I want the man-to-man match-ups to happen so badly!! To be able to pick who each person guards, opposed to having to switch around positions would help so much!  Vent over...

+1

+2

+3

Trend broken. 


But I do agree completely. Seems like something that should have been included from the get-go. 

I also think this should be an option, but there would have to be a corresponding option for zone (maybe box-and-1 and triangle-and-two options somehow) or else you are going to nerf zone completely (and it's already relatively weak) compared to press and man-to-man.

Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

Posted by llamanunts on 6/4/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

I don't know, you may be right.  But I just think if you can give a certain player a certain matchup, it wouldn't be that bad.  Like their SG is a stud and I want my PG to guard him without having to take my point out of position.  If their SG is on the bench when my PG is in the game, then my PG guards his position.

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/4/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

I don't know, you may be right.  But I just think if you can give a certain player a certain matchup, it wouldn't be that bad.  Like their SG is a stud and I want my PG to guard him without having to take my point out of position.  If their SG is on the bench when my PG is in the game, then my PG guards his position.

So if I'm understanding you right, you're saying keep the existing M2M rules, but allow for one layer above that that says "If opponent player X is in the game, and my player Y is in the game, always guard X with Y". Is that right?

Posted by bhansalid00 on 6/4/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/4/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

I don't know, you may be right.  But I just think if you can give a certain player a certain matchup, it wouldn't be that bad.  Like their SG is a stud and I want my PG to guard him without having to take my point out of position.  If their SG is on the bench when my PG is in the game, then my PG guards his position.

So if I'm understanding you right, you're saying keep the existing M2M rules, but allow for one layer above that that says "If opponent player X is in the game, and my player Y is in the game, always guard X with Y". Is that right?

Yes that is correct... maybe even X-1 and X-2... then after that just allow the position to guard position

The reason I ask is because I suspect that's more doable - it's similar to the double-teaming logic that already exists.

However, I'm not in favor of going any deeper than being able to set one defender to cover one opponent - as llamanunts pointed out, you're going to open up a huge can of worms. And he's also right that this may tilt things more towards the defense, and offenses are going to complain that they don't have a response ("If my guy is defended by their stud defender, don't shoot as much").

Overall, I'm neutral on the idea because I'm not sure it buys you much more than just switching around your starting lineup to create matchups, as you can do now.

I understand that, and I would be in favor of the one over none as it is now.  The reason I don't like it with the switching is if my best defender is my SG and next best SF... and their best guy is PG followed by their SG.... The only way to put my best defenders on their best scorers is by moving my PG to the SF position...

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 6/4/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/4/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

I don't know, you may be right.  But I just think if you can give a certain player a certain matchup, it wouldn't be that bad.  Like their SG is a stud and I want my PG to guard him without having to take my point out of position.  If their SG is on the bench when my PG is in the game, then my PG guards his position.

So if I'm understanding you right, you're saying keep the existing M2M rules, but allow for one layer above that that says "If opponent player X is in the game, and my player Y is in the game, always guard X with Y". Is that right?

Yes that is correct... maybe even X-1 and X-2... then after that just allow the position to guard position

if you do that, then can the offense have an option to adjust distro if X is guarding Y?

and once you do that, you get into the maze of contingencies

Posted by fd343ny on 6/4/2014 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 6/4/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/4/2014 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/4/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Won't work; too many contingencies.  How many possible lineups are you going to plan for?  Do you give the offensive coach the option to have different distribution based on who's guarding whom?  How many depth charts does that necessitate?  And on and on.

This is one of those things where you can't mirror real life without turning it into a game-mechanics nightmare.

I don't know, you may be right.  But I just think if you can give a certain player a certain matchup, it wouldn't be that bad.  Like their SG is a stud and I want my PG to guard him without having to take my point out of position.  If their SG is on the bench when my PG is in the game, then my PG guards his position.

So if I'm understanding you right, you're saying keep the existing M2M rules, but allow for one layer above that that says "If opponent player X is in the game, and my player Y is in the game, always guard X with Y". Is that right?

Yes that is correct... maybe even X-1 and X-2... then after that just allow the position to guard position

if you do that, then can the offense have an option to adjust distro if X is guarding Y?

and once you do that, you get into the maze of contingencies

I guess I just don't see it this way.  Like... if X is guarding your best player.... are you really going to take THAT much distro off?  It's the same thing with coming to a coach that is going to double team your stud... are you going to cut his distro by half?  In real life, best defenders always get put on best scorers at any level... and best scorers still find a way to succeed.

I would set it up similar to a depth chart. 

You can set an order of 5 players for who your prefer to guard each of your opponent's players. If you don't set it up for an opposing player, defending them will be handled as it is now. It would work simply, whoever is highest in the order that's on the court would guard that player.