...our length and current lack of elite perimeter defenders? I know Keady's brow would furl and lower jaw bone would extend out in disbelief if CMP installed a primary zone defense, but what better way to overcome our perimeter defense issues (e.g., on ball pick and roll) and leverage our length (e.g., a line up that at times simultaneously included any three of the following frontcourt players: Edey, Furst, TKR, Gillis (Berg if they don't redshirt)). IMHO, I think we have too many good players in the frontcourt (unlike the gaps in our backcourt - see transfer portal PG saga) to have two or three of them sit while one or more of our 1-3 positions are filled by true freshmen. Think if we had Edey, Furst, and TKR/Gillis in a lineup during certain stretches. On offense, maybe that clogs the paint so Edey can't operate. Or maybe the spot up perimeter shooting that we saw from Gillis and Furst last year (and perhaps TKR this year) maintains the desired spacing while giving us more size for offensive rebounding. Defense seems to be the true downside of this proposal (transition defense and breaking the full court press might have issues, too). For defense, Edey, Furst, and TKR/Gillis in at the same time could create a field day for on ball pick and roll teams. That's where a 2-3 zone comes into play, right?
So what do people think? Am I crazy for suggesting a bigger line up that plays 2-3 (or 3-2 or 1-3-1 I guess) to mitigate the perimeter defense concerns? We should at least consider zone against Indiana this year assuming that outside shooting remains to be Indiana's biggest weakness (hope they don't figure that out).
So what do people think? Am I crazy for suggesting a bigger line up that plays 2-3 (or 3-2 or 1-3-1 I guess) to mitigate the perimeter defense concerns? We should at least consider zone against Indiana this year assuming that outside shooting remains to be Indiana's biggest weakness (hope they don't figure that out).
