#FreeSolly
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
Solly’s teammates were very happy for him when he was in there playing well. Like to see him get more time. Sad thing is they all look lost out there on defense. When JG ends up guarding the center under the basket, you have major defensive problems.
Solly has too good of a handle to be playing the 5. If Mooney really wanted to experiment we'd led him bring the ball up on occasion. No way he'd let it happen though
From what I have seen in half a season he is not the answer. This is a team composed of six or seven slightly above average guards and an inexperienced but promising center, none of whom can play the defense they are asked to play, and all of whom are inconsistent on offense. The team needs more big guys who Mooney can't recruit because big men don't play like big men in his ridiculous systems.
While I still believe that giving Paul a chance to play WITH Grant MIGHT prove as effective as the present failure. I am also starting to believe that even Grant and a very unpolished Cayo would be better than the mess we are presently enduring.
Did anyone who was still awake during the game last night happen to notice that we got a few offensive rebounds, and even more shockingly some of them were converted into put back points. Think any of the brain trust noticed? or cared? or realized this is an area that could be fixed now????? Just wondering.
One could argue that he hasn’t even played enough to be able to evaluate if he could help. I still contend we have nothing to lose, the current lineup isn’t working. Time to experiment but CM won’t.
We barely have seen him. I love to see him try to run some point forward. Mooney's system does not fit this roster
I don’t know any system that fits this roster. We don’t shoot well enough from 3 to be a good shooting team. We’re not athletic enough to be a pressing, up tempo team, and we don’t really play defense such that we could be a good halfcourt team. We have a couple of guys to fit each role but those don’t combine well together. It just feels like we haven’t had any recruiting identity for several years (except for recruiting undersized guards). What is remarkable is that VCU has turned over several coaches yet still has a better recruiting identity that we do. They recruit with a purpose to fit their system. Mooney’s system I thought was based on great defense and good outside shooting...
Which was the problem with his recruiting class the first few years till KA/Harper group came
along. As a lay person I see his defensive system requiring bigger guards or small forward size types
like when Gonzo,Butler, Kevin Smith and Martel were playing where they had lateral quickness to go
along with being able to switch without being heavily exposed. Now take that same group on offense,
they all had scoring ability.
Now if you look at our new players this year in Cayo, Solly, Schneider, Ford, Verbinskis, they have the
the good balance of height for switching, but we have no idea their capability due to limited play and certainly if they were great shooters, they would be either playing or on the floor more.
This team would be much better defensively playing packline defense for example. It takes time to learn, however. You can't just roll it out there next game cause its a better fit etc. You would need to install it etc. and that would be a little while. Not the kind of time the Mooney system seems to take, but a concerted effort etc.
Interesting that our official twitter favorited his tweet
Should have been reading up all along:
http://static.goxavier.com/custompages/Newsletters/MBB Newsletters/Newsletter168.pdf
I have often contended that what we play defensively is in some fashion our attempt at a pack line equivalent. The basics of what we try to do are similar in the sense that we also try to pack four players between the ball and the basket and ignore perimeter shooters, but the problem is that while doing that we also still continue to switch on defense. And that is where it breaks down.
In addition, we are so terrible at defending on the ball that any pressure we try to put on the ball handler is easily defeated and then the other team has essentially a 5 on 4 opportunity far too often.
Here is a description of the pack line defense. Notice any similarities??
***
Conceptually, it’s pretty simple. Encourage dribble penetration into help, takeaway post touches, force contested jumpers over the top of the defense and clean up the defensive glass.
There are two core principles to the Pack-Line: The player guarding the man with the ball is to provide intense ball-pressure well beyond the three-point line while the other four help defenders are to all be within an imaginary, 16-foot arc. What this does is encourage penetration into those help-defenders, known as ‘The Pack’, forcing kick-outs to spot-up shooters who will have to take a jumper with a defender running at them. Specifics on things like defending pick-and-rolls, doubling the post and giving up baseline penetration will differ from coach to coach and often depends on an opponent’s personnel — Virginia isn’t going to defend Jahlil Okafor’s post touches the same way they will Miami’s bigs — but the philosophy will remain the same.
In addition, we are so terrible at defending on the ball that any pressure we try to put on the ball handler is easily defeated and then the other team has essentially a 5 on 4 opportunity far too often.
Here is a description of the pack line defense. Notice any similarities??
***
Conceptually, it’s pretty simple. Encourage dribble penetration into help, takeaway post touches, force contested jumpers over the top of the defense and clean up the defensive glass.
There are two core principles to the Pack-Line: The player guarding the man with the ball is to provide intense ball-pressure well beyond the three-point line while the other four help defenders are to all be within an imaginary, 16-foot arc. What this does is encourage penetration into those help-defenders, known as ‘The Pack’, forcing kick-outs to spot-up shooters who will have to take a jumper with a defender running at them. Specifics on things like defending pick-and-rolls, doubling the post and giving up baseline penetration will differ from coach to coach and often depends on an opponent’s personnel — Virginia isn’t going to defend Jahlil Okafor’s post touches the same way they will Miami’s bigs — but the philosophy will remain the same.
One of the problem I saw the last few seasons was, it appeared the perimeter defender was told to not stop dribble penetration but to delay it and redirect it into help.
But the help was told to ignore the dribble penetration and go prevent the kick out to the perimeter.
Here's Mooney explaining a portion of the defensive strategy he employs. You'll see that it is similar to the packline in that he wants to put as many guys as possible inside the arc, between the ball and the basket/other players.
But I would argue that fundamentally, this is now flawed for our team – and maybe for our level of play, too – for a few reasons. First, most teams at our level are not throwing the ball into the high post as a matter of routine. Yes, it happens sometimes but it's not like most offenses attempt that first.
Second, those who DO run their offense through the high post almost always have a height advantage against us anyway. Third, factor in our relative inability to defend the ball in general, and we're always a step or two behind, which essentially ruins this whole approach anyway. And fourth, to a lesser extent, I think our lack of height makes it easier for teams to overcome one of the perceived difficulties in attacking this type of defense, in that it becomes easier to pass around or over us to find the open perimeter shooter.
The whole idea of this scheme is to make it very difficult to score inside and very difficult to find open shooters on the wing....Yet we are terrible at both of those things – we get punished inside and we give up tons of wide-open threes. (Allow me to go all fan2011 for a moment here: This year, we are 324th in the nation in 2-point FG% defense; last year, even with a veteran team, we were #231. This year, we are #281 in 3-point FG% defense; last year, we were at least good there, at #37).
Overall this year, we 304th in the nation in overall defensive efficiency. Last year, we were 164th. And again, that was with a veteran team
So either the system is now outdated (a coaching problem), or it is outdated for our league (coaching), or we lack the talent/ability to play it properly (coaching) or we lack the understanding to play it properly (coaching).
Last edited:
Good review. our lack of height not only hurts on the post (that we have to cheat back on) but at the guard levels. A 6'4"+ player isn't going to have a hard time shooting over JG, even if JG arrives on time. now if you had length like the old Cuse 1/3/1 you can get back a little late and still have the shooter think twice before putting it up..
So my AAU teams that I coach all play packline. Have been to MANY packline coaching sessions (including both Bennetts, C. Mack, S. Miller etc.) and own every coaching DVD from every coach that has even been produced on the Packline. What we play has very little similarity to the packline. There are a few principles that may be the same, but all defenses share some common principles. I firmly believe packline would help us tremendously, but I firmly believe there are several other defenses that would help tremendously too. If you want to hear CM explain it to you, go buy this video:
http://www.championshipproductions....y-Match-Up-Zone-Defense_BD-04381.html?crm=r-1
You can get an hour and 15 minute explanation from the man himself. Own the video and have been to his sessions at coaching clinics too. My number one takeaway from the video and the clinics was how hard it would be to teach the thing! I can use things I get from Coach K and others in their videos or at the clinics, but nothing from what coach Mooney is teaching. It required too much immersion from me as a coach to understand much less trying to teach it. Its not packline though or packline-like and its hard to describe what it is we do. Best way to describe might be that its a "customized" match-up zone sorta like we run the Princeton offense only its evolved.
Folks on here will especially like this quote about the defense from the website that sells all the coaching videos:
"Chris Mooney of the Richmond Spiders takes the time in this on court instructional DVD to show how he is consistently able to put his guys in the best defensive spot for their skill set. Coach Mooney teaches you a basic understanding of how to install a match-up zone along with how to keep you man-to-man principles so that your players can make an easy transition into the match-up zone."
Love that part about an easy transition . . . .
Last edited:
Thanks Philly, you have a far broader and deeper understanding of schemes than I do. And I do realize that ours probably doesn't have a ton in common with the packline, but I did think the idea of keeping defenders pretty much grouped together inside the arc between the ballhandler and the basket/lines of sight to the perimeter shooters was somewhat similar.
I think we also get in trouble, though, because we still continue switching inside the arc, and that seemingly could undo any good that is done initially in denying entry passes – if you end up with Gilyard guarding the other team's 6-10 guy in the paint, for example.
I absolutely agree that whatever we are trying to do, it's just too detailed and requires more time than we have with most of these kids. It's simply not logical to teach schemes that take 2 years or more to master. Maybe if we had our kids for 10 years, but certainly not when we have them for only 4, or maybe 5.
I think we also get in trouble, though, because we still continue switching inside the arc, and that seemingly could undo any good that is done initially in denying entry passes – if you end up with Gilyard guarding the other team's 6-10 guy in the paint, for example.
I absolutely agree that whatever we are trying to do, it's just too detailed and requires more time than we have with most of these kids. It's simply not logical to teach schemes that take 2 years or more to master. Maybe if we had our kids for 10 years, but certainly not when we have them for only 4, or maybe 5.
Very interesting discussion here between you and eight legger. My questions, as someone who has never coached and not played much organized basketball, are the following:
How much does our defense differ in theory from other schools that run a matchup zone, like Altman's recent Oregon teams or Chaney's Temple teams (both of which have had successful defenses without opponents 'figuring it out' as some say)?
Why are there some seasons where the defense is very successful (2010/11/14/15), others where it is decent, and this season it is garage?
In our 4 really good defensive years we were top 20 in 3FG defense, but our current team and other teams in the past have struggles with defending the 3. Is this do to a flaw in the defense itself, incorrect personnel for the system/bad rectruiting, or poor execution/coaching?
Our 4 really good defensive year were also had above average to excellent 2FG% defense as well. Is the reason we do not have good 2FG% defense this year do to a flaw in the defense itself, incorrect personnel/bad recruiting, or bad execution/coaching?
I think we can say things like generally poor defensive rebounding numbers are largely due to a flaw in the defensive philosophy itself since we see it every year, but there are other things that our team has been exceptional at in the past that it does really poorly now.
Seems like we don’t have a good understanding on when to switch or to pass off defenders within the zone. When our defense is good, these transitions of areas or guys they are defending happen with everyone knowing what is happening. Our guys seem lost and get caught in bad spots all the time.
We’re always going to have times when switches get a bad matchup for us (JG in the post or GG on the perimeter) we don’t get out of these situations well and having smaller players on the court doesn’t help with this either - both KF and JG are small guards and everyone is undersized for where they play minus Grant.
We’re always going to have times when switches get a bad matchup for us (JG in the post or GG on the perimeter) we don’t get out of these situations well and having smaller players on the court doesn’t help with this either - both KF and JG are small guards and everyone is undersized for where they play minus Grant.
I appreciate this discussion on defenses.
I think I sat in the stands last game and counted Dayton scoring on 11 consecutive possessions.
Now when timeout is called and the coach does not change defenses, what in the world does he say in the huddle? Does he say "play harder"? Does he get out his chalkboard and attempt to show (despite months of practice) where mistakes are being made and ask that these be corrected immediately?
When your opponent is scoring on every possession, mostly in the paint, it simply cannot be worse to try a different defense. Geez Louise, he could say "do you remember the 2-1-2 from junior rec ball? Let's try that!" The result could not be worse than what we are seeing.
I have said before and I say again, a coach's job is not merely to install a system. It is to put his team in a position to win.
I think I sat in the stands last game and counted Dayton scoring on 11 consecutive possessions.
Now when timeout is called and the coach does not change defenses, what in the world does he say in the huddle? Does he say "play harder"? Does he get out his chalkboard and attempt to show (despite months of practice) where mistakes are being made and ask that these be corrected immediately?
When your opponent is scoring on every possession, mostly in the paint, it simply cannot be worse to try a different defense. Geez Louise, he could say "do you remember the 2-1-2 from junior rec ball? Let's try that!" The result could not be worse than what we are seeing.
I have said before and I say again, a coach's job is not merely to install a system. It is to put his team in a position to win.
What does Mooney say in the huddle. Not much because he spends 75% of the time huddled up with the other coaches before engaging the team. Meanwhile most of the other coaches are in the huddle with their players the entire time. Watch it next home game.
Mooney has been here so long that literally the way college basketball looks nationally has changed. My hypothesis (this time not backed up by evidence, so 2011 correct me if what I say doesn't match the numbers) is that there has been a shift in the style of play overall. And I don't know that Mooney's system or personnel, at our level, have kept up with things or are the best fit for us anymore.
I would suspect that teams on average are taking more three-pointers now than they did 13 years ago and that the inside game is less prevalent than 13 years ago. Well our defense is designed first to stop the inside shot and inherently leaves three-point shooters open often. I suspect that teams are shooting more threes against us, making more per game and probably cleaning up the rebounds at a higher percentage than most teams allow, thereby scoring easy points off put-backs.
Our size disdavantages inside hurt us whether our not we are otherwise executing Mooney's system, and I think that's a huge factor too.
I would suspect that teams on average are taking more three-pointers now than they did 13 years ago and that the inside game is less prevalent than 13 years ago. Well our defense is designed first to stop the inside shot and inherently leaves three-point shooters open often. I suspect that teams are shooting more threes against us, making more per game and probably cleaning up the rebounds at a higher percentage than most teams allow, thereby scoring easy points off put-backs.
Our size disdavantages inside hurt us whether our not we are otherwise executing Mooney's system, and I think that's a huge factor too.
Was talking about this with a buddy at the last game. He really does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time during timeouts conferring with the assistants about what to say, while meanwhile the team just sits there by itself. I haven't observed other coaches a ton, but what I have seen indicates most huddle up with the assistants but not as long as Mooney does.
Last edited:
Well, this is a first. I suppose I need to admit that I fully agree with 45 on this one.
Back to the point of the thread, against Davidson, at one point Mooney sent Solly in there to stick to Kellan Grady without switching. He did that to great effect, and voila, we won the game. Mooney did the same with Khwan Fore against that dude on JMU that was killing us, and voila, we won the game. I just think this particular team is much better suited for a straight up man-to-man, no switching defense. Mooney made the adjustment last year to feature this--not sure why he's so reluctant this year.
I was just going to say this as I was reading your earlier posts. Most any kind of zone at this point is trending towards obsoleteness, given the fact that all 5 players on the floor on many teams are a 3 point threat. Sure, it will probably never go away entirely, especially as teams adapt in the opposite direction, but the prevalence of the three pointer is allowing teams to simply shoot over the zone. We will see what Syracuse is doing in another 5 years.
It doesn't matter what defensive schemes your run if you don't have players who are committed to playing good defense. Our current group just doesn't have it. JG (like K0 always did) ends up guarding a 6'10" guy under the basket after our switches, GG is a poor low post/low block defender, not sure why but he just is. NS is a passive defender and he doesn't move his feet. Last year I thought Buck was a really good defender, but after he got "School of Rocked" by that pudgy Daly kid from Delaware, it's been going downhill all season.
Couple all of that with an inflexible coach and system and here we are.
Couple all of that with an inflexible coach and system and here we are.
As a coach you have to be able to adjust. Mooney sticks to his system until the end. He never changes to a zone when we get torn up inside time and time again. Hadn't adjusted the offense much since he has been here either. Even some of the best coaches in the game have systems that's go stale but they adjust and keep on winning.
A great example of this is Bob Huggins at WVU. My dad is a big WVU basketball fan so I have watched plenty of there games over the years. Everyone knows Huggins is a great coach and has won a ton of games. Right after they left the Big East and headed to the Big 12 things went stale and they missed out on the tournament a couple years in a row, first time they had missed out in a while. The very next year Huggins changed his style and brought out a more up tempo, press, run and gun system. They didn't have very good shooters and had more athlete type of guys that could run around and make plays in the open court. Since Huggins has switched the system they have gone to three straight tournaments, two sweet 16's and will be making another tournament appearance this year. By they way they are currently ranked number two and look to have their best team in a while under Huggins.
The message here is that being able to adjust separates coaches on how great they are. Mooney is unable to do so and that's why he is a terrible coach.
A great example of this is Bob Huggins at WVU. My dad is a big WVU basketball fan so I have watched plenty of there games over the years. Everyone knows Huggins is a great coach and has won a ton of games. Right after they left the Big East and headed to the Big 12 things went stale and they missed out on the tournament a couple years in a row, first time they had missed out in a while. The very next year Huggins changed his style and brought out a more up tempo, press, run and gun system. They didn't have very good shooters and had more athlete type of guys that could run around and make plays in the open court. Since Huggins has switched the system they have gone to three straight tournaments, two sweet 16's and will be making another tournament appearance this year. By they way they are currently ranked number two and look to have their best team in a while under Huggins.
The message here is that being able to adjust separates coaches on how great they are. Mooney is unable to do so and that's why he is a terrible coach.
We should consider hiring Bob Huggins to exact revenge on WVU for taking JB from us years ago.
That would be nice but never going to happen. I love their system though and that is why I think his top assistant Larry Harrison should be a guy we give a look to if we fire Mooney.
Harrison is almost 63 years old, has a career HC record of 67–107 (.385) with 0 postseason, and is a no name. He appears to check the boxes of everything you've previously said was a no go for you. But you're normally all over the place. The Kermit Davis suggestion was your best effort by far.
I'll wade in to this discussion, but its dangerous waters. Some of this stuff would take Coach K and John Wooden days to discuss and then they'd agree to disagree! And I am sure I will find many willing to disagree with me!
First off, I will say that defenses that try to defend the paint first and foremost (like your Dads's 1960's 2-3 zone) are far from dead. The packline defense is totally premised on defending the paint and preventing the ball from getting in there (and getting it out once it does come in). Just drive down I-64 west and see the best defensive team in the country playing the Packline as proof and there are lots of really good defensive teams who defend the paint (whether in packline or some form of zone) as their absolute # 1 defensive priority. So i don't think the game has changed so much that that's not still the overwhelming #1 defensive priority.
I do agree its harder to be successful with it now as the compromise you make may be giving up a three. What makes it harder I think is that all 5 guys on the floor are now pretty competent 3 ball shooters when before you had one or two maybe. But realize that these defenses are in no way "conceding" the three in the way your Dad's 2-3 might have and the number of shooters is a problem for any defense including the many versions of traditional man-to-man. In fact, many of today's "defend the paint" defenses actually offer up advantages to defending the three as well. For example, Packline devotees (and I am one) will tell you that the packline makes it far easier easier to defend the three than traditional man because in traditional man, a player must "help and recover" - - that is they have to anticipate the need to help (i.e. read whats happening) and then actually help (come off of their man and help a teammate (i.e someone getting beaten with penetration)) and then he must recover to his own man after his help is over (i.e. after he stopped the penetration). So he must (1) anticipate when and where help will be needed (2) actually help and (3) recover - - physically requiring him to first go one way (to help) and then abruptly reverse direction to go cover the three point shooter. In packline, the defender is positioned in help position so what he is anticipating is recovering (not helping) and physically he only needs to go one way (toward his recovery), not first in the direction of his help and then reverse on a dime in the direction of his recovery. So the man guy has to anticipate helping and then move to his help and then back against the grain to the three point shooter, while the packline guy can anticipate having to get to the three point line and then go straight there, not one way and then the other. I firmly believe that my teams defend the both the paint and three point line far better out of this more simplistic system than we could out of a traditional man and if you watch UVA, they are warriors at defending the three. What this defense won't do is generate many turnovers. Everyone in help position means their will always be open passes on the perimeter. This is what we concede, not open threes! And by the way, packiline teams are almost universally good defensive rebounding teams and my always undersized teams never get beat up on the boards. But I'll leave that for another day!
Which leads to UR and why IMHO we stink defensively. I think of of like this, a packline guy who is off the ball is positioned in help position and only has to focus on getting back (recovery) to his man (often on the three point line), - - its simple. A traditional man guy has to focus on first helping and then recovering and that's harder. A Richmond Spider has to focus on all that switching and when he should and shouldn't and then he still has to help and recover (and with all that switching he may be out of position to start with). That's a lot. Its harder mentally and PHYSICALLY too. Some guys will get it all over time, but I can tell you for sure, a lot of players are NEVER going to be able to handle all that (mentally) and handle it three or four times on every possession for 40 minutes. You can't hesitate on any of it, the switches, the helps and the recoveries have to come automatically time and time again and some people will never be able to do that. EVER. And some who figure it out may not have the athleticism to physically do all that's then required (i.e. cover "your" man in the post (after a switch perhaps such that your man is 6'10), and then cover "your" man on the perimeter (after a switch, such that your man is a 6'1 lightning bolt) and then also help and recover whenever and wherever necessary). I mean it sounds pretty damn impossible just writing about it!!
As a last point, I don't think other teams have "figured out what we do" as much as I think they actually stopped trying to figure it out and have come to realize they don't need to figure it out, they just need to do what they do offensively and force us into as many "switch/ help/recover" cycles as possible because we'll screw one up eventually because its so hard. Awhile back, they looked at our defense and knew it was complex and figured they needed to do things specifically to combat it. The complexity was great because the other team was trying things they weren't used to doing. Now they just use the complexity against us and wait (with great success) for us to mess up our own defense! Add to it this groups experience level (and I suspect this group is heavy with kids who may not ever get good at it because they simply lack the tools to be good defensively) and any sorta patience will get you a good open shot!
First off, I will say that defenses that try to defend the paint first and foremost (like your Dads's 1960's 2-3 zone) are far from dead. The packline defense is totally premised on defending the paint and preventing the ball from getting in there (and getting it out once it does come in). Just drive down I-64 west and see the best defensive team in the country playing the Packline as proof and there are lots of really good defensive teams who defend the paint (whether in packline or some form of zone) as their absolute # 1 defensive priority. So i don't think the game has changed so much that that's not still the overwhelming #1 defensive priority.
I do agree its harder to be successful with it now as the compromise you make may be giving up a three. What makes it harder I think is that all 5 guys on the floor are now pretty competent 3 ball shooters when before you had one or two maybe. But realize that these defenses are in no way "conceding" the three in the way your Dad's 2-3 might have and the number of shooters is a problem for any defense including the many versions of traditional man-to-man. In fact, many of today's "defend the paint" defenses actually offer up advantages to defending the three as well. For example, Packline devotees (and I am one) will tell you that the packline makes it far easier easier to defend the three than traditional man because in traditional man, a player must "help and recover" - - that is they have to anticipate the need to help (i.e. read whats happening) and then actually help (come off of their man and help a teammate (i.e someone getting beaten with penetration)) and then he must recover to his own man after his help is over (i.e. after he stopped the penetration). So he must (1) anticipate when and where help will be needed (2) actually help and (3) recover - - physically requiring him to first go one way (to help) and then abruptly reverse direction to go cover the three point shooter. In packline, the defender is positioned in help position so what he is anticipating is recovering (not helping) and physically he only needs to go one way (toward his recovery), not first in the direction of his help and then reverse on a dime in the direction of his recovery. So the man guy has to anticipate helping and then move to his help and then back against the grain to the three point shooter, while the packline guy can anticipate having to get to the three point line and then go straight there, not one way and then the other. I firmly believe that my teams defend the both the paint and three point line far better out of this more simplistic system than we could out of a traditional man and if you watch UVA, they are warriors at defending the three. What this defense won't do is generate many turnovers. Everyone in help position means their will always be open passes on the perimeter. This is what we concede, not open threes! And by the way, packiline teams are almost universally good defensive rebounding teams and my always undersized teams never get beat up on the boards. But I'll leave that for another day!
Which leads to UR and why IMHO we stink defensively. I think of of like this, a packline guy who is off the ball is positioned in help position and only has to focus on getting back (recovery) to his man (often on the three point line), - - its simple. A traditional man guy has to focus on first helping and then recovering and that's harder. A Richmond Spider has to focus on all that switching and when he should and shouldn't and then he still has to help and recover (and with all that switching he may be out of position to start with). That's a lot. Its harder mentally and PHYSICALLY too. Some guys will get it all over time, but I can tell you for sure, a lot of players are NEVER going to be able to handle all that (mentally) and handle it three or four times on every possession for 40 minutes. You can't hesitate on any of it, the switches, the helps and the recoveries have to come automatically time and time again and some people will never be able to do that. EVER. And some who figure it out may not have the athleticism to physically do all that's then required (i.e. cover "your" man in the post (after a switch perhaps such that your man is 6'10), and then cover "your" man on the perimeter (after a switch, such that your man is a 6'1 lightning bolt) and then also help and recover whenever and wherever necessary). I mean it sounds pretty damn impossible just writing about it!!
As a last point, I don't think other teams have "figured out what we do" as much as I think they actually stopped trying to figure it out and have come to realize they don't need to figure it out, they just need to do what they do offensively and force us into as many "switch/ help/recover" cycles as possible because we'll screw one up eventually because its so hard. Awhile back, they looked at our defense and knew it was complex and figured they needed to do things specifically to combat it. The complexity was great because the other team was trying things they weren't used to doing. Now they just use the complexity against us and wait (with great success) for us to mess up our own defense! Add to it this groups experience level (and I suspect this group is heavy with kids who may not ever get good at it because they simply lack the tools to be good defensively) and any sorta patience will get you a good open shot!
Last edited:
Ya didn't really look at his record or realize how old he is. I like the idea of someone from Huggins staff though. We need someone that coaches toughness and fast paced athletic basketball. That's all they do over at WVU.
