This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I'm not running a combo, but . . how do I put this. .

Are the teams that are running the combo the same as the teams that aren't? In other words, do the coaches that tend to run combo defenses tend to have certain characteristics to their teams?

It woudl be kind of interesting. .albeit absurdly time consuming - to see a study of what the average ratings are of teams that chose to run certain offenses or defenses.

I am still torn when it comes to running a combo defense. I have run combo defenses for both of my teams since potential. It seems to make sense because most players at least at DII and DIII are maxed out early in their careers, meaning I have a lot of wasted practice minutes. So my philosophy was to use those minutes towards something and play a combo D. Now is this effective? Not sure.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 11/26/2009Anything is possible, but that's certainly never, ever been stated.The old party line was that if you had a press/m2m team that had B iq's in m2m, they were not supposed to perform as well in the base halfcourt m2m defense as an otherwise identical straight m2m team with A iq's. Now, the extras afforded by the hcp (to's, mostly) might help outweigh the relative deficiency in m2m. But overall, that combo team should play worse halfcourt defense (fg%, fouls, etc.) than an identical straight m2m team with the A iq's. That's how it's supposed to work. I agree with cal that's not how it's working.

i agree with this. except the that's not how its working part. i spent a month watching a dozen combo teams, when i inherited a team with some zone/press iq, and it didn't seem to make the base defense any better. nor did it seem to produce many turnovers. although, i was also going off box scores and play by plays, and nobody really knows how much of that is "real" and how much is window dressing.