Flex offense - Hoops Dynasty | WhatIfSports.com

Posts: 227 (0)

Hall of Famer

65 16 34

Prospect

For the first time ever I took over a team that runs flex. Never ran it before. I took over Oregon state in div I. On the hoops 101, it says flex does not require a big to be successful and spreads the court to attack the hoop to draw in defenses for open outside shots. That sounds like it is like a 4 out set. Is that information accurately true for hd? I need per and spd, also don't worry about lp players?

5/30/2011 1:12 PM

btetzl50

Posts: 105 (0)

Hall of Famer

43

Prospect

I'm transitioning to a flex myself (I'm half way through my first season in HD) from fast break. I'd appreciate any input as well!

5/30/2011 1:34 PM

bow2dacowz

Posts: 1135 (0)

Hall of Famer

20 40 415 1 1

Prospect

i think youd be short sighted to "not worry about lp players" at all. just means you dont have to rely on them to carry your offense, but it doesn't hurt if they can contribute

5/30/2011 1:50 PM

Iguana1

Posts: 369 (0)

Hall of Famer

69 65

Rookie

In Real Life the Flex is probably best run with interchangable players.

The goal often is to put a defender in a position they're not comfortable defending which could be why the Hoops 101 mentions drawing in defenses.
Since it relies so much on picks it should be most successful against a man-to-man defense.

Maryland, under Gary Williams, was often looked at as one of the most successful flex offenses in D1. Gonzaga also uses a variation of that flex and even the Swing offense used by Wisconsin uses many elements of the flex with the bigs going outside and the smalls going inside.
Of the other HD offenses I'd say it's most similar to Motion based on the continual movement of players.

In the world of HD I guess many would assume that should require players to have a more balanced ratio of LP vs PER. ie.. bigs with higher than normal PER and smalls with higher LP. But bigs still need to play inside (and perimeter players still will play outside) so I would think ignoring LP for bigs would be a mistake.

Not sure that translates to actual HD results as I've seen both perimeter players and post players be successful in the flex.

5/30/2011 4:26 PM (edited)

2bounce

Posts: 224 (0)

Hall of Famer

58

Prospect

You can get away with running 3 guards in Flex and I have seen teams run 4. I seldon have a Center. Perimeter is critical especially if you have three good preimeter player and the 4th has some. I don't mind a PF or at times even a SF playing Center who has LP but not PER but I do like them to have at least 20 in BH and Pas. In theory, that allows them to drive to the basket against bigger defenders. I also like them to have some Spd for the same reason.

5/30/2011 6:29 PM

cheeznsweet

Posts: 112 (0)

Hall of Famer

103 55 1

Prospect

Posted by Iguana1 on 5/30/2011 4:26:00 PM (view original):
In Real Life the Flex is probably best run with interchangable players.

The goal often is to put a defender in a position they're not comfortable defending which could be why the Hoops 101 mentions drawing in defenses.
Since it relies so much on picks it should be most successful against a man-to-man defense.

Maryland, under Gary Williams, was often looked at as one of the most successful flex offenses in D1. Gonzaga also uses a variation of that flex and even the Swing offense used by Wisconsin uses many elements of the flex with the bigs going outside and the smalls going inside.
Of the other HD offenses I'd say it's most similar to Motion based on the continual movement of players.

In the world of HD I guess many would assume that should require players to have a more balanced ratio of LP vs PER. ie.. bigs with higher than normal PER and smalls with higher LP. But bigs still need to play inside (and perimeter players still will play outside) so I would think ignoring LP for bigs would be a mistake.

Not sure that translates to actual HD results as I've seen both perimeter players and post players be successful in the flex.

Iguana nails it. I'd add one thing: big men than can pass.

And reinforcing the point that ignoring LP for bigs would be a terrible idea.

5/31/2011 11:48 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

I am not positive you guys have it right, nor am I sure you have it wrong, here are two things to ponder:

1 - by far the most success I have had at this game has been running motion with 3 guards, yet last season I won a national title in world 5 with duke running triangle with 3 guards, and a sf playing pf & a very sf like pf playing center, my uconn team in tark is probably a top 25 franchise in HD, and they have been flex, and also often run 3 guards, but possibly less than other places - hence my not being sure as I could make a case for an outside oriented team with triangle, motion, and flex.

2 - lets assume for a moment flex is the best offense to play outside from, which for argument's sake, lets call a 3 guard offense. Would it not be logical then that one of the two remaining offenses would work best with a 3 big lineup, while the other would work best with a 2 guard, 2 big, and a standard sf playing sf? Does anyone see a case for a PF or C type playing SF working best for any of the 3 offenses?

I throw this into the mix, simply for the new players who may be interpreting what is posted here as gospel, which I do not think is the case, but I will stress, my POV is strictly opinion, I leave open that others may indeed know better.

5/31/2011 11:50 AM

cheeznsweet

Posts: 112 (0)

Hall of Famer

103 55 1

Prospect

OR - I don't think your point #2 is an accurate logical leap. I don't think that the only option for the differences in offenses is the # of players in each position.

I think the real difference is the style of players, regardless of position.

For example, I've always thought of an ideal lineup for each offense as:

triangle: one outside shooter, one general scorer (good inside/out ability), a big that can pass and rebound very well but doesn't need great scoring
flex: two shooters, a big that can pass and score inside
motion: general "interchangeability" between players ("bigs" have higher than avg per, guards have higher than avg LP, "bigs" can handle the ball, etc).
fastbreak: good stamina, speed, athleticism

5/31/2011 12:54 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

cheeze - you did not understand my point #2 - it was not meant so by position, the position was relative to a style of player, not position as an absolute lik PG or PF, I like how you defined stuff, that is a good way to think, but ..... my counter discussion centers about get as much as you can, don't worry about shooters, scorers, passers, rebounders, how many of this or that as it relates to offense .... I have found nobody able to prove it works ..... closest was lost myth, but he / she had such ridiculous rated players, my point was more accurate than his in defining why those teams won, the teams had lots of everything, more than everyone else had, hence they won.

but, even if asked to define, I would not at all follow your advice, for example, I like playing motion with 3 guards with no lp and 2 centers with no guard skill, near opposite of what you said, my bigs don't have any of that you defined, that was the strategy I used in west conn tark, take a look at that team in the first 10 seasons or so in tark, they won quite often.

If I were to define an offense I might use your motion strategy, it might be flex.

So are you saying if a 100 ath/sp/reb/lp/bh/pa/stam/ft% big man was available 10 miles away, you would pass if you ran triangle and not recuit him, even if hw wanted to come to you place, or once you had him, you would not give him the ball? My point is get as much as you can of everything , and when lucky enough to find a great player, give him lots of distro.

but overall, get as much of everything as you can, don't worry about recruiting players to fit an offense, that is my advice, it might not be right, but that is my advice.

5/31/2011 1:09 PM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

I pretty much follow what OR said, I just sign the best players I can and try to make it work. I've run every offense a good deal except for fastbreak and I can't honestly say I've noticed much of a difference lately. In the past I thought Flex was the best offense to lean on 1 or 2 guys and not take too big of a efficiency hit while Motion was the opposite but I don't see that now as last season in Phelan I had the nation's leading scorer in D1 shoot close to 49% while playing PG running Motion.

5/31/2011 1:27 PM

tianyi7886

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

Has anyone seen any diff between flex/motion/triangle?

5/31/2011 2:49 PM

dirtycajun

Posts: 72 (0)

Hall of Famer

317 23

Prospect

I have been running flex for about 10 seasons and really like it. My record does not really indicate it, and I'm currently building a D+ LaSalle squad and changed to flex last season. Personally I like a C who can score but just as important, pass the ball. My PF I like to run as my "goon"----an athletic guy who blocks shots, rebounds, and again, can pass. I like my PG and SG to control the perimeter and shoot well, and like to mix in my SF as well so I have 3 dangerous shooters. Athletic players, great passing, move the ball, and put pressure on the other team with 3 very good shooters and I think its a pretty simple recipe for success. Although what I just put here could apply to any of the other offenses!!

5/31/2011 3:20 PM

isack24

Posts: 1566 (0)

Hall of Famer

81 19

Prospect

I doubt cheez is saying that he wouldn't take the best player available because of some narrow set of positional guidelines. I think his point is that given the choice between two similarly-rated players, he would focus on the things he highlighted.

OR: as for you winning with those motion lineups, OR, who is to say that you wouldn't have been better usign cheez' general guidelines? Your teams could have succeeded based on overall talent, the same way that you said LM's teams did, right?

I don't think anyone would argue that the teams with the best players will win most often. But that doesn't prove that the players are ideal for the offense being run.

5/31/2011 4:02 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

Posted by isack24 on 5/31/2011 4:02:00 PM (view original):
I doubt cheez is saying that he wouldn't take the best player available because of some narrow set of positional guidelines. I think his point is that given the choice between two similarly-rated players, he would focus on the things he highlighted.

OR: as for you winning with those motion lineups, OR, who is to say that you wouldn't have been better usign cheez' general guidelines? Your teams could have succeeded based on overall talent, the same way that you said LM's teams did, right?

I don't think anyone would argue that the teams with the best players will win most often. But that doesn't prove that the players are ideal for the offense being run.

yep

5/31/2011 5:58 PM

Forums

Flex offense Topic

Search Criteria