Zones - Glen Miller's Fools Gold

[Chief00]

Wow c'mon Chief stay with us here. We all agree with you in a better year with a full squad this is the way to go, man all out the UConn way. But you have no argument for how it was played the other night, ZERO. They had match up nightmares galore, they have only 2 serviceable guards neither of which are PG's and they have 2 bigs that always are in foul trouble. Did you really want this game played with 5 walk ons the last 10 minutes?

You have no argument, they played it the way it had to be played and I will make you cringe again like Onions - 'Nuff said

I understand those micro arguments - and have said zone can be part of the toolbox. I don't want to sound like Diaco -but if we want to built a strong culture and identity of accountability and yes Stairmaster - Alpha male type players (cringe) - taking the long view predominately man is the way to go if we want to position our players to eventually win tough games.

 

[mauconnfan]

I understand those micro arguments - and have said zone can be part of the toolbox. I don't want to sound like Diaco -but if we want to built a strong culture and identity of accountability and yes Stairmaster - Alpha male type players (cringe) - taking the long view predominately man is the way to go if we want to position our players to eventually win tough games.

When healthy and roster is full I'm all in on this Chief!

 

[Onions]

Quite frankly, when someone ends their post with "nuff said" it generally means their arguments are weak and they don't want a counter response.
Ok, I will break it down again for the casual fans and others:
- Houston shot well over 50% - it was not great defense - KO said that himself post game. The reason they had less points was the time of possession not the quality of our possessions.
- I have said numerous times the problem with this team is they can't shoot and even in this thread I analyze that aspect.
- However basketball is not a two platoon sport as some of our posters with football backgrounds think - if played the right way - it's a transition game - allowing a team to throw up three shots on one possession and making one (33%) does not help the offense. Playing aggressive D - getting turnover, a block shot in bounds or a rebound and getting out and running is how the game is played and that improves your offense.
- This idea that zones protect fouls - I have seen us commit numerous fouls playing zones this year including the Auburn game where we were in the bonus and double bonus very early.

"Houston shot well over 50% - it was not great defense. "
-- Agreed. It was bad defense and unbelievably, ridiculously, absurdly, historically bad offense - and you're concentrating on the defense.

"The reason they had less points was the time of possession not the quality of our possessions."
-- Agreed, which is why it was smart to play zone - less possessions are better for the worse team. If we had played man we would have lost by 40.

"Playing aggressive D - getting turnover, a block shot in bounds or a rebound and getting out and running is how the game is played and that improves your offense."
-- Blocked shots have nothing to do with zone vs man, so let's pass on that one. Aggressive D leads to turnovers leads to transition buckets - Agreed. But it also leads to fouls, faster pace, and exhaustion when playing with only 7 guys in uniform. Nobody is arguing against aggressive man2man under normal circumstances, but clearly these are not normal circumstances.

"I have seen us commit numerous fouls playing zones this year including the Auburn game where we were in the bonus and double bonus very early"
-- And more fouls would be committed if we played man, which means we would have been into the walk ons by half time. There was a game earlier in the year when we had played zone for most of the first half and then in the second half KO switched to man and Kenton Facey picked up 2 fouls in less than a minute after replacing Brimah who had just picked up his third. We have foul prone biggs and they will pick up fouls when playing zone, but they will pick them up faster playing man.

If your argument is that if we played aggressive man we would have scored more I will agree with that. Instead of losing 62-46 we would have lost 92-58 with Sampson calling off the dogs after Brimah, Facey and Purvis fouled out. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Hi-Low]

I'm no defensive guru like some but my take....we're playing zone with this limited roster because KO/staff still want to try & win a game or 2.

 

[Chief00]

"Houston shot well over 50% - it was not great defense. "
-- Agreed. It was bad defense and unbelievably, ridiculously, absurdly, historically bad offense - and you're concentrating on the defense.

"The reason they had less points was the time of possession not the quality of our possessions."
-- Agreed, which is why it was smart to play zone - less possessions are better for the worse team. If we had played man we would have lost by 40.

"Playing aggressive D - getting turnover, a block shot in bounds or a rebound and getting out and running is how the game is played and that improves your offense."
-- Blocked shots have nothing to do with zone vs man, so let's pass on that one. Aggressive D leads to turnovers leads to transition buckets - Agreed. But it also leads to fouls, faster pace, and exhaustion when playing with only 7 guys in uniform. Nobody is arguing against aggressive man2man under normal circumstances, but clearly these are not normal circumstances.

"I have seen us commit numerous fouls playing zones this year including the Auburn game where we were in the bonus and double bonus very early"
-- And more fouls would be committed if we played man, which means we would have been into the walk ons by half time. There was a game earlier in the year when we had played zone for most of the first half and then in the second half KO switched to man and Kenton Facey picked up 2 fouls in less than a minute after replacing Brimah who had just picked up his third. We have foul prone biggs and they will pick up fouls when playing zone, but they will pick them up faster playing man.

If your argument is that if we played aggressive man we would have scored more I will agree with that. Instead of losing 62-46 we would have lost 92-58 with Sampson calling off the dogs after Brimah, Facey and Purvis fouled out. Does that make you feel better?

You have a defeatist attitude and make many opinion assumptions about what might have happened if we played man. We do know for a fact zone was a disaster - if you disagree about our defense against Houston you are disagreeing with KO's post game quotes. I think we should be building the team with predominantly man defense for the conference tournament. And yes - we may find out UConn is not the right fit for certain guys and I am ok with that. With other guys we will say - he's our man. Playing zone has been very ineffective and made our offense worse leading to passive play.

 

[champs99and04]

Hate to ask this but what does 36-12 have to do with man or zone? Are you saying we scored 12 because we weren't playing man defense?

The other team got 26 in the 2nd half and we got 34 doing the same thing, the only difference is making shots had nothing to do with our defense. I think we all come from Jim C's brand of hard nosed defense and would love to see man-to-man for basically 40 minutes but reality is it's insane to even think this crew could match up with anyone never mind actually do it and stay out of foul trouble. Not sure what people aren't getting when at no point in that game would we have been playing the 3 best players on the beginning roster at any point of the game and the only PG we have left for any part of the game? This was a no-brainer and they were forced to do this and no other coach on earth would have done it differently including one Mr Jim Calhoun. This gave the team their best chance to win period. 5 players were Enoch, Brimah, Facey, Durham and Jackson none of who can guard a 2G, swing or anyone who can play away from the basket. And Houston plays 4 guys who can handle the ball - please think about that 36 being 50 and how everyone is in foul trouble at halftime and the walk ons are playing? Exactly!

No, I'm saying we got waxed - and were going to get waxed regardless of what defense we played - so you might as well play man. It's not like this was a postseason game where we had to pull out all of the stops to grind it out. It was, quite literally, a meaningless game that has no baring on the long-term success of the program. I'd rather play man for 30 minutes and get burned out, knowing that it will be better for us down the road, than play zone for 30 minutes and be down 36-12 to a mid-major.

As Chief said, this game was an opportunity to develop through a feet to the fire approach, but I didn't see much of it. You want to see flashes from a team like this like @James was saying. These are valuable reps playing m2m defense that a kid like Enoch needs and isn't going to have the opportunity to get during practice.

 

[Onions]

No, I'm saying we got waxed - and were going to get waxed regardless of what defense we played - so you might as well play man. It's not like this was a postseason game where we had to pull out all of the stops to grind it out. It was, quite literally, a meaningless game that has no baring on the long-term success of the program. I'd rather play man for 30 minutes and get burned out, knowing that it will be better for us down the road, than play zone for 30 minutes and be down 36-12 to a mid-major.

As Chief said, this game was an opportunity to develop through a feet to the fire approach, but I didn't see much of it. You want to see flashes from a team like this like @James was saying. These are valuable reps playing m2m defense that a kid like Enoch needs and isn't going to have the opportunity to get during practice.

I hate to be the one to inform you, but KO is still trying to win games. Being down 16 points meant we were still, theoretically in the game till the last 5 minutes. Being down 40 with 3 starters fouled out means your out of it. forget playing zone or not (and by the way they did play man for part of the game), if KO had thrown in the towel he would have benched Amida and Kenton and let Enoch and Juwan have all the playing time - but he didn't. You have the option of looking to next year, but he's still coaching to win, hard as that might be.

 

[Onions]

You have a defeatist attitude and make many opinion assumptions about what might have happened if we played man. We do know for a fact zone was a disaster - if you disagree about our defense against Houston you are disagreeing with KO's post game quotes. I think we should be building the team with predominantly man defense for the conference tournament. And yes - we may find out UConn is not the right fit for certain guys and I am ok with that. With other guys we will say - he's our man. Playing zone has been very ineffective and made our offense worse leading to passive play.

Playing man might be good for the future of the program, but playing zone gave us our best chance, however slim that might have been, for beating Houston on that day.

If KO said we sucked on D I'm not surprised because we did. What he didn't say was that if he had to do it all over again he would have played man.

KO is building the team with predominantly man defense, because that's who he is and what he does best. However he is not an idiot, and when circumstances dictate that he do something else he will, and I can't think of any coach who wouldn't.

I expect to see more m2m once Jalen comes back, I expect to see mostly man next year, as usual. What I don't expect is to see him try to go with full court pressure for 40 minutes when he has a 7 man roster.

 

[Chief00]

I really don't think it gave us the best chance to win - as stated previously I understand these conventional arguments for zone. I just don't agree they work for us and the results speak for themselves.

 

[mauconnfan]

I really don't think it gave us the best chance to win - as stated previously I understand these conventional arguments for zone. I just don't agree they work for us and the results speak for themselves.

What you guys are forgetting with all of this "teaching the kids the right way" approach is they won't be playing enough to learn anything, or shall I say wouldn't have been the other night as they all would have been in foul trouble and fouling out early. I just don't see how Enoch or Durham would learn anything guarding a 6'5" guy who plays on the perimeter? Nothing would have been learned at all with the mismatches and many here would have been bitching about how awful our defenders are. I mean you may see more man today and I'm sure you will if Jalen is healthy but the other night played out jus like it should have minus the loss itself.

 

[Chief00]

I can hear Stairmaster objecting now - but we really need to bring back the alpha male to UConn basketball.

There is a reason why I used "fool's gold" in the title of this thread. There are reasonable, logical reasons why one can argue we should play zone (short staff, fouls, tired and wrong personnel). My assessment is that you need to avoid that temptation pitfall - and teach the young fellows what UConn Men's BB is all about - if you don't work hard in the summer you will be exposed / no hiding in a zone. You need to be in condition and strong - unless you are the #1 scorer - no plays off on defense. You need to learn transition - basketball is not a 2 platoon game. It's a flow and you start your running and flow moving around on defense.

 

[Stainmaster]

I can hear Stairmaster objecting now - but we really need to bring back the alpha male to UConn basketball.

Why do you love to make strawman arguments so much, Chief?

 

[Dogbreath2U]

Jim Calhoun's UConn teams played a good deal of zone from the time I started watching (Dream Season) through at least 97-98 which is where I am at in watching old games from Husky Games site when I battle the treadmill. I'm not sure when he stopped playing it (anyone know?), but it is not at all true to say that Calhoun was only a man-to-man coach.

 

[Chief00]

Why do you love to make strawman arguments so much, Chief?

You generally have a disdain for Jim Calhoun's approaches. I know when pushed you will deny it - but then it comes out over and over again. I know Coach can be rough at times - and maybe he said or did something that offended you? I don't know. But, you seem overjoyed he is no longer coaching - and there are some people like me who appreciated everything he did - even when some of those things in isolation were roundly criticized. When you associate anything about me with him - you imply he is no longer relevant etc and hence I am not.

Other than being part of a birthday gift for my mom I have never asked Calhoun for a favor - KO I did once and he immediately delivered. So I don't know where this divisive old vs new guard comes from. I like both - what you consider to be the old and the new.

I will say this and it's an opinion - Calhoun appreciated people who weren't just there after the wins but people who were there when it was unpopular. People forget how he was criticized for recruiting Caron Butler and the Nate Miles story has taken on such a mythical negative narrative the truth will never come out. Clyde Vaughan was another guy who did a lot in his short tenure - and many ran away from him due to a mistake that was a misdemeanor. There were also the snorkie comments some had about El Amin not attending class enough etc. So if Jim Calhoun offended you it may be he thought you weren't onboard at those type of times? Just speculation on my part and not a straw man.

 

[Chief00]

Jim Calhoun's UConn teams played a good deal of zone from the time I started watching (Dream Season) through at least 97-98 which is where I am at in watching old games from Husky Games site when I battle the treadmill. I'm not sure when he stopped playing it (anyone know?), but it is not at all true to say that Calhoun was only a man-to-man coach.

Weren't they full or 3/4 court presses - that became man to man in the half court? For purposes of this discussion I am referring to zones in the half court. Full court zone presses are aggressive.