Nevertheless I think it's safe to say that he would not have been equally successful in another offensive set based on what I'm seeing on other teams.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/19/2010
I would think that zone would fit best with the triangle because both cases allow you to get away with slower players and less athletic guards. I already proved to myself in 1 season that a slow guard with good perimeter shooting can be an effective scorer. I had a freshman SG with <50 perimeter and >30 speed who ended up 5th in the conference in 3% while leading my team in scoring in spite of the fact that his IQ in the system was very bad to start the season. He's already on pace to become the 2nd highest scorer in franchise history and is likely to improve in future seasons. He has 51 defense, so I'm very comfortable playing him in the zone. However, I'd be terrified to play a guy that slow (currently up to 30) in a man-to-man against some of the other SGs in the conference. He's be totally worthless in a press.

On the other hand, if you're running a fastbreak offense everybody on your team has to be fast and have good stamina already. Might as well press since you can afford to; it also helps you avoid having to recruit as much defense and shot blocking as you might need to in other schemes.

I would think if you play the flex you should have enough speed and athleticism at all positions (if your players are well-suited to the flex offense) that unless your players are really poor defensively you should be able to run a man-to-man defense. If the defense is that bad the press is probably a much better fit than the zone.

Be careful to draw conclusions too quickly. You played an extremely weak sked (you didn't set it, not your fault) and that can badly skew things. My guess it that if you played a tough sked his #'s would've been dramatically different.

There's also not nearly as strong a correlation as you're trying to draw between the difference offenses. Personally I don't recruit differently for motion or triangle (I don't play fb and just haven't had a flex team in forever), and you'll talk to alot of vet coaches who'll tell you the same. Especially since you're just starting out and getting the hang of things, I'd encourage you to target the most talented recruits, period.

None of that is said to be discouraging. It's very clear from your early posts that you're sharp and will pick things up quickly. Feel free to drop me a sitemail any time with thoughts/questions/comments. Most vets would be glad to offer the same.

(EDIT: I see some of thunder was already stolen on the scheduling piece.)

My Salem International team runs a flex/zone with great success.

I recruit good passing, speed and perimeter players which makes the flex work. I run a zone so the DEF rating isn't as important but a good rating still helps, it allows my stars to get more minutes, and makes shot blocking a key category I recruit for. 3 of the top 5 shot blockers in my school's history graduated within the last season or 2 and I have another JR now who will be top 5 when he is done

Just because a team plays zone doesn't mean they are slow and unathletic. I have fast players and good athletes and I like to keep them as fresh as possible with a zone.

What are thoughts on using a 3-2? I just ran a 2-3 with +2 (+4 after half) and the opposing team shot 20-39 from 3pt land.

Quote: Originally posted by giesen5 on 4/21/2010What are thoughts on using a 3-2? I just ran a 2-3 with +2 (+4 after half) and the opposing team shot 20-39 from 3pt land.

lostmyth, who is a very good coach, tends to think it's worth going 3-2 if an opponent is shooting around 40% or more of their shots from 3pt land. i've found this to be a pretty good rule of thumb.

your opponent only shoots 28.5% of their shots from 3pt land, BUT they make a whopping 44% of their 3s (and 46% of their total shots). you could make a case for a 3-2 against San Francisco St for sure.

Quote: Originally posted by summerteeth on 4/21/2010

Quote: Originally posted by giesen5 on 4/21/2010What are thoughts on using a 3-2? I just ran a 2-3 with +2 (+4 after half) and the opposing team shot 20-39 from 3pt land.

lostmyth, who is a very good coach, tends to think it's worth going 3-2 if an opponent is shooting around 40% or more of their shots from 3pt land. i've found this to be a pretty good rule of thumb.

your opponent only shoots 28.5% of their shots from 3pt land, BUT they make a whopping 44% of their 3s (and 46% of their total shots). you could make a case for a 3-2 against San Francisco St for sure.

Yep, they surprised the hell out of me with that strategy.

Small sample size, but the top 5 scoring teams shoot less than 30% of their shots from 3pt land. Are there many teams that shoot more than 40%?

no, i haven't seen too many. maybe around 5% of the teams shoot that many 3s in WIS.

the 3-2 sacrifices a lot of rebounding, so you have to be really sure it's the right call to use it.

Thanks summerteeth. By the way, you a Wilco fan?

Quote: Originally posted by giesen5 on 4/21/2010Thanks summerteeth. By the way, you a Wilco fan?

glad to help and yes, a long time Wilco fan... since the mid 90s.