Can we fire benford yet?

[CMJ]

It's because Andrew's entire existence on this board is a bit. From the 2-3 zone defends the 3 all the way to this crazy thread.

Probably Cerebus? Maybe Tasty, but I doubt it.

But definitely a bit.

I think it's you! If it was, this would be the greatest con job since Gregor MacGregor.

[Andrew]

It was not I who originally claimed that the 2-3 zone can defend the 3. It is true that you can use the 2-3 zone to defend against the three better then many defenses. If your just an average team you would want to go man. That is the best defense to shut down the three. However if you have quick guards and an athletic team you can use the 2-3 to shut down the three. It's all about trapping. I am however starting to doubt that you know what a 2-3 looks like. It is not 2 players up top and 3 sitting in the post. At least not the one we have run. You run quick quick guards along the top and play two wings players closer to the corners. You trap there and force the ball back around the arc where your quick guards can trap again in the opposite corner. The way to beat it is attack from an angle or when trapped in the corner feed it in the post. That would lead to a a one on one in the post which can also be beat by another player cutting opposite side. It's all about how you run it. Do you not understand that? I'm guessing you have never coached or set foot on a basketball floor at any level. It's a game a chess which is why I enjoy watching it much more than football. It's all about player placement and putting in a system that works with your guys (I believe Benford has tried this but yes it obvious it has not worked... Change at the end of the season if it's needed).

Again it is all about the players you have and how you chose to run it. We have gone up against teams who run a 2-3 that is a true 2-3 and we have run into teams that run a 2-3 that is more like a 4-1. It's about spacing.

This post is not in anyway defending Benford by the way... Just attempting to explain a point about defense. Benfords 2-3 was looking good however we do not have a solid 5 to protect the paint and we do not have guards quick enough to cover the gaps. I would stick with an even though I really enjoyed watching our defense when the 2-3 was successful. He can still change it up and run a 2-3 just not the way it was being run.

[Green P1]

So Benny is RV's way of punishing the fanebase for not caring enough?

Makes perfect sense.

[Ben Gooding]

Dude, no. 2-3 is to force a bad shooting team or a cold shooting team to chunk 3's. Please stop.

[Andrew]

Dude, no. 2-3 is to force a bad shooting team or a cold shooting team to chunk 3's. Please stop.

Please share more... I like how you shared actual evidence... Ignore my comment which coaches and players would agree with. I bet your fantastic at basketball... So smart... Maybe next time try reading it because obviously you have no clue about what I am talking about or the various ways you can utilize a two three. I already said man is the best option but I explained word for word from two former players and a coach how you can use the 2-3 zone to stop the three. It's not the best option but it's very possible. It will wear down inn your guards though. Have to be deep and quick. We are only one of those.

Again... I never claimed it was the best option and I have zero clue where that is coming from. Man is always the best defensive option if you can help it. However you can italics almost any defense to shut down the three or close down the inside game. It's all about spacing and player placement.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Andrew

[Andrew]

Dude, no. 2-3 is to force a bad shooting team or a cold shooting team to chunk 3's. Please stop.

I would use a 3-2 over a 2-3 to do that although both can also do that if you set it up that way. You are very narrow minded to think that zones cannot be shifted to achieve a goal. It's all about how you run it. Stop working in absolutes.

[UNTFan23]

However you can italics almost any defense to shut down the three or close down the inside game. It's all about spacing and player placement.

Go home iWhatever, you're drunk.

[laxtonto]

Dude, no. 2-3 is to force a bad shooting team or a cold shooting team to chunk 3's. Please stop.

That is not completely true either.. a 2-3 is just designed to cover space, and has holes in it due to the need for rotations. You can stretch the outside men on the baseline to the mid range jumper region and leave the center baseline defender to front the low post player and you in effect can stretch the 2-3 to cover the ball reversal to the corners and defend the 3 very well. The reason why this is rarely if ever done is that the backside defender is to far away to help on the low post lob. If instead you play the center member of the lower portion of the 2-3 behind the low post offensive player you are instead allowing a simple entry pass with no resistance and an are putting your defender at the mercy of the offensive player for a basic drop step move. By pressing to stop the 3 with a zone the likelihood of getting an easier shot close to the basket increases.

The 2-3, 1-3-1, 2-2-1 or 3-2 can all be diagrammed to stop the 3. All of this is dependent on personnel and match-ups. If you are playing a short team with only one true post player and you have a physically superior 5 that can play infront or behind without help, you can stretch zones to create an umbrella around the 3 point line. The problem is that rarely actually happens. It is easier to stop the high percentage buckets down-low and try to limit ball reversal to protect the backside of the zone than to stop the three and allow your low post player to defend one on one. The overall distance shooting % numbers have decreased and therefore there is less and less harm in allowing the 3. With fouls a finite number and the ease of legitimate entry passes increased there is few reasons in today's game to not clamp down inside and live or die with a zone allowing the back side 3.

[Andrew]

That is not completely true either.. a 2-3 is just designed to cover space, and has holes in it due to the need for rotations. You can stretch the outside men on the baseline to the mid range jumper region and leave the center baseline defender to front the low post player and you in effect can stretch the 2-3 to cover the ball reversal to the corners and defend the 3 very well. The reason why this is rarely if ever done is that the backside defender is to far away to help on the low post lob. If instead you play the center member of the lower portion of the 2-3 behind the low post offensive player you are instead allowing a simple entry pass with no resistance and an are putting your defender at the mercy of the offensive player for a basic drop step move. By pressing to stop the 3 with a zone the likelihood of getting an easier shot close to the basket increases.

The 2-3, 1-3-1, 2-2-1 or 3-2 can all be diagrammed to stop the 3. All of this is dependent on personnel and match-ups. If you are playing a short team with only one true post player and you have a physically superior 5 that can play infront or behind without help, you can stretch zones to create an umbrella around the 3 point line. The problem is that rarely actually happens. It is easier to stop the high percentage buckets down-low and try to limit ball reversal to protect the backside of the zone than to stop the three and allow your low post player to defend one on one. The overall distance shooting % numbers have decreased and therefore there is less and less harm in allowing the 3. With fouls a finite number and the ease of legitimate entry passes increased there is few reasons in today's game to not clamp down inside and live or die with a zone allowing the back side 3.

Essentially what I have been saying anytime someone post about me being an "idiot" for ever thinking that way... I never claimed it was the best option. Just seems people do not know they have options in basketball. Which by the way is one big job of a coach, teaching options. You can run a flex or shuffle or whatever you want. It does not always look the same because you have options dependent on where the ball is and what the defense is showing. This is not football. It's basketball. It's a game of chess.

[greenminer]

[Quoner]

That is not completely true either.. a 2-3 is just designed to cover space, and has holes in it due to the need for rotations. You can stretch the outside men on the baseline to the mid range jumper region and leave the center baseline defender to front the low post player and you in effect can stretch the 2-3 to cover the ball reversal to the corners and defend the 3 very well. The reason why this is rarely if ever done is that the backside defender is to far away to help on the low post lob. If instead you play the center member of the lower portion of the 2-3 behind the low post offensive player you are instead allowing a simple entry pass with no resistance and an are putting your defender at the mercy of the offensive player for a basic drop step move. By pressing to stop the 3 with a zone the likelihood of getting an easier shot close to the basket increases.

The 2-3, 1-3-1, 2-2-1 or 3-2 can all be diagrammed to stop the 3. All of this is dependent on personnel and match-ups. If you are playing a short team with only one true post player and you have a physically superior 5 that can play infront or behind without help, you can stretch zones to create an umbrella around the 3 point line. The problem is that rarely actually happens. It is easier to stop the high percentage buckets down-low and try to limit ball reversal to protect the backside of the zone than to stop the three and allow your low post player to defend one on one. The overall distance shooting % numbers have decreased and therefore there is less and less harm in allowing the 3. With fouls a finite number and the ease of legitimate entry passes increased there is few reasons in today's game to not clamp down inside and live or die with a zone allowing the back side 3.

Oops - nothing to see here.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Quoner

[golfingomez]

Essentially what I have been saying anytime someone post about me being an "idiot" for ever thinking that way... I never claimed it was the best option. Just seems people do not know they have options in basketball. Which by the way is one big job of a coach, teaching options. You can run a flex or shuffle or whatever you want. It does not always look the same because you have options dependent on where the ball is and what the defense is showing. This is not football. It's basketball. It's a game of chess.

OH...

MY....

GAWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[GrandGreen]

I seldom if ever respond to Andrew's comments, but I got to admire his tenacity.

[BillySee58]

I seldom if ever respond to Andrew's comments, but I got to admire his tenacity.

*Their

[Cerebus]

OH...

MY....

GAWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[UNT90]

I think it's you! If it was, this would be the greatest con job since Gregor MacGregor.

If only I knew how to set up seperate accounts.

By the way, I'm gonna be in LA this week. Wanna get together for a... drink?

[ragpicker]

SMU this SMU that. I'm SICK of it. How can they become so good almost literally overnight while while we sink past mediocrity and into oblivion? This is not a rhetorical question.

[UNT90]

Commitment to doing everything necessary to win.

The BOR at UNT has never, EVER made that commitment. Plain and simple.

[meangreener]

Commitment to doing everything necessary to win.

The BOR at UNT has never, EVER made that commitment. Plain and simple.

Recently unanimously approved the Danny Mac extension. Just sayin'

[UNT90]

Great,

How about firing a basketball coach that isn't succeeding. Better yet, how about never hiring that career assistant that had interviewed for other head coaching jobs without success (now we know why). How about hiring a known coaching commodity named Fran Fracilla, who was salivating for the job, yet apparently just cost too much.

Or you can choose to believe that Benford beat him out fair and square in the interview process.

Highly doubtful.

[PlanoGreen]

Maybe In a few years larry brown will get bored and come take us to the final four too?

[Ben Gooding]

So...ummm...has the firing of Benford happened yet?

[Rudy]

So, have we decided if Benford can be fired yet, or not?

[UNTMike81]

RV has a "Man Crush", RV has a "Man Crush", RV has a "Man Crush"... Benford is going to run our program into the Ash heap!!!!

Said it a Million times if I said it once. I hardly ever look at BB board any more or post. Had to do the same for FB after the DD years. I miss JJ so much it makes my heart ache.

[GreenBat]

RV has a "Man Crush", RV has a "Man Crush", RV has a "Man Crush"... Benford is going to run our program into the Ash heap!!!!

Said it a Million times if I said it once. I hardly ever look at BB board any more or post. Had to do the same for FB after the DD years. I miss JJ so much it makes my heart ache.

"going to"? The Ash heap is being pooped on now. And under Benford's guidance the Poop pile is just going to get deeper.