No expert would recommend a zone with our players we had, You have to recruit to a zone and have very athletic players that can cover areas. As usual place the blame on Painter.
The viewpoint that I've always had regarding the "zone" defense says you "zone guys" are way overthinking it.
I've always thought that CMP shied away from the zone because it would be somewhat counter-intuitive to the teachings/principles of the motion offense that he loves so much.
He would be constantly telling them to "move, move, MOVE" down on the one end on offense, and then be telling them to stay in their boxes/areas down on the other end.
Not for all, but for some players, that would be somewhat confusing, and just plain be a different playing style or philosophy. Maybe "conflicting" is a better word?
But then again, I've always considered a zone to be a somewhat lazy approach (PC term "reactive") to defense, where as I always saw the man as more of a workman like, or thinking man's game; where you have to keep moving, try to anticipate what your guy is gonna do, and beat him at it/ beat him to the spot, to be able to defend well (PC term "proactive").
Don't know the answer, but I would find it interesting to know if there were any coaches out there (Like Painter) that were as steadfast in their love of the motion offense, but did in-fact, employ a zone defense, as their mainstay, "go to" defensive philosophy?