Cusefan0307
Red recruits the ACC!
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 45,320
- Like
- 128,072
Washington is on right now. It’s going to be interesting who finishes with more wins. It’s going to go down to the wire.
We beat Maryland. Thanks for playing.When teams like Maryland and Virginia go bananas against us from 3, we lose almost every time
First I want to state that dont mind the zone (and since I'm engaging in this discussion I must also not mind beating a dead horse). But my biggest problem with Jimmy's philosophy is that its based on the premise that there is never a time in which you should play man to man. That and he is the only coach in college basketball that believes this. I disagree with this philosophy, and so does everyone else in his profession.
While we have a good defense this year, the fact remains that the 3 pointer can kill the zone. College ball is relying on the 3 pointer more than ever. When teams like Maryland and Virginia go bananas against us from 3, we lose almost every time. I would like us to keep the zone as the primary defense but switch it up with some man and the press. Teams know how to execute against the zone better than they did 10 years ago. Not to mention a bigger attraction to recruits who refuse to play only zone.
what say you?
Well, as to "never" they do stray from the zone when they bring out the trunk monkey, but that is always in extremis.
The long-proferred answer to your point is that because they do nothing else, they play zone more effectively than anyone else.
Sometimes that seems true, sometimes it doesn't.
Washington is on right now. It’s going to be interesting who finishes with more wins. It’s going to go down to the wire.
Jimmy does stray away from the zone but I never said he didn't, I said he never plays man. And I don't disagree with any of your response, im sure that is the answer that is/would be given. Im not trying to come off as argumentative here because I know your stating the answer that would be given and not necessarily your opinion, but, just because zone is played at a high level does not mean you cant play man at a high level also (or at least in spurts). More importantly, the philosophical premise for that stance is that there is never a time where playing man-to-man is beneficial. That to me is an exceptionally close minded and very limiting view. And I think we have all seen times when the zone is not working as it should for whatever myriad of reasons. Finally, he is the only coach in basketball with this philosophy, that is and should be an enormous red flag imho.
First I want to state that dont mind the zone (and since I'm engaging in this discussion I must also not mind beating a dead horse). But my biggest problem with Jimmy's philosophy is that its based on the premise that there is never a time in which you should play man to man. That and he is the only coach in college basketball that believes this. I disagree with this philosophy, and so does everyone else in his profession.
Your statement, "Jimmy's philosophy is that its based on the premise that there is never a time in which you should play man to man" suggests to me that you do not understand why JB does what he does.
Can you list for us as many of the reasons he has for playing 100% zone as you can?
"No one else does it" doesn't prove anything.
I don't understand your question. JB doesn't play 100% zone on the defensive side of the ball. He presses. This was discussed earlier in the thread per the discussion with hungrychuck.
While "no one else does it" does not "prove" anything, it was never suppose to, nor did I say it did. Quite the opposite as I end my next post with the sentence regarding that topic with "in my humble opinion". What I am saying is that I disagree with the premise that if you play zone you can not play man-to-man well. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion. I believe you can do both.
I think the best way to save us both a lot of time and posting lol is to ask one question. In your opinion, in all of your years of watch/playing/being involved in basketball, has there ever been a time under any circumstance, where you felt a man-to-man defense would be more succesful than a zone?
The team is now ranked 14th in defensive efficiency, per KenPom. They can improve in some aspects but that’s damn good. Defense isn’t the issue. It’s the stagnant and predictable offense that’s killing us.While we have a good defense this year, the fact remains that the 3 pointer can kill the zone. College ball is relying on the 3 pointer more than ever. When teams like Maryland and Virginia go bananas against us from 3, we lose almost every time. I would like us to keep the zone as the primary defense but switch it up with some man and the press. Teams know how to execute against the zone better than they did 10 years ago. Not to mention a bigger attraction to recruits who refuse to play only zone.
what say you?
We’re not switching to man . But perhaps we should modify the types of athletes we recruit so that we put an emphasis on skill rather than defensive zone potential ...at least for some of the positions
JB is a stubborn man. He's not going to change. He's always going to play 2-3 zone. He's always going to have a small rotation of players.
I don't understand your question. JB doesn't play 100% zone on the defensive side of the ball. He presses. This was discussed earlier in the thread per the discussion with hungrychuck.
While "no one else does it" does not "prove" anything, it was never suppose to, nor did I say it did. Quite the opposite as I end my next post with the sentence regarding that topic with "in my humble opinion". What I am saying is that I disagree with the premise that if you play zone you can not play man-to-man well. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion. I believe you can do both.
I think the best way to save us both a lot of time and posting lol is to ask one question. In your opinion, in all of your years of watch/playing/being involved in basketball, has there ever been a time under any circumstance, where you felt a man-to-man defense would be more succesful than a zone?
I completely agree with every single word of that post, it's right on point
JB is a stubborn man. He's not going to change. He's always going to play 2-3 zone. He's always going to have a small rotation of players.
" It's not that he won't change (and agree with you). It's that he doesn't agree with you."
YEAH. and every other college coach in america. we must all be wrong. the earth is flat cuz JB believes it.
No, the shape of the earth is a physical fact.
The superiority of one defense over another is a matter of opinion. The facts (statistics) demonstrate that SU is usually a pretty good defensive team.
Frustrated fans lash out, cry for changes, any change. It's what they do.
the facts do say how many teams play zone only and how many titles they have won . those are indeed facts .
opinion says you and JB may not always be the smartest people in the room. but i'll just stick to the facts.
I like stats as well. 40 years. 1 championship.
35th in defensive efficiency that year of the championship. Similar to other years, better than some, but what was different that year that resulted in a title? Hmmm...