ClayK said:
So Sakima Walker played 31 very effective minutes, leaving just nine.
And playing two posts who can't shoot from distance is a recipe for offensive struggles.
wvitbear said:
Marta had an outside shot last year and it worked perfectly. Naya was 1 for 10 when she played last year. Taylor is a lot better than that. As far as minutes, having Puff not play hurt our minute distribution. Naya yesterday had 0 rebounds. and no FGS.
Watching her against male practice players , she was over whelmed.
wvitbear said:
Toomey shoots 31.5 % from three point land. don't just go for one game. N C State has a 6'6" women who shoots 33,3 % from three point land.
wvitbear said:
We have never played a zone well. I have watched hundreds of games.
wvitbear said:
I think both Clay and i are saying you don't want to play a zone. But you need three point shooters which we had last year with Marta.
ClayK said:
I agree. But you would have to commit to that zone and that strategy from day one. Playing a good zone is difficult and requires a lot of work, especially since kids don't play much zone -- and if they do, they don't play it well -- at the lower levels. If Cal had gone that route all summer and implemented it in training camp, it's a solid one-season strategy.
But to think you can wave a magic wand in January and change your whole system and be effective ignores the reality of coaching. Again, playing a zone well is not easy. Rebounding is always a challenge, and understanding rotations and communication are issues that take time to sort out.
Point two: Yes, that might work for this season, but unless you want to commit to being that kind of team long term, it's going to hurt your recruiting. And with this Cal team, which perimeter player goes to the bench? You said Puff, which means she transfers. If you say someone else, they transfer.
On top of that, no player with any dreams of playing after college, in the W or overseas, is going to come to a program that plays zone. All pro leagues are man-to-man leagues because that's the most effective defense, and pro teams want to see players playing man, not zone.
Finally, what impact would that short-term shift have on the ceiling for this team? Is a zone going to win the ACC with the level of talent Cal has? Is it going to take the Bears to the Sweet 16?
I'm thinking maybe it's two more wins than otherwise, and the price you pay for that is one of your perimeter players immediately transfers because she gets put on the bench.
I just don't think it's a good tradeoff to chase a few more wins -- even if you could implement that kind of massive system change in January -- that will hurt your recruiting in the long run.
ClayK said:
First, I was responding to the suggestion that we can play two bigs in the modern game by going to a zone. Obviously, there are other options, but they require one of the bigs to be able to defend quickness in space.
And as for the comment that street kids can play a zone, and coaching is not that hard ... maybe for the poster, but not for us mere mortals. If coaching were easy, then top coaches wouldn't get a lot more money than mediocre ones because it wouldn't matter.
I will stand by saying that zones require a lot of work to run effectively, especially when it comes to rebounding. And I will also point to the fact that very few teams play multiple defenses roughly the same amount of time. Most teams will change things up with a press or a halfcourt trap or a zone, but most teams rely on halfcourt man most of the time.
