I can't fathom why you would say you don't get my post, and then write this rambling, fairly obnoxious, semi-incoherent response in return. Unless you were doing it to be mean by forcing me to read it.
You're arguing over the word "great?" You realize that's a subjective assessment? It's an opinion. Like, I think Twizzlers are great. It's not a fact. Name 10 coaches off the top of your head that have been to more championship games. That alone could put him in the discussion without the need for such an over-the-top response.
We were torched by multiple D2 schools? Could you name them all? I got LeMoyne, you finish the list. Not sure I see your point anyway. I wasn't advocating that we go man exclusively. I said mix it in. I trust JB to assess whether the guys in the game can play it, I just wish it was something we had and could employ from time to time.
I would assume, and this is just a guess, if we were going to play a little M2M defense, we might practice it. Are you for real?
I'm not sure this is hard to understand. We have been recruiting players (seemingly) that are a fit for the zone, but often we've had guys like Patterson, Roberson, Johnson, Cooney, etc...that are too one-dimensional on offense.
Some of those guys, like BJ Johnson, etc...can't get on the court because they're not good enough to play zone. I see that as a problem. I think we're sort of agreeing, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to argue. I do think it's a problem that we have kids that can't get on the court for two years because the zone is so intricate. I think that falls on coaching to a certain extent, but more on our recruiting philosophy. Ultimately, that's why I was implying that you have to recruit players that can offer up enough offensively to offset some of the limitations that exist early on. Like a Lydon...
Dude.
You used the word "great," no? Am i 'arguing' the definition? I asked you to clarify what 'greatness' is in your mind, because i dispute that JB is "great." And, yes, inherent in that dispute is an understanding that it's subjective. That's the point. You made a declarative statement of a subjective assessment. I asked that you back it up. Now, you're asking for ten coaches that have been to more championship games. That would not be a metric in my definition of "great." It's far too simplistic. But, maybe that's what you need. And, even in a simplistic discussion, you're still misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying he "sucks." I personally put him on a 'second tier.' Three championship appearances. In 40 years. 'Pretty good.' Not "great." If that's great, then i'd have to ask if you have a 'classification' above "great." If so, then, as i was suggesting, it's a semantic game.
You suggested we "mix in" man to man. This year. When we no longer even practice it. Then, you're now saying you trust JB to decide whether we can play it. Which, apparently, he has decided we can't. Then, you say that if we were to mix it in, we should practice it. A lot of conflicts in 'reasoning.' We sucked at it, so we stopped playing it and practicing it. But, contrary to JB's assessment — the reason why we stopped — you think we should have begun again THIS YEAR, at some point after the season had commenced, to begin practicing it again, so we could employ it THIS YEAR. That is a
wholly-incoherent response. But, then, you now go on to suggest that it's just something you "wish... we had and could employ from time to time." Well, shucks. I'd like to introduce you to Me. I hate the zone. I, too, wish we played M2M. Perhaps not exclusively, but... a lot. But, i'm not silly enough to suggest that a coach that could not get good athletes to do it successfully against our early cupcake schedule — after practicing it "exclusively" (as had been reported) for years — that we can just turn on the good M2M switch and launch into it during a season. A season during which we were also going to be missing our coach for some period of 9 games. Are
you for real?
"I'm not sure this is hard to understand. We have been recruiting players (seemingly) that are a fit for the zone, but often we've had guys like Patterson, Roberson, Johnson, Cooney, etc...that are too one-dimensional on offense."
Yeah, that is hard (for me) to understand. It's a common comment, that JB "recruits for the zone." But, we have as many players that fit into that supposed archetype as players that don't. It's an illusion. A commentator's BS talking point. GMac. Onuaku. Rick... Not "long and lean and quick" guys, as the commentators usually characterize "zone guys." Trevor isn't even the prototypical front of the zone guy. But, he's been successful there, in some respects, if you count steals, but dismiss the old 'tap the midsection as you're shooting' thing... But, whatever. We were recruiting the same types of athletes when we were a M2M team as we are now.
You can't figure out what i'm trying to argue? I'm arguing the 'logic' of your statements. And, yeah, we're actually on the same side of some of those specious arguments.
"The zone is so intricate." If we watch JB's reactions to opponents' scores, we might be persuaded that it is. But, it isn't. JB has a conniption whenever someone scores on it. The younger the defender, the bigger the conniption. But, the ball moves faster than the defender. The defender can be manipulated by the pass. That's why we get lit up by kids with only basic skills (see the Italian kid at St. J who "bring the guns"). Because they don't have to beat
a defender off the ball. They can stand there, wait for a sequence of passes to manipulate two defenders out of position, catch the ball, and shoot. Simple. And, we'll have two guys run at the shooter, but they were not in front of said shooter because they were chasing the faster ball, and therefore cannot be where the ball
was or
is going. So, someone gets yanked or bitched at for 'allowing' a shot... I wonder if that might affect that player's performance on the other end of the court... No, of course not. Everything is in isolation, right? The zone is less intricate than man to man. My sense is that that's why we're in it. Less effort, not more, from JB... But, heck — that's just, like,
my opinion, man.
If it's a problem that a kid is a zone defensive liability for his first "two years," then that means we can't/shouldn't recruit anyone who would be here for less time, which means not enough talent to compete at the top of the ACC. As i have been saying, that's kinda like the Triangle Offense. Phil says it takes a few years to get players to learn it and to commit to it. Which means you have a continuing carousel of players who aren't committed to it and don't understand it. Which is counterproductive, despite the 'metric' of the number of championships he's won with it. If the number of championships was the metric for deciding what type of offense to run, then all of the other coaches in the NBA/around the world (and why not in college?) should be adopting the Triangle. Those guys are more 'basketball smart/'sperienced' than you or I, sooooo... So, yeah, i think that's another point we agree on. Just not for the same reasons. But, i still don't get the thing about needing to "recruit players that can offer up enough offensively to offset some of the limitations that exist early on. Like a Lydon..."
I don't think Lydon is any better or worse in the zone than other players we've had who were criticized for their play. And, largely, that may be a matter of rarely having seen him in the proper position. Hard to say whether he's good in the zone when he's been at center, where it doesn't much matter if he's in the 'proper position,' as his weight/strength doesn't permit him to defend there either way. I truly believe a kid gets a reputation for 'bad zone play' based on the number of times JB screams at/yanks him, while the same plays go unpunished by veterans. And, it's a quickly-cascading negative reinforcement effect. You get screamed at, you begin to question your every move, your moves become less intuitive and more 'thinky' and that's the death knell. And, then THAT kills you on the offensive side. JB likes to 'tear people down' before building them up. A one size fits all approach to 'development.' It doesn't always work that way, and even when it does work eventually, we're still left with kids on the court in the process of being torn down. Which doesn't help our offense. Again — opinion. But, since there's no empirical means of measuring determining it either way, i'm sticking with it. Sucks to have a kid like Frankie on the court, who CAN score, afraid to do anything toward the hoop. I'm all for 'guidelines' and frameworks for young and unproven players, but not the kind that seem like they're implemented on the game floor, while a kid is trying to grow and help us.
So, at the end of all this, i'm still left wondering... You said JB is great, and then detail the many ways in which you believe he should change... Which is where i am. What would he be if he did all of those things?
