't like when we play against it, and I don't like when we play it. However, I do like that we CAN play it if we get some benefit from doing so. Nice to have another tool in the toolbox.

My guess is that he'll say we do practice it, rather than just throw it out there.

Honestly, I don't think we practice it much.

But I don't think it is a good idea to run a defense you are not well versed in. Even if it works as an occasional "what the fuck" change up.

Lute used to do that...the WTF zone out of a time out. I am all for that. But that is not really coming out and zoning a team for a game. Giving multiple possessions for them to find your weakness.

To be clear...I am not anti-zone at all. Just not a fan of trying to change who you are fundamentally to meet one opponent. And I do think teams that are not zone principle teams who try to run it against us for too long will get killed.

So, no, some changeup zone doesn't blow my point out of the water at all. Not as I intended, anyway, though I will admit it is easy to say that after the fact. But if we really scrubbed past threads, we would find me saying "I liked when Lute switched to a zone out of a time out or in a possession to screw a team up." What I didn't like is when we became a 1-3-1 team. We did that because we sucked defensively.

I can agree with everything you say, EV. Well stated.

EVCat wrote:

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:Umm... Didn't we use a zone to great effect against UDub? Doesn't that blow your first paragraph's premise out of the water?

I don't like zone. I don't like when we play against it, and I don't like when we play it. However, I do like that we CAN play it if we get some benefit from doing so. Nice to have another tool in the toolbox.

My guess is that he'll say we do practice it, rather than just throw it out there.

Honestly, I don't think we practice it much.

But I don't think it is a good idea to run a defense you are not well versed in. Even if it works as an occasional "what the fuck" change up.

Lute used to do that...the WTF zone out of a time out. I am all for that. But that is not really coming out and zoning a team for a game. Giving multiple possessions for them to find your weakness.

To be clear...I am not anti-zone at all. Just not a fan of trying to change who you are fundamentally to meet one opponent. And I do think teams that are not zone principle teams who try to run it against us for too long will get killed.

So, no, some changeup zone doesn't blow my point out of the water at all. Not as I intended, anyway, though I will admit it is easy to say that after the fact. But if we really scrubbed past threads, we would find me saying "I liked when Lute switched to a zone out of a time out or in a possession to screw a team up." What I didn't like is when we became a 1-3-1 team. We did that because we sucked defensively.

Pretty sure in todays presser Miller said they practice it all the time, he may have even said every day I do not recall, but it was in response to this idea that it was not something we are familiar with and he laid that to rest suggesting they regularly practice it, but choose not to use it based on the teams we play...

Zone is kind of admission we can't play solid man to man in some cases, against Washington Fultze kinda did what ever he wanted and the zone slowed the bleeding down, we ran it like 7 plays or so...

Like EvCat and CatFanOneMil said, there's value in a situational zone: It stops the bleeding. Miller did that to good effect against Fultz. But every time Miller has played zone this season, he's been shorthanded two players, and it's served to limit our wear-down while the game clock ticks. I think it's reasonable that if Arizona weren't shorthanded, Fultz either wouldn't have become unstoppable, or Miller would have inserted Allen to slow him down instead of going to the 2-3.

I counted a 14-6 run. Went to it down 52-51 after a spate of Fultz drives. I was a bit surprised we returned to man before it cracked. Just shows what he's comfortable with, I guess. Or he feels they got the rest they needed for the stretch drive.

I truly don't believe he would just throw it out there. It was hardly desperation time. He said they work on it. Must be a reason. Looks like one or more of those reasons arose.

In the last five minutes, I think there was one field goal (Chance's putback). Everything else was free throws on both sides. Combination of tired legs and UW needing to stop clock.

gumby wrote:I counted a 14-6 run. Went to it down 52-51 after a spate of Fultz drives. I was a bit surprised we returned to man before it cracked. Just shows what he's comfortable with, I guess. Or he feels they got the rest they needed for the stretch drive.

I truly don't believe he would just throw it out there. It was hardly desperation time. He said they work on it. Must be a reason. Looks like one or more of those reasons arose.

In the last five minutes, I think there was one field goal (Chance's putback). Everything else was free throws on both sides. Combination of tired legs and UW needing to stop clock.

I would venture the reason is to compensate for a lack of depth. As LH said, we've only seen it in a situation where we were shorthanded. At full capacity, depth and wearing people down is a strength of ours. Shorthanded, Miller may feel like he needs another tool.

I still don't think we practice it much. We get, what? 20 hours a week by NCAA rules? I am not thinking we are even giving 20% of our practice time to a zone...maybe more practice of zone when we have the injuries that require us to play more zone (adjusting to the situation). I don't really think Miller would come out and say "we rarely practice zone but we had to scramble to tune it up after losing Kadeem and Dusan" and just announce to the world. But how crazy would it be to practice "every day" something we use in a handful of possessions a year? Yes, I am sure we practice zone if we play it. Yes, I am sure we have players who have practiced zone principles before they even get to Arizona. No, I don't think we spend an impactful amount of our limited practice time on a defense we hardly ever use. We should hope we aren't dedicating much time to a defense we play 1 of every 100 possessions.

I bet they 'practice zone' a fair bit, because you need to play zone for your offense to practice against it.

EVCat wrote:I still don't think we practice it much. We get, what? 20 hours a week by NCAA rules? I am not thinking we are even giving 20% of our practice time to a zone...maybe more practice of zone when we have the injuries that require us to play more zone (adjusting to the situation). I don't really think Miller would come out and say "we rarely practice zone but we had to scramble to tune it up after losing Kadeem and Dusan" and just announce to the world. But how crazy would it be to practice "every day" something we use in a handful of possessions a year? Yes, I am sure we practice zone if we play it. Yes, I am sure we have players who have practiced zone principles before they even get to Arizona. No, I don't think we spend an impactful amount of our limited practice time on a defense we hardly ever use. We should hope we aren't dedicating much time to a defense we play 1 of every 100 possessions.

I would think we have zone offense practice and that doubles as zone D practice. I doubt Miller does a lot of teaching on that point, but I assume we do practice zone offense, and you need a D to go against.

It's smart to segment game situation work to work on both offense and D when you are just doing general prep. Contrary to Rise and Fire's rantings, I don't doubt Miller works on zone offense.

Puerco wrote:I bet they 'practice zone' a fair bit, because you need to play zone for your offense to practice against it.

Este. Good point.

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:I bet they 'practice zone' a fair bit, because you need to play zone for your offense to practice against it.

Este. Good point.

It's a fair point, but you don't focus on the particulars/principle soundness of the zone you are running to scout. You walk through individual places the ball should go, then run them full speed, then add on, then run it all at full speed. The coaches aren't going to blow a whistle to say "Chance? In the 2-3, you are the 5, right? You have to step to the high block when the ball comes to the wing...you can't stay under the basket. Rawle...when we trap the corner, you have to come all the way to the elbow as the 3...we aren't denying the wing here. Why are you coming all the way over? Because no one stayed backside. You only stay on the far side of the key if we are denying a pass from the corner, and if no one is there, you don't need to stay backside. Pinch in. (whistle) Start over..."

It may seem overly specific, but we aren't going to be focused on the soundness of the scout zone. We are going to stop and go and stop and go off the offensive movement, working on that. Otherwise, every team in America could roll a practiced zone onto the court and it would never be an issue.

But zone defensive teams practice zone defense...not just running scout against the offense to get ready for a zone, but specifically on the zone.

But, by letter of the law, that is absolutely correct in that we run zone a fair amount in practice. I just wouldn't say we were practicing our zone when we are going over defense. But I bet our 2nd team and our walk ons run one fuckin fabulous 2-3

We failed to score 100 points against a zone again

We just suck vs the zone

Alieberman wrote:We failed to score 100 points against a zone again

We just suck vs the zone

This is fake news, and any posters critical of the OP are paid protesters