BearGreg said:sluggo said:SFCityBear said:sluggo said:BC Calfan said:RedlessWardrobe said:
Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.
Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.
This is the same as my position. More specifically, I would like 1) better action off the ball, including screens, cuts, and spontaneous initiation of secondary actions when the first action fails, and 2) a zone defense that is focused on the taking away the 3 point shot. While Cal will not have the same ability to drive, the threat of multiple good 3 point shooters is something to be optimistic about. If they do not primarily play zone, I will be surprised if the results are much better.
Forgive me for being a little confused here, but you and others seem to be talking about offense and defense in the same sentences. For one thing, are you proposing that Cal play a perimeter zone defense focused against stopping the three point shooting of the opponent?
I hope I'm misinterpreting what is written, because as early as 70 years ago, good perimeter shooting enabled by great perimeter passing has been a very effective strategy to take apart zone defenses. If the shots start dropping, it is usually game over for the zone defense.
I talked about offense and defense in consecutive sentences, not in the same sentence.
Zone defense lets a team decide what to allow and what to take away. It is a common misconception, perhaps starting 70s years ago but up until today, that zones can be undone by perimeter shooting. It is not true. But I understand that there was an era when only the 2-3 zone defense was played, and in that defense, two perimeter defenders tried to defend three perimeter players, which does not work unless the perimeter players cannot shoot. But a 1-3-1 or 3-2 or even a 2-3 (which I hate) can take away perimeter shooting if enough defenders come out to the perimeter.
Some day most to all teams will play zone defense because it is superior. I hope I live long enough to see it. Note in the NBA zone is gaining more and more popularity, despite rules that try to disadvantage it. In college where there are no rules on defense zone should be primary, but most college coaches are incompetent compared to NBA coaches.
I will die on the hill of zone defense.
Zone Defense Popularity in the NBA
Thanks for the link. I read it as much as I could read before I would have to pay. Frankly, I don't believe the data. The Warriors play zone very regularly. In the playoffs, I suspect they played it 25% of the time. Perhaps the data is wrong, because as the writer says, that typical defenses uses zone and man principles. I don't know what to call it when Tom Thibodeau (sp?) way overloads the side of the court where the ball is.
But that is not the important point because in an alternative NBA world with no defensive three seconds all teams would play zone. A zone with defensive three seconds is a crappy zone. With no defensive three seconds in college I maintain that most to all colleges should play zone most to all of the time and the reason they don't is incompetence of the coaches.