Posted by zorzii on 10/11/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Guys, I read everything on the zone that was meaningful and know a bit more how it works. I think my Findlay team is good 1-2-3 and has a decent back-up plan on the SF portion of the zone. I don't have depth at the 1 and the 2... probably will need to change a SF to SG and get diminishing return.
Now, my question is simple : at the PF - C, where I am weak and my zone stinks... would you guys go with BLK at the PF and at the C spot. They count towards the blk together so it seems important to get two similar players so the zone is effective. Rebounding is counted individually from what I understood which means you still need solid rebounders.
Oh, and I am thinking to rescind a scholarship. I am juggling with the idea of redshirting Luke Hill.
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=14118
And get rid of one of these two players Peter Gassaway or Jeffrey Finger. Should I get rid of Luke Hill instead? I think I need to get some depth at PF, C.
rebounding is definitely still very important at the 4/5. zone is the worst rebounding defense, so its very important to grab strong rebounding players. the whole idea of the zone in HD is that you get more time from your stars, and you can get by with fewer players on the team, so you have to be able to leverage that to get slightly better players than everyone else, to make up for the fact that zone is a little shittier than the other sets in terms of the quality of the defense. although im honestly thinking that gap is smaller and smaller the more i play it, that zone really is a highly competitive set. i think it is dramatically under utilized but i guess i've said that enough and should shut up :)
ok, in terms of blk at the pf/c spot - yes they are both important. in the 3-2 you are right, defensively, it doesn't matter who plays where. defense is still the most important defensive attribute in the zone, don't forget that! that is very important. ath and blk are also very important for the pf/c in the 3-2 and also the 2-3, but definitely not as important as defense. i find that you don't HAVE to have stellar blockers in the zone, you want them, but if one is (in d1) 90 and the other is 70, its not like that is going to kill you. you still have to value ath and reb and def above block like you would in any other system. i do consider blocking a core in the zone.
i don't know hill's potential, but he does look like you should cut him. or gassaway. depends who is worse. it wouldn't hurt to cut a few guys. go back to what i said first - the whole point of zone is you can get better players and make more of the good players you get, than other teams. if you are struggling to get quality players, don't even worry about filling up. taking 2 walkons per season by intention is TOTALLY FINE and in fact i go back and forth between highly recommending it to zone coaches in most situations, and saying well there are really 2 ways to skin this cat but taking 2 walkons intentionally certainly is a good way. going for depth, if you can handle it, to get most of your time from upperclassmen, there is merit in that, but its harder. so really you should start thinking of your squad as an 8 man core who can go 10 deep for complete depth. being 8 deep is fine - it just has to be the case where your backup guard can play pg and sg, and that you have 3 guards and 3 bigs and 2 sfs (the 2nd sf being able to play sg or pf is a bonus, but not necessary). so going 10 deep is often easier for people to make sure they have guys at every role, but seriously if you shoot for 2 walkons and take 4, and have the 8 guys as 3 guards 2 sfs 3 bigs (and backup sf really doesn't matter much, it can basically be anyone), you will be fine. you can really do it 3 ways, you can have your 3 backups as 1 pg, 1 sg/sf, 1 pf/c, or 1 pg/sg, 1 sf (who can really be almost any type), and 1 pf/c, or 1 pg/sg, 1 sf/pf, and 1 c. so that does give you more flexibility in making that 8 man rotation work.