Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Onions, post: 1961494, member: 3284"] "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? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach