For close to 30 seasons, I have banged my head against the wall and stubbornly tried to suceed with the FB offense. While I have had some success, I have found it pretty much impossible to do well consistently because you really have to have 11-12 players contributing with the FBpr, and your starters need to have 90+ ST and that is hard to do yearin-yearout and becomes pretty much impossible when your best players leave after a year or two.

So, a few seasons back, I went to a zonepress... and that definitely helped, but when i was faced with a thinner bench than normal last season, i decided i needed to try a straight zone in order to conserve energy of my best dudes and make them more effective.

At first, I thought it was working, but now, I wonder if it was the cause of my unbelieveable late season swoon last year and my absolutely miserable start to this season. Altogether, We have lost 5 straight games. We were favored in every game, i would guess by an average of 10-15 points. and in most of these games we were blown out by 15-20 points despite having rediculous mismatches in our favor all over the court.

in hindsight, this switch to straightzone may be the cause of my problems. Last year, possibly about the time i switched to straight zone, but not sure, my team folded like a cheap tent. i dont recall the exact specifics, but i think i was something like 13-4, on the verge of top25, solid rpi and seemingly lock for the NT. then came a four game losing streak (albeit some against real good teams) and then a couple of cheap wins now i was a bubble team. but that bubble burst real quick when i lost three in a row to end the season, including two losses to one of the worst teams in the league, the last of which was in round one of the CT and sent my rpi plummeting over 100 and now this team, which not long ago was a lock for the NT, cant even make the PIT?

I wish I could recall whether i changed from zone/press to straightzone during that time... but i cant recall for sure. i thought i recalled some positive results with the 2-3, but maybe it was just a game or two and was an anomoly.

So, as I reconsider this strategy, i wonder if the zone is just a bad match for the FB offense. If you think about it logically, the FB thrives off turnovers, and the zone doesnt create turnovers. So, if we are running the FB offense, but not getting many FB opportunities, then , in reality, we are mostly running a sloppy motion offense (thats what admin once said that the FB reverts to once the defense stops the break.

So, now I have to reconsider and decide if its possible to win with the FB/zone, and, if not, how quickly can i get my press IQs back to respectable levels... can i effectively riun zone/press later this season?

• Have any of you ever run FBzone? any success?
• Do you think FBzone can be effective? why or why not?
• Or maybe i should try 3-2 zone? would that cause more TO's?

feel free to skip the soliloquy and just answer the questions ;-)

I can't really speak to fastbreak, because I've rarely run it, but I do run a lot of zone. Although I've had some outstanding seasons using a zone, for the most part my teams have been underperforming, even when the talent level is really high.

At this point, the only real advantage I see to running a zone is that it is nice to have the ability to go to a 3-2 to mix it up and keep other coaches off balance. I've usually found the 3-2 to be a better option against perimeter oriented teams than running a M2M at +3 or +4.

Rossett, Seton Hall, D1 - Knight.

FB - M2M

2nd NT in 5 seasons.

Not sure if they messed with the engne or not, but I had a terrible time with my one zone team last season (Kansas in Phelan). The team plays zone/press and was just awful given the amount of talent(team returned 11 players with an avg rating of 770) and managed to make it to the 3rd rd of the PIT after 5 straight nt appearances(3 elite eights). I had primarily played 3-2 in the preceding 5 seasons but it didn't seem to matter last season.

With respect to fb, I have little experience. Zone makes some sense due to reduced fatigue but I'm not sure you can force enough tos or rebound well enough to effectively run fb with it.

Quote: Originally posted by mlatsko1 on 1/20/2010Rossett, Seton Hall, D1 - Knight.

FB - M2M

2nd NT in 5 seasons.

NT? or NC?

NC, my bad.

wow, yeah....

so Rossett goes FBman at the Hall and puts together a really good, and unbelieveably consistent Dynasty. The consistent part is what really gets me. As I have said before, I just think it is so so hard to win consistently at a high level (read: "make NT and win at least a game or two every single year for10+ years")

So, is the man2man defense the perfect match for the FB offense? not quite as tiring as the fbpr and puts you in a position to be a great rebounding team (which is clearly important to run a great FB team) . You also have an upper hand on defending the three, so opponents might look to dribble-drive more. But, with your great ath/sp and excellent DE ratings (which are much easier to come by in recent years) you should be effective against penetrations as well.

As I dig a bit deeper though, and look at his team...WOW. this sqaud is incredibly talented... and i gotta assume that three talented underclassmen have already bolted for the NBA. hmmmm.

If his players are this good , yearin-yearout.... then it may not matter what offense or defense he plays. looks like he has dominated the NYNJ market. and since he has scared everyone off, that often leaves him with a lot of cash to swoop in late on a distant recruit or two. he's got 5 frosh and i dont see a single "project" in the bunch... all were ready to play form day1.

So, While it is interesting to consider whether m2m is a great compliment for the FB offense... im not sure i can prove that with the evidence at hand.

(sidenote: did he switch to FB? I havent known SEtonHall to run FB. that would be a helluva ballsy thing to do)

i started a fb/zone team a season ago in tark at csu northridge. they are absolutely horrible but have 0 seniors and 0 juniors and D prestige so i don't think that means much. and its the offense and defense i know the least about so i don't have any answers for you. but, i figured i'd try to take the opportunity to ask one or two, with all your fb success at syracuse :)

how do you feel the stamina penalty stacks up for fb vs press? for example, do you think fb zone is roughly comparable to triangle press fatigue-wise, or is there a significant difference?

also, what is the deal with zone? i just don't get it. do you play it much differently than the press? i would guess from reading the forums defense is a little more important, sb too for bigs, and speed less so. does that sound about right? given two equal teams, is the zone team better at rebounding than the press team?

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 1/20/2010wow, yeah....

so Rossett goes FBman at the Hall and puts together a really good, and unbelieveably consistent Dynasty. The consistent part is what really gets me. As I have said before, I just think it is so so hard to win consistently at a high level (read: "make NT and win at least a game or two every single year for10+ years")

So, is the man2man defense the perfect match for the FB offense? not quite as tiring as the fbpr and puts you in a position to be a great rebounding team (which is clearly important to run a great FB team) . You also have an upper hand on defending the three, so opponents might look to dribble-drive more. But, with your great ath/sp and excellent DE ratings (which are much easier to come by in recent years) you should be effective against penetrations as well.

As I dig a bit deeper though, and look at his team...WOW. this sqaud is incredibly talented... and i gotta assume that three talented underclassmen have already bolted for the NBA. hmmmm.

If his players are this good , yearin-yearout.... then it may not matter what offense or defense he plays. looks like he has dominated the NYNJ market. and since he has scared everyone off, that often leaves him with a lot of cash to swoop in late on a distant recruit or two. he's got 5 frosh and i dont see a single "project" in the bunch... all were ready to play form day1.

So, While it is interesting to consider whether m2m is a great compliment for the FB offense... im not sure i can prove that with the evidence at hand.

(sidenote: did he switch to FB? I havent known SEtonHall to run FB. that would be a helluva ballsy thing to do)

This is a great thread! Thanks Mlatsko

I did not switch to FB. FB/Man was there when I got to the Hall. This was the best team I have ever had (no seniors either) and yes I lost my 3 best players to the NBA. I wish I could tell you I have some big secret to running the fast break but I don't think I am smart enough (or have enough time to devote to HD) to figure one out.

IMO, this game is 75% recruiting and 25% getting your distribution set correctly. I do very little game planning on a day-to-day basis.

3-2 zone is almost impossible to do well. I like using zone and i very rarely use 3-2.

I don't know how you win with FB at all though, it's almost impossible, cause you just have so little flexibility.

I have at least one team with each def, one team with each off, the differences are mostly subtle, 1% type things, except with FB, you need an extra player, with fb and fcp you need 2 extra players.

I would guess one could have success at d3 with fb / fcp, but in d1, it is very hard to get the type of players one would need to pull it off - year after year.

often, I run zone with FB - zone until midseason, then switch to zoco as my guys improve

has seble ever confirmed fb is going away in the new engine??????

I've had success with FB offense and FCP defense in the past. No national championships or anything but decent records with consistent NT appearances.

I run triangle-zone now and feel it's ok.

I don't think FB and zone match up well with each other two reasons:

1) Not sure about in the game, but in real life the FB keys off defensive rebounds and turnovers. Zone is the defense that gives up the most offensive rebounds, therefore eliminating an effective break.

2) The type of players needed for a FB are fast and athletic. While it doesn't *hurt* to have these players in a zone defense, they certainly aren't a necessary as in M2M or FCP. Therefore there is some "mismatch" between types of players needed. You can run a zone with less athletic players and still be somewhat ok.

On the flip side, running a zone will give your players a chance to rest a bit more on th defensive end and perhaps alleviate the need for superior stamina.

If the opponent tends to shoot a lot from the perimeter and doesn't have great rebounders, then a 3-2 zone might be effective. I would only use it in that situation and not for my everyday zone defense.

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 1/20/2010i started a fb/zone team a season ago in tark at csu northridge. they are absolutely horrible but have 0 seniors and 0 juniors and D prestige so i don't think that means much. and its the offense and defense i know the least about so i don't have any answers for you. but, i figured i'd try to take the opportunity to ask one or two, with all your fb success at syracuse :)

how do you feel the stamina penalty stacks up for fb vs press? for example, do you think fb zone is roughly comparable to triangle press fatigue-wise, or is there a significant difference?

also, what is the deal with zone? i just don't get it. do you play it much differently than the press? i would guess from reading the forums defense is a little more important, sb too for bigs, and speed less so. does that sound about right? given two equal teams, is the zone team better at rebounding than the press team?

From my experiences at VMI - where I switched from a MAn to a zone in consecutive seasons with largely the same players -

first: Block is rather a good thing to have in a zone.
Second: I still want to have speed and Athleticism, although it is posssible to hide a lack in one if you have it in the other. The same with defense. If one post, for example, is high, the other can be low(er) and you can get away with it.

Third: Rebounding is a definite thing you want.

I would certainly agree with all of those statements.