17 hours ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

If there was ever a team that would probably benefit from zone, it might be this team but then they'll get crushed even more on the glass. We are gonna see a lot of high ball screens. 

Can completely forget that with the zone, our Hall of Famer would never lower himself to those standards, makes way too much sense!!

10 minutes ago, nikeman49 said:

Can completely forget that with the zone, our Hall of Famer would never lower himself to those standards, makes way too much sense!!

With the players UK always has, playing zone is saying you failed as a defensive coach. With talented players, you should only play zone in very limited circumstances. Even more so this year with shot blockers at the back of the defense.

52 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

With the players UK always has, playing zone is saying you failed as a defensive coach. With talented players, you should only play zone in very limited circumstances. Even more so this year with shot blockers at the back of the defense.

So he failed as a defensive coach yesterday, and the talented players should have played a zone, that would be a circumstance?

20 hours ago, Breds82 said:

I have a rules question. On the AM offensive foul on the 3pt attempt, Bilas was adamant it should’ve been on Sheppard. I thought it’s and offensive foul if the offense intentionally makes contact to try and draw a foul. If he doesn’t kick his leg out Sheppard would not have touched him. Likewise on the Sheppard foul I thought it was extremely ticky-tacky call.

Anyone willing to help a brother out here?

25 minutes ago, nikeman49 said:

So he failed as a defensive coach yesterday, and the talented players should have played a zone, that would be a circumstance?

My comment was in general, like yours was, not about that specific game. I will add, if you play a switching man and/or do a good job hedging, it isn't much different than zone and you get tighter coverage overall.

Yesterday, as MJ said above, going zone against a very good offensive rebounding team is usually not a good idea. In yesterday's game, there were defensive failures in the last minutes at crucial points. For example, Sheppard allowing that easy stick back basket in the last couple minutes. Teaching moment. Sheppard will do better. It's all part of the learning process. 

I am trying to think of a circumstance where I would play zone with this team. Nothing is coming to mind because of the depth. The one I thought of was a foul trouble situation but with the depth, I don't think we will see that. Just like yesterday with Bradshaw. Ugo played great with a number of blocks so why go zone?

 

27 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

My comment was in general, like yours was, not about that specific game. I will add, if you play a switching man and/or do a good job hedging, it isn't much different than zone and you get tighter coverage overall.

Yesterday, as MJ said above, going zone against a very good offensive rebounding team is usually not a good idea. In yesterday's game, there were defensive failures in the last minutes at crucial points. For example, Sheppard allowing that easy stick back basket in the last couple minutes. Teaching moment. Sheppard will do better. It's all part of the learning process. 

I am trying to think of a circumstance where I would play zone with this team. Nothing is coming to mind because of the depth. The one I thought of was a foul trouble situation but with the depth, I don't think we will see that. Just like yesterday with Bradshaw. Ugo played great with a number of blocks so why go zone?

 

I can answer the why go zone part??  Just do it for maybe 3-4 minutes to change things up when somebody is killing your man D, (like yesterday), change the flow of the other team when they’re in great rhythm offensively, maybe get them standing around a little, I’ve done it and seen plenty of coaches do it but that’s in game adjustments, something Cal has always struggled with 

24 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

My comment was in general, like yours was, not about that specific game. I will add, if you play a switching man and/or do a good job hedging, it isn't much different than zone and you get tighter coverage overall.

Yesterday, as MJ said above, going zone against a very good offensive rebounding team is usually not a good idea. In yesterday's game, there were defensive failures in the last minutes at crucial points. For example, Sheppard allowing that easy stick back basket in the last couple minutes. Teaching moment. Sheppard will do better. It's all part of the learning process. 

I am trying to think of a circumstance where I would play zone with this team. Nothing is coming to mind because of the depth. The one I thought of was a foul trouble situation but with the depth, I don't think we will see that. Just like yesterday with Bradshaw. Ugo played great with a number of blocks so why go zone?

 

They didn’t hedge or do a good job switching the entire game yesterday, so why not change things up for maybe just a few possessions so you aren’t so predictable? Cal just simply doesn’t adjust to game situations, never has, never will, and teams that make deep tournament runs make good game situation decisions.

22 minutes ago, nikeman49 said:

They didn’t hedge or do a good job switching the entire game yesterday, so why not change things up for maybe just a few possessions so you aren’t so predictable? Cal just simply doesn’t adjust to game situations, never has, never will, and teams that make deep tournament runs make good game situation decisions.

Disagree. I saw improvement yesterday in the hedging. Ugo was solid. 

I will agree that dropping in a zone on a possession here and there can help. I also agree Cal doesn't do that.

Finally, I saw a lot of personnel adjustments yesterday. Cal has been good on in bounds plays this year.

Question - how do you view Bob Huggins as a coach?

23 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Disagree. I saw improvement yesterday in the hedging. Ugo was solid. 

I will agree that dropping in a zone on a possession here and there can help. I also agree Cal doesn't do that.

Finally, I saw a lot of personnel adjustments yesterday. Cal has been good on in bounds plays this year.

Question - how do you view Bob Huggins as a coach?

Huggie was a demander that got everything out of his talent and more, overachieving with several of his less talented teams, could have been better X and O guy.

2 hours ago, nikeman49 said:

They didn’t hedge or do a good job switching the entire game yesterday, so why not change things up for maybe just a few possessions so you aren’t so predictable? Cal just simply doesn’t adjust to game situations, never has, never will, and teams that make deep tournament runs make good game situation decisions.

 

2 hours ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

I can answer the why go zone part??  Just do it for maybe 3-4 minutes to change things up when somebody is killing your man D, (like yesterday), change the flow of the other team when they’re in great rhythm offensively, maybe get them standing around a little, I’ve done it and seen plenty of coaches do it but that’s in game adjustments, something Cal has always struggled with 

Is there things Cal can do better at? Absolutely. Is Cal a lot better of a coach than you all like to give credit for? Absolutely. He must be have been doing a lot more right than you all ever like to acknowledge. Considering he was on his way to a Hall of Fame type career long before he ever got to UK and consistently had top talent. Before UK he didn’t always consistently have stacked teams with talent. Yet he still had over 400 wins, and was twice the Naismith national coach of the year before he even came to UK. Including multiple deep tournament runs, final fours, etc. 

 

People always seem to forget that Cal was a great college coach long before he came to UK and consistently has loaded rosters. So he must know more about how to coach than what you all seem to think, because you all with your comments at times seem to act like high school coaches could be as successful as him. 

4 hours ago, Breds82 said:

Anyone willing to help a brother out here?

Anyone? Just looking for clarification. 

1 hour ago, Breds82 said:

Anyone? Just looking for clarification. 

I don’t think Bilas was adamant that it should be on Sheppard. He was just adamant that it shouldn’t have been an offensive foul either. Basically to me it seemed like he was suggesting it should have been a no call. 

They called an offensive foul on AM. I’m asking what the actual rule is. I believe it was correct bc the offense kicked his legs out and that initiated the contact with Sheppard. Does anyone know the actual college rule on that? I want to know for future reference.

I don't think I'm saying anything new or profound here.  But defense is the last thing that 4 and 5-star AAU guys finally "get".

Just thought I would share this Texas A&M lost by a point to Arkansas that Tyrece Radford who had 28 Saturday vs. the Cats on 11-22 and 3-6 from 3 was 2-15 and 0-3 from 3 tonight for a grand total of 6 points in the loss.