Well said TJ and much respect how you always stand up for your opinions. I'm not always against the hype when a team has built its reputation from the previous season but I felt we had way too many unknowns to be thinking we could end up making a run and finishing high in the SEC like some said. Its always a possibility, look at Bama more recently. Still I give credit for staying positive even though it doesn't always work out. I just choose to temper my expectations until they are deserved.
Kind of a mixed message reply. First of all, I see a team who has embraced offense and defense is...kind of optional. Sometimes in vogue but mainly something to do before we start the offense. And so the 90-85 scores. Second, I see some nice pieces who seem to need more time to mesh. Obviously, we are wanting it all to work NOW and not later. And that includes who starts, who gets major minutes, and who plays best with other pieces. It is what it is. Now to what I see that is different. Example A is the UF-FSU football game. My point is the play of the two QBs. One played the game at an elite level (albeit against a mediocre defense) and the other was up and down. But...if you saw them next to each other, you would KNOW which is the superior athlete. Obviously, there is a difference between being fast/strong and being quick/shifty, but still the eye test does not lie. I thought the FAU game had much to do with FAU shooting ridiculously well. But then, we get to the other three teams. I may have some paranoia (or inferiority complex) but my eye test says those teams have athleticism that is significantly higher than us. You have size and you have speed/quickness. If you don't have speed you HAVE to have size. Those teams seemed to have a bunch of both. I did not see one position where I saw we were at an advantage. Comparable? Sure, but not one where we say "this is how we attack this team." I can sort of get behind the notion that Kugel may grow into the position but that means better shot intelligence. CC looks to have hit his ceiling, and it really isn't any different from last year. I don't know what to make of Reeves. He looks too manic to be effective. Last game was telling in that CC can NOT handle really good centers. Bonham is just plain fun to watch and his height is a real limitation. And lastly, we just don't have any three-shooters. The UConn game reminded me of the Kentucky football game. They did their homework and realized what they could do to stop us and they did it REALLY effectively. How they end up is a question. But boy, were we exposed. We either mesh on defense, get better creators, have a viable half-court offensive setup, or this season is gonna stink.
He has never really had a hook shot, has he? He mostly relies on bullying his way or a drop step move right at the rim. My theory is when he runs into a bigger center who can body him up (esp if they are defending him out to the high post) it shuts down his interior game. He has historically struggled against double teams as well, like he gets in his mind he’s going to force his way to the basket and passing out is not in the equation. Fortunately it’s really only the elite CBB centers that can shut him down like that. He has pretty good footwork and against average CBB centers he can get those close shots routinely. But this is also basically why he’s not NBA prospect. Interestingly Jitiboh I think actually has the better “touch” (and he hit a pretty sweet baby hook in that UCONN game), but he trades off some different liabilities which limits his minutes…
I don't buy the TG coach being defense first when he has a team that chucks up a lot of shots. But maybe he is only playing that style to appeal to recruits that want to play that style much like BD did originally.
I think man-to-man 100% of the time can be very effective as long as everybody understands help principles… That being said I still think switching up to a zone or even box in one occasionally to show the offense different looks is very helpful. Personnel wise we have plenty of athletes and ability to play sound defense. We just don’t do it. To me “want to” and tough mindset are lacking. I’ve been around Hurleys some and so much of what they did as players and now as coaches is about mindset. Yes, they recruit but trust me their intensity is A+. Rubs off on players. They make sure you understand valuing each possession and defense and not allowing teams to score are personal to them. That intensity and urgency they bring is A+. Teaching defense and their expectations in practice is A+ or you don’t play.
Switching can be good as long as the offense isn't dictating mismatches and your defense doesn't lose a mismatch you want to keep. And don't do it on inbounds under the basket. Regardless, nothing replaces the hard work component of defense playing either man, zone or any other scheme.
I always liked BD's tactics of going man-to-man for 95% of the time, and then throwing the opponent off by suddenly switching to zone for a couple of possessions, and then back again. When he ran the press defense, he liked to switch to zone late in the game when the opponent started to look gassed. He did that to top-seeded Duke in the Sweet 16 and they suddenly couldn't buy a basket. No legs.
San Fran is not UCLA , USC , Oregon, Stanford,Orgy St , Arizona… Goldens brand is about the same as Sac St. it’s not even St Mary’s . My point is he will never bring a big time player from out west because his pool of recruits were well you know .
this is the modern NBA. They pick and roll you into mismatches, then you either have to fight through screens or switch, either way they get open space to shoot or the matchup they want. Agree that any defense is about keeping your man or the man in your zone uncomfortable, out of rhythm and unable to blow by you etc...a lot of that is such plain hard work, quick feet and discipline, regardless of defensive look
