Defensive Toughness Limits Gonzaga's Ceiling

[ZagFanatic]

According to Jeff Borzello:

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/26283066

This is a good summary of the various defensive threads we've had on this board, backed up by some stats.

[HillBillyZag]

The truth nhurts. As much as I like all of our guards there is no way I would recruit another guard less than 6'3" . Our kids just don't have the size to match up against three point shoots.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Thinks its a valid argument. More so on the rebounding side of the equation.

[gozagswoohoo]

Good article and its from an analyst, so fellow posters can't just ignore it and conclude they're only being 'negative' or making 'personal attacks' on our players.

But I don't think he is saying something most of us don't disagree with. Does this guy say Stocks isn't good enough to be playing for GU? Does he say that Stocks wouldn't play much on a bottom WCC team? No. In fact, the writer says "Gonzaga needs both Pangos and Stockton on the floor". That's not quite the argument that's going on over in 'that one thread'.

[MDABE80]

I think Pangos and Bell can cover most things. DS is still not quite there on D. He'll find a way but he can't grow 3 more inches unless I find him some "grow pills". Just limited in some things.

I'd say Bell, Pangos and Edi?Hart can cover most perimeter schemes.
More concerned about Sam's D though...he's just not into it. Rob and Elias are...they've caught fire. We do need another big who plays D though.

[zag944]

Our zone defense, particularly when it comes to guarding the three, has been a problem much longer than any player on this team has been around.

While I dont blame any specific player for the negatives, I will say that GBJ is an obvious positive and the only player that consistently makes things better with regards to this problem. This, combined with being a decent scorer, means that he should have PT like Sacre and Harris (only limited by fatigue or foul trouble). He should be starting and playing as many minutes as practicible no matter which player it means cutting minutes from.

[Baldwinzag]

But I don't think he is saying something most of us don't disagree with. Does this guy say Stocks isn't good enough to be playing for GU? Does he say that Stocks wouldn't play much on a bottom WCC team? No. In fact, the writer says "Gonzaga needs both Pangos and Stockton on the floor". That's not quite the argument that's going on over in 'that one thread'.

I want to apologize for being so blunt, borderline harsh today. I've been riding a couple of players/topics and while I certainly hope for improvement, its been a bit over-the-top in some of my posts today.

It was a hectic Monday and took out some frustrations in certain areas I probably should have been more rational about.

[bballbeachbum]

why does GU have to play only either a flat 2-3 zone or M2M if/when those 2 are on the floor together?

[04ZagFan]

I also feel like our offense has declined somewhat over the last few years.... And I believe it's because we aren't shooting as many threes. I'm tellin ya, to win games against superior opponents (or on the road, like against Illinois) the game is usually decided from the 3 point line. We NEED to shoot more.

[zagzilla]

Same story different season

There have been flashes of good D this year most notably vs ND but programs develop a style and they tend to play to that stereotype. For instance Wisconsin is a comparably successful program who is stingy on D and challenged offensively most of the time.

Zags are soft on D until proven otherwise. Author's meta point is correct, IMO

BTW-Love the advanced stats author uses

ZZ

[Zags11]

But I don't think he is saying something most of us don't disagree with. Does this guy say Stocks isn't good enough to be playing for GU? Does he say that Stocks wouldn't play much on a bottom WCC team? No. In fact, the writer says "Gonzaga needs both Pangos and Stockton on the floor". That's not quite the argument that's going on over in 'that one thread'.

"Pangos and Stockton provide a different dimension offensively, and they need the two on the floor – but they both have limited lateral quickness. The two simply can’t be on the court at the same time; it’s too much of a liability on the defensive end."

That is what the whole article said lol, so hence people saying that stockton should be the backup seeming we all agree pangos is better. That statement is saying the 2 guards are too small and too slow, and I believe pangos should be the starter.

[bartruff1]

What the hell does that mean ??

But I don't think he is saying something most of us don't disagree with. Does this guy say Stocks isn't good enough to be playing for GU? Does he say that Stocks wouldn't play much on a bottom WCC team? No. In fact, the writer says "Gonzaga needs both Pangos and Stockton on the floor". That's not quite the argument that's going on over in 'that one thread'.

"I don't think...don't disagree..." what is that ? A triple nagative ?

[allnet59]

Same old story on the three point defense. What has always bothered me about our defense is that no one puts a body on anyone when rebounding. That's the first thing u learn when playing ball as a young player. Imo the zags do a lousy job blocking out and seem to just watch and wait for the ball to fall into their hands. We have been out rebounded and out hustled on both ends of the court many occasions by smaller teams that us the skills taught at a very young age.

[siliconzag]

I also feel like our offense has declined somewhat over the last few years.... And I believe it's because we aren't shooting as many threes. I'm tellin ya, to win games against superior opponents (or on the road, like against Illinois) the game is usually decided from the 3 point line. We NEED to shoot more.

Amen to that. If you can't cover the Perimeter, maybe you can make more threes than your opponent!

[gozagswoohoo]

"I don't think...don't disagree..." what is that ? A triple nagative ?

My apologies, I typed that on my iPhone, quickly, and didn't double check it. That does sound a bit confusing.


What I MEANT to say, is that I think most everyone here would agree with what the writer is saying.