Becuase Hurley thought the team would be better that way originally. He adjusted when it wasn't the case. He plays the long game and most here have shown over that years that they don't understand that.
That's a good question and relevant to the discussion of whether Hurley tries to set an example of having a good culture.
Maybe the part about 2 more wins is ridiculous, but getting a zone ready seems like a good idea.
A quirk I have is that folks wanting zone remind me of folks that want the back-up QB.
Not the same. We have defensive deficiencies that may(or may not if we improve enough) that could stop an NCAA run in its tracks. It's the reverse of having a zone buster player on the bench. Maybe you get a team that is driving it down our throat, a 5 out team that lacks outside shooting. Having a zone defense to throw at them might be an effective response.
There is something preventing Hurley from using Harris how many think he can be used. It’s rare we go into him with intention, especially late in a clock when it seems he could be a major advantage. Perhaps that’s because we are so generally efficient on offense, maybe he doesn’t flash in the post well timed. He always seems to have better games when we look for him.
Having a zone is not and never will be the answer. It works for a handful of possessions max, and beyond that goes against our entire defensive identity. There's a reason why the guys who struggled on defense early in the season have looked significantly better the last few weeks
I think having it ready and using it for a handful of possessions is beneficial. Of course our defensive identity is man. But a quick zone look change causes other coach/team to reconfigure, on fly, new offense they will use to attack it. For years a lot of coaches changed up defenses with mades/misses. Look at Pitino, still one of the best technicians out there, he gives different looks throughout the game,.
I'll take one handful per half when needed thank you. I don't think anyone is asking Hurley to become Boeheim.
We tried that earlier in the year, and we got absolutely roasted on defense. There's a reason we don't go zone, and it's because it was even worse than the man to man defense
Message received!! No Zones for us.
I agree in principle, I'm just not sure how effective a strategy it is. In theory it makes sense to use it as a strategy to try to hide the defensive deficiencies, but it limits the impact of our good defenders. And I'd rather keep using practice time to improve the weaker defenders, that's already been paying dividends with those improvements
Many here have been begging for different athletes to get playing time, wanting to see how they play(Mad Nowell #1). The latest is Abraham. The zone advocates are the same. They won't be satisfied until it is proven or disproven. Not a hill to die on for me, just more message board fun for Boneyard loonies. I think if given a chance, it would be a weapon. Probably not going to see it, as you have pointed out, it's not in our DNA.
Thats the best point really. To run anything but a vanilla 2-3 in a game it takes practice time away from your oob plays or new sets or whatever else etc. I coached for awhile & just keeping 3 second plays or pressbreakers fresh throughout yr takes valuable practice time.
He's one of the most productive per minute bigs in the conference.
Yes, but has a history of good half/bad half from his Michigan years.
