The zone is the most overated defense. I hate it..

 

 

Jim Boeheim would beg to differ.

The zone is the most overated defense. I hate it..

 

The zone is an excellent defense if it is ran properly - including proper help defense and proper rotations. :thumb:

 

Otherwise, its a train wreck.

The zone is the most overated defense. I hate it..

 

I am not sure if anybody is rating it, but there is a time and place to use it. For what it is worth I much prefer man to man, but if it could cover up some weakness such as the Cats have I would use it. At Least some!

I am not sure if anybody is rating it, but there is a time and place to use it. For what it is worth I much prefer man to man, but if it could cover up some weakness such as the Cats have I would use it. At Least some!

I agree.

 

Philosophically speaking, I am on board with Billy G. about his pressure man-to-man, no full court pressing style of play.... when you have the personnel to do so. Whether he thinks he has it or not, they don't.

Words can't describe how wrong I think you are.

 

I don't think zone or man is better than the other, but there is no denying that you should play the defense that you will best utilize with the personnel you have and to best neutralize the other team. If the other team has a lot of trouble shooting from the outside, why would you ever do anything but zone against them? If you don't have the athletes to stick with them in man, why would you ever do anything but zone?

 

As I've watched my local high school team play this year, one common thread has emerged: teams that played zone against them gave them troubles, teams that played man got throttled. It's really hilarious that anyone plays man against them at all. Those who do are clearly coached by those who are stubborn and believe that their scheme is better no matter what past results have shown.

 

Exactly. :thumb: Good post.

I dont see the talent...he has it at two spots and the others are frosh.

 

Oh please, the talent is there. Look at guys like Horn, who has the more talent, SC or UK? How about VMI, who has the more talent? What about Gardner-Webb, who had the more talent that year? Come on. Guys with a lot less talent than Billy G do great things year in and year out.

I think Old Rambler hit the nail on the head the best. Some people on here brought up the un-forgettables and their overall lack of talent. I would say this, that team, in this year's season would be much more productive record wise. Old Rambler stated why, they have the passion, they bled blue and white (still do probably), and they had basketball savvy. That team had one superstar, and a bunch of role players that left it on the line every single game. This team doesn't play with any fire. Their backs are against the wall right now. Last night as well, yet there seemed to be an air of in-difference. I stated today that this was the worst game I can remember UK ever playing, and I stand by that. In last year's debacle at Vandy, Vandy was simply sick in hitting everything they shot, South Carolina wasn't necessarily that way last night. They simply wanted it more, and more, and more......UK never answered the bell. I'll go on to say that I still think this team has something left in the tank, but that success won't transpire until they do some gut checking and decide if they want it more for the name on the front of the jersey rather than the one on the back.

Oh please, the talent is there. Look at guys like Horn, who has the more talent, SC or UK? How about VMI, who has the more talent? What about Gardner-Webb, who had the more talent that year? Come on. Guys with a lot less talent than Billy G do great things year in and year out.

 

Anything can happen in a one game shot. Look at the long haul. I would rather have three really good point guards on the floor than a bonafide 2 and so-so PG and 3-man.

Horn has two very good guards. His point guard is one of the best in the nation, and Frederick is not chopped liver. He was fairly highly sought after out of high school. He left GTech and matured last year and is playing really well now. SC has seasoned guards, and most importantly a dominant PG with serviceable 3-5 players, plus he has some shooters.

BCG had to convert a 2 man into the point position last year with Bradley, his other one was about 70%.

I think Old Rambler hit the nail on the head the best. Some people on here brought up the un-forgettables and their overall lack of talent. I would say this, that team, in this year's season would be much more productive record wise. Old Rambler stated why, they have the passion, they bled blue and white (still do probably), and they had basketball savvy. That team had one superstar, and a bunch of role players that left it on the line every single game. This team doesn't play with any fire. Their backs are against the wall right now. Last night as well, yet there seemed to be an air of in-difference. I stated today that this was the worst game I can remember UK ever playing, and I stand by that. In last year's debacle at Vandy, Vandy was simply sick in hitting everything they shot, South Carolina wasn't necessarily that way last night. They simply wanted it more, and more, and more......UK never answered the bell. I'll go on to say that I still think this team has something left in the tank, but that success won't transpire until they do some gut checking and decide if they want it more for the name on the front of the jersey rather than the one on the back.

 

A couple of things regarding the Unforgettables. They had great bball IQ, and most could shoot.

Secondly, they played a chaotic press that was not as common in the early 90's. There were not many pressing teams back then, and they used it to their advantage.

The zone is the most overated defense. I hate it..

 

If you're incapable of guarding M-M, then you have to consider zone. This was the case against SC.

If you're incapable of guarding M-M, then you have to consider zone. This was the case against SC.

 

Maybe he knows his team isn't capable of playing a good zone and rebounding. All year I've heard people complaining about teams shooting the 3 well against UK. If they played zone and SC rained in 3's all night people would complain about it too.

Jim Boeheim would beg to differ.

 

Exactly he won a title a couple of years ago playing nothing but zone. There is a time and situation when you need to go zone and Wednesday night was one of them.

A couple of things regarding the Unforgettables. They had great bball IQ, and most could shoot.

Secondly, they played a chaotic press that was not as common in the early 90's. There were not many pressing teams back then, and they used it to their advantage.

 

Good call. I was thinking the same thing. Unforgettables could put the ball in the hole. The Forgettables can't do that.

Exactly he won a title a couple of years ago playing nothing but zone. There is a time and situation when you need to go zone and Wednesday night was one of them.

 

He also talent on that team and the best player in college that year in March. That helps.

If you're incapable of guarding M-M, then you have to consider zone. This was the case against SC.

 

 

Maybe Billy G knows he can't win it all with this years talent if they let him play a 4-3 zone. So therefore he is not giving in on his system for short term wins, he is establishing it for long term success.