- This 1 Thing I Do! -

I was a dinosaur in terms of coaching. Few coaches in high school will coach 40+ years. Trends in defensive and offensive come and go. Motion offense was very popular when the Bob Knight's of the world dominated college basketball. Now its dribble drive and ball screen offense. I really like the comment made by Dan Dakich the other night about how it seems everyone in college runs the same offense. Then match up zones became popular when Michigan State and Temple were successful and since Syracuse has been successful for so long the 2-3 zone is becoming more in vogue. Majerus beat a really good Arizona team a number of years ago with

the triangle and two defense so it started to show up in high school. Now I would suspect you will see more high schools adapt the Texas Tech style of man defense since they made it to the finals. I do not mean to sound

overly critical. We all like the new iphones don't we?

"Was it something I said or just social distancing?"

I have never been accused of being the "sharpest" pencil in the box but for the vast majority of my coaching career we played one defense. Now to be totally transparent, we did play a little match up zone defense as a change up and it helped us win some games. I was rather stubborn as a coach and I probably lost some games we could have won had I not refused to play anything but one defense.

I believe in individual responsibility. Yes, a good man defense has strong help principles that encourage the concept of EVERYONE must be in position to stop the ball. But I also wanted an individual player to take ownership of stopping his man from scoring. Always bothered me to see players who thought they did a good job on defense because they outscored their match up! We wanted players who were scored on to take it personal!

We believed there would be nights you would shoot poorly, but if you defended well, you still had a chance to win. We wanted our players to believe they won, not because they out scored their opponent, but because they held their opponent to fewer points. We felt we could not teach several defenses well. In fact, we believed the more defenses you played the poorer you would play any of them. We believed the basis for playing ANY type of defense was rooted in the fundamentals of man defense. We knew it would take time and patience to teach man defense. (I once had a coach ask me if we spent ANY time on offense or if all we did at practice was work on the defensive end of the floor!). I was known to refer to some zones as being a "Seven Eleven" defense. Put your hands up and don't move! Now that was not always fair to say because some zone defenses are played very well and can be very effective.

When you think of certain teams you make associations with what their

"brand" is. North Carolina is known for its offensive transition game. Syracuse for its 2-3 zone. Texas Tech and Virginia for its man defense. As

some examples. We wanted our program to be identified because of our

man defense. We wanted our opponents to be influenced by our reputation

that when you played us we were going to get after you on the defensive end of the floor. We felt this gave us a psychological advantage. Someone much wiser than me once said, "Its not what you teach but what you emphasize that matters."

The bottom line for me was I just felt I could not teach several different defenses and be effective. Maybe you can. If your primary defense is not

effective, why is it not effective? Is it the defensive scheme? Is it your player's ability? Is it because you are impatient? Do your defensive breakdown drills need adjustment? Are you making the beneficial in game

adjustments that improve your team's defensive performance?

One of my favorite teaching axioms is "sometimes less is more." In my humble opinion, the more you try to do the less effective you will be.