Howland said he wasn't able to turn to the zone defense the way he did in Thursday's victory...

Howland said he wasn't able to turn to the zone defense the way he did in Thursday's victory because the Wildcats presented a different threat and would have exploited that type of defense.

"I thought that they're a much better offensive rebounding team than ASU and that really hurt us in the first half," Howland said. "We were man-to-man and still gave up 10 offensive rebounds. The worry is that they're going to hurt you worse on offensive rebounds so that's why we stayed in man."

Howland's explanation on why no zone v. UA (OC Register)

over 2 years ago Nestor 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

makes no sense

I was at the game and Arizona was destroying our man defense and out-rebounding us like we were children. Howland clearly saw the same thing. So his response is to stay in the defense that is getting destroyed? How does that make any sense? Going to zone could not have done any worse so why not give it a shot?

I am a Howland fan but it’s getting harder and harder to defend the people who say he is too stubborn and inflexible.

by RealisticBruinFan on Jan 4, 2010 2:42 PM PST reply actions

You lose me

with could not have done any worse. It’s almost as bad as when people say “what do we have to lose.” There is worse than we saw versus Arizona. If you want to argue that the zone would have been better for any number of basketball reasons, fine, but what do we have to lose, which is essentially an extension of it will make me feel better if we try something new, is not a convincing argument. You look at what you think will best help the team and go with that choice, not change things because anything is better than what we’re doing because that is very, very rarely the case.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 4, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions

+1 to that while sentiment

please cut and paste this every time someone suggests that we have nothing to lose by changing up our offense, or by benching our seniors from hereon out, or by building the team around Bobo, or…. etc.

“Coach is trying the thing he thinks would give us the best chance to win; if it isn’t working, he should try something he thinks gives us even less of a chance to win” just doesn’t sound very convincing in the abstract.

by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, I can't stand that argument

I have no issue with people who disagree with what’s going on and very convincing posts can be made on a number of topics disagreeing with CBH or CRN or whoever. A convincing argument could be made for a zone defense, for seniors to see less time and a variety of other things, but having nothing to lose isn’t one of them. There are legitimate basketball reasons, but nothing to lose or can’t get worse isn’t going to cut it.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 4, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions

disagree

I disagree with you guys. Rarely are there certainties in life, sports, business, etc. When you see something is clearly not working, you should change it even if you are not sure your changes will work. Not making a change in such circumstance is folly. The goal is to win. The man defense against Arizona was clearly not going to accomplish that goal.

You are wrong when you say “there is worse than we saw against Arizona” because it’s a binary outcome. We can only win or lose. You can’t do worse than losing, so in my opinion Howland should have made a change since he knew the man defense was not getting the job done.

by RealisticBruinFan on Jan 5, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions

Makes no sense to me either

I thought a zone defense was used to help rebound better. Usually smaller teams play a zone to keep the opposing team off of the boards. I’m shaking my head at that comment from coach.

by LouisianaBruins on Jan 4, 2010 2:52 PM PST reply actions

What?

A zone defense is used to help rebound better? Seriously? It’s common basketball knowledge that zone defenses are BAD for your defensive rebounding. Smaller teams play zone not because of rebounding, but to negate an opponent’s size advantage inside by taking away their space. This is why zone offenses put players in the high post to “invert” the offense and find holes in the zone. This comment makes me shake my head.

by Tydides on Jan 4, 2010 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

yup

and AZ’s ‘size advantage’ was more of an athleticism and length advantage that helped them crash the boards (apart from Kyryl, who really is just a size advantage); it wasn’t like they were scoring all their points through posting us up.

by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions

Man is easier...

to rebound because you are defending the man you are supposed to box out. In a zone u have to look for a man to box out.

by iwas5... on Jan 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

Let me give you a real reason why this makes no sense

Arizona guards were blowing by their man defenders without even being slowed down.

The lack of quickness on this team at almost every position, as well as the length of the players, makes a zone almost a no brainer, unless you are playing a team that is going to light it up from the outside.

This is particularly true when Howland mentioned he knew that JA tweaked his hamstring on Thursday night. That gives you even more of a reason to move into a defense that can protect him.

I’ve said it since the start of the season and I will continue to say it: Howland might love the man to man, but he has the wrong roster for it. This team will get lit up by any pac 10 team with decent talent who will torch this roster.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Jan 4, 2010 9:15 PM PST reply actions