I like Wad better as he gets mmore game time. He is showing to be a shot blocker and able defender. Can't hit FT's consistently but I am happy that he is rounding into a player.

I am not sure why it is Obvious that playing the 5 will get him in foul trouble. Technique? Skills? Getting hung out in the middle because the high screen and roll technique by the guard always leaves him exposed in a mismatch? Why would moving him to the 4 to play MAC ball with a smaller faster more mobile 4 make him LESS foul prone? Because his feet are so fast he would cut off the drive?

On Offense the scheme to get the bigs an inside out presence changes when you go 2 bigs. Not saying we don't change anywya when Wadley is in there, just limits a part of our game. Looks like Tony in this scheme is able to go to the 5 spot and be present inside then come off setting the screen to pop out or roll. If you have Wad setting the same screen where is the 4 spot then? I think there are many cases where a high and low post presence works (more in JG's scheme with Devo and KVK than present scheme) but it would mean changing up a bit of how we are constructed and playing. I don't think anyone is thinking that Tony is a true stretch 4 with ability to put the ball on the deck and drive or stop and pop on Offense or guard a stretch 4 on defense

He blocks shots, sometimes, but is often caught leaving his man or in bad position to get the rebound. I think the starting line up is fine, however, the over commit to help defense seems to leave wide open shots.

And why I sometimes ask questions about considering using a zone more.

Hold the phone...the 71s are gonna disagree here. I understand the thing about defensive principles BUT, you ask anyone who has played the game and I think they will tell you, if your team is not as athletic or not a good man to man defending team, you MAY be more successful in a zone. I realize there are trade offs. And, I also think most would say a zone is "easier" to play as opposed to man to man with all the switching, etc. Heck, I'd say given how we play man to man a switch to some zone couldn't be any worse!

Casper, I have played and coached the game. Our defensive philosophy was to play all man at the beginning of the season to teach man principles and get that ingrained into the players heads. Mid season we would begin throwing zone defenses into the mix teaching kids how to properly play the zones using those man principles. It appears you would like to sit back in a zone and not move much because you are not athletic and quick. See where that will get you with the shooters and scorers in today's game from the perimeter. If you can spread out the zone and make it "big" it can cause problems on the perimeter. However, by doing so, you open the zone up to penetration which has caused us major problems. Zones can easily become a "lazy" mans defense. We happen to be lazy, it appears, in our man.

+1, if you can't play Man well, you won't play a good zone. Nothing drives me crazy than seeing youth coaches playing zones.

I think part of the problem is we CAN'T play Wadly and Tone together much, if at all, and it's all due to Campbell's propensity to be in foul trouble.

They are the only two guys we have to play the 5 spot and as soon as Tone gets in foul trouble it means Wadly has to be in the game. If we play Mompremier together with Tone AND when Tone is sitting on the bench then when does Wadly get to rest? Also much less chance of both Wadly and Campbell both being in foul trouble when only one is on the floor at a time.

Basically Wadly has to be the Campbell back-up plan at all times because more times than not we're going to have to utilize it.

Otherwise we're going to see lineups with Doug Taylor getting a bunch more minutes or Treg Setty at the 5.

If Campbell wasn't a walking personal foul then maybe we could see this lineup for short spurts, but as it is, it's just too risky IMO.

Wow, first I don't think I ever said anything about liking to play lazy defense and sitting back in a zone because it is easy. What I think I was trying to say was zone defenses can cover for SOME deficiencies if played properly. For example, I don't think you see as many "blow bys" from the top of the key all the way to the rim in a zone as you do in (our) man to man. I understand defensive principles, etc but a bit of zone can't be any worse than what we do now. It's like doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

As I have said previously and I think most agree, defense is much more an attitude (mental and physical), a discipline, a desire to play it and put some effort into that part of the game. I just don't see many of our players with that work man like attitude on the defensive side of the game.

Casper, Did I say that you were advocating for a lazy defense? Re-read my post. I said a zone can have the tendency to be a lazy defense. Have you ever heard of teams that play hard on offense and come back to play defense to rest? I also stated that you probably can eliminate some of the penetration (blow boys), but in doing so open up the 3 more. Face it, offenses try to exploit the weakness of any defense. I'm not saying Saul should never play zone. I'm simply saying it will probably not be a cure to our defensive woes. My philosophy tends to be more like the above post. I like to change defenses to try and keep the opponent off guard, trying to figure out how to attack what defense we are in.