....who would you start at SF (D2)?

ATH	SPD	REB	DEF	SB	LP	PER	BH	PASS	STA	FT	OFF	DEF
53	81	1	65	2	16	89	72	46	76	B-	A-	A-
56	77	33	46	35	68	66	77	45	82	C+	A	A
64	62	33	69	37	22	60	57	43	77	C+	B+	B+

this is a very good offensive team including a very good PG and a SG who is possibly going to become the leading scorer in the history of D2 in that world, but never hurts to have someone else who can score, especially in the triangle.  defensively we play zone, so could absorb the weaker defense, but our very good offensive PG is already a fairly weak defender that we are hiding in the zone.

the rebounding certainly wouldn't hurt as I'd say we have at best average rebounding post players, though they have above average athleticism which should help close the gap in that department so it's probably not a dealbreaker.  could make a legit case for any of these guys i think.  just curious to gauge the thoughts of others.  the good news is that whichever two don't start will be pretty good coming in off the bench.

I would use the 3rd guy to help shore up the defense and rebounding. I feel he would be the best choice especially if you dont really need the scoring.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 10/15/2012 11:10:00 PM (view original):
I would use the 3rd guy to help shore up the defense and rebounding. I feel he would be the best choice especially if you dont really need the scoring.

+1

I would also lean towards the 3rd guy.  I'd also like to know why you say having a 3rd scorer is especially useful in the triangle.  I have always thought that scorers after the 2nd good to elite were least useful in the triangle of any offense.  Although I can't really speak to the fastbreak at all...

I like, in order,   #1, #3, and #2

dahs i just always thought it was best to have the highest portion of your distro spread out among 3 guys when running the triangle, but im certainly not a triangle expert

I like #2.  The IQ is helpful, the BH is good, and he won't turn the ball over.  #1 is a good scorer, but you don't need another 3pt shooter.  I will take the IQ and 20pts in BH over the 20pts def between #2 and #3.

I don't think you actually need to use 3 primary scorers in the triangle.  I just think triangle works better than the other offenses when you don't have 5 scorers on the floor, which is pretty inevitable everywhere but high D1.  I honestly think triangle is massively underutilized.  Even NC-caliber D2 and D3 teams rarely have 5 scorers starting, and never a bench full of scorers.  I think 99% of D2 and D3 teams would probably be best-off running triangle, but I may be wrong on that and I'm sure a lot of better coaches disagree with me...

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/16/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you actually need to use 3 primary scorers in the triangle.  I just think triangle works better than the other offenses when you don't have 5 scorers on the floor, which is pretty inevitable everywhere but high D1.  I honestly think triangle is massively underutilized.  Even NC-caliber D2 and D3 teams rarely have 5 scorers starting, and never a bench full of scorers.  I think 99% of D2 and D3 teams would probably be best-off running triangle, but I may be wrong on that and I'm sure a lot of better coaches disagree with me...

I totally agree, and yea I'd go with #3.

I give a slight advantage to #2 over #3. I really like guys w/ both high LP and PER. Plus, his IQ advantage over #3 makes the difference. #1 would make a much better reserve guard in your offense. His BH is superior as well. #3 is a better defender obviously, and might start over #2 in certain matchups against high-powered offenses, but I think #2 is the superior player. You're better off if #3 and #2 are playing similar minutes, as they complement each other. ( like #2 plays 22 minutes as the starting forward, and #3 plays 18)

Part of the reason I like #3 is that I think #1 and #2 are more versatile backups.  #3 absolutely can't play PG, and you don't like to give him minutes at SG if you can avoid it.  You're very happy to use 1 or 2 as the backup 2, and you can live with them backing up the 1.  Although it does look like you already have withheld one backup guard from the discussion...

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/16/2012 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Part of the reason I like #3 is that I think #1 and #2 are more versatile backups.  #3 absolutely can't play PG, and you don't like to give him minutes at SG if you can avoid it.  You're very happy to use 1 or 2 as the backup 2, and you can live with them backing up the 1.  Although it does look like you already have withheld one backup guard from the discussion...

Assume you mean Mark Davis...and yeah he's another one I have that could play the 3 but I withheld him because I think he's similar yet inferior to #3.  For the record, though it's no secret if you look at the exhibition games, I've been starting #3 at the SF position, which is the only position he plays.  #1 has been backing up the 1 and the 2, and #2 has been backing up the 2 and the 3.  

It's a very tough team to manage (don't get me wrong it's a great problem to have) because there are so many interchangeable parts...but it's also nice to be able to move creasy and flinn around to take advantage of certain matchups when the time comes, or to have that depth coming off the bench with some of these other guys

bow - for teams like yours, there's no reason not to adjust the starting lineup game by game to adjust to matchups. Just saying - you could switch up #2 and #3 depending on whether more offense or defense is needed.

definitely.  just more chance for me to screw things up :)

Have to admit I'm shocked here -- I say #2 by a mile.  Aside from the IQ advantage (which is significant), he's +7 over #3 in ATH+SPD, +20 in BH, and +52(!) in LP+PE -- only offset by #3's +23 in DEF.  Not to mention his balanced LP vs. PE means he can take advantage of whatever D is thrown at him.  I haven't responded to a post in what seems like years -- but due to a sense of justice, I felt compelled to intervene here.  I don't even think this is a contest.