March 17, 200917 yr Exactly...1/3/1 trap... That settles it, if they played that defense they would be a 4 seed in the NCAA and not the NIT. Maybe he can get your number and you can be added to the staff by next year. :isurrender:
March 17, 200917 yr That settles it, if they played that defense they would be a 4 seed in the NCAA and not the NIT. Maybe he can get your number and you can be added to the staff by next year. :isurrender: What makes you think He would want my number?Heck If Adolph Rupp were still Alive he wouldn't take his advice...:thumb:
March 17, 200917 yr That settles it, if they played that defense they would be a 4 seed in the NCAA and not the NIT. Maybe he can get your number and you can be added to the staff by next year. :isurrender: No one's saying that a zone would have made us a 28-4 team instead of 20-12 (or whatever we were this year). We're just saying that a couple of possessions of some kind of different defense might undermine an opponent's offense. And if that worked, we may have been able to win one or two of those close games--like USC or LSU, for example. And maybe then we're talking about being a 10 or 11 seed in the tourney, and not a 4 in the NIT. In retrospect, mixing in a zone 1-4 possessions per game couldn't have led to worse results.
March 17, 200917 yr I really think we need to give the man more than 2 years before we kick him to the curb.
March 17, 200917 yr What about Bradley and Crawford? :confused: Yeah, Slipped my mind...What was I thinking :ohbrother:
March 18, 200917 yr As a coach, let's say you have two hours to practice offense in preparation for UK. Since you know UK plays only a man to man defense and rarely presses, you basically have two solid hours to work on and perfect your offense. Same situation -- two hours to practice offense against a team that offers a variety of defenses. Now you must prepare against a man to man defense. And a 2-3 zone. And a 1-3-1 zone. And a full court press. And a half court trap. Suddenly, that two solid hours dwindles into maybe 30 minutes against each scenario. If you get better by practicing and you have two solid hours to work on your offense, it may explain why teams seem to shoot so well against UK because they have so much time to perfect their gameplan against a simplified UK defense. Even the inventor of the 1-3-1, some fellow in a brown suit called the Baron, only used it sparingly, usually as a last resort when dealing with foul trouble. Bobby Knight was another coach who rarely changed defenses. Again, he basically only zoned when his big guys were in foul trouble. On the other hand Jim Boeheim lives and dies by the 2-3. Getting Syracuse out of that defense is like pulling teeth. So I count more than 2531 wins without juggling defenses every other trip down court and every opponent knows what is coming, way in advance. UK's defensive problems are not strategy based. They could change defenses on every opponent's possession and still get run over. They're execution based. They don't have the talent to play the defense assigned at the expected level to be successful or the coach can't get them to play to that level. In either case, it's still on BCG.
March 18, 200917 yr ^ Exactly. His man defense requires a lot of switching and as we saw against LSU, they don't switch well.
March 18, 200917 yr Even the inventor of the 1-3-1, some fellow in a brown suit called the Baron, only used it sparingly, usually as a last resort when dealing with foul trouble. Bobby Knight was another coach who rarely changed defenses. Again, he basically only zoned when his big guys were in foul trouble. On the other hand Jim Boeheim lives and dies by the 2-3. Getting Syracuse out of that defense is like pulling teeth. So I count more than 2531 wins without juggling defenses every other trip down court and every opponent knows what is coming, way in advance. UK's defensive problems are not strategy based. They could change defenses on every opponent's possession and still get run over. They're execution based. They don't have the talent to play the defense assigned at the expected level to be successful or the coach can't get them to play to that level. In either case, it's still on BCG. Agree with you post. :thumb: However, Rupp used the 1-3-1 a lot when undersized and particularly with Rupp's Runts. Go back and check out footage and you will see that defense a lot. But the one who really perfected the 1-3-1 for UK was Joe Hall. Hall would use man-to-man when the Cats had an advantage but the 1-3-1 was a staple for him and even Jud Heathcoate said it was UK's 1-3-1 that won them against Magic Johnson in '78. It cut off his passing lanes and brought the Cats back.
March 18, 200917 yr ^ Exactly. His man defense requires a lot of switching and as we saw against LSU, they don't switch well. So don't switch. Thats a small adjustment to be made in m-t-m defense. Front the post or play behind, jump the passing lanes or sag, hedge screens or switch. Zone is not necessary.
March 18, 200917 yr Agree with you post. :thumb: However, Rupp used the 1-3-1 a lot when undersized and particularly with Rupp's Runts. Go back and check out footage and you will see that defense a lot. But the one who really perfected the 1-3-1 for UK was Joe Hall. Hall would use man-to-man when the Cats had an advantage but the 1-3-1 was a staple for him and even Jud Heathcoate said it was UK's 1-3-1 that won them against Magic Johnson in '78. It cut off his passing lanes and brought the Cats back. Yes, he used it a lot when the Cats were undersized, but with the exception of the '65-'66 and '66-'67 seasons, that situation happened only when battling foul trouble. Joe. B also was the first to utilize the 2-3 at Kentucky. I remember reading an article in the H-L the day after he first used it in '76. The end of life as we knew it was near. Surpising how little things have changed, ain't it? Neither Rupp or Hall switched back and forth either. They didn't change defenses one time, now and then, to throw the opponent off guard. If they went zone, it was for a reason and they'd be in it a while.
March 18, 200917 yr So Rupp found it necessary to play zone at times and some BGPers see no use for it. Sorry, but I'm siding with the Baron.
March 18, 200917 yr So Rupp found it necessary to play zone at times and some BGPers see no use for it. Sorry, but I'm siding with the Baron. Rupp didn't use a zone. He used a: "It was a transitional and shifting man-to-man backed by a hyperbolic paraboloid between the ball and the basket." Adolph Rupp
March 18, 200917 yr Rupp didn't use a zone. He used a: "It was a transitional and shifting man-to-man backed by a hyperbolic paraboloid between the ball and the basket." Adolph Rupp But it WAS a change. :thumb:
March 18, 200917 yr A zone defense doesn't work against a good 3 point shooting team. By that I mean they have at least 3 players that can make shots. What gets Ky in trouble is they sag down to help out and leave the shooter open outside. Tubby's teams played this way also. I would rather give up a two point shot any day than a three. Not necessarily true. Syracuse has made a pretty good run using the 2-3 in a matchup form. The 3-2 and 1-3-1 both can cover the wings and point pretty well. It depends on the zone and how it is taught.
March 18, 200917 yr An update to LABS report of a coach still playing with UK ties.......... http://michaeleaves.blogspot.com/
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.