thats great advice from sol there. depth is super important in the fb/fcp, and its a combination of actual depth (12 men / even rotation), stamina (80+ team average), and def/ath/iq for foul avoidance. the latter bit is becoming more and more important in my eyes as i play fb/fcp more - but i kinda feel like in d3 - you already trying to cover so many fronts with such imperfect players, that its probably best to mostly focus on the stamina and getting to 12. if anything, you want to tolerate more fatigue in your bigs - if you have 8 guys who are really 1-3 types and 4 traditional bigs, that is *much* better than the reverse. sliding a sf to pf is ok, but not the reverse. like all press-based schemes, your #1 priority remains building an effective press, which is roughly the most powerful force in this game - and you can't do that if your guards are tired - no matter how talented.
the only thing i'll take exception to is the need for 10 40+ speed players. i have seen no issue running traditional bigs at the 4/5 with press alone, with fb alone, or with fb/fcp together. for a non scoring big in fb/fcp, speed is barely more valuable than durability. i know that the fb/fcp teams people look at, that are pretty successful, are a lot of times really guard heavy, really speed heavy - this tends to work because guards are just so much more important in that approach, and a team rocking 8-9 of them is usually going to have a pretty darn good set of their best 5-6 guards playing the 1-3. the idea that speed going to the 4 is part of what makes those teams good is a red herring, the idea that trading speed for reb at the 4 is 'not a big loss' is wrong. its merely a tolerable loss for those chasing great guards and great guard stamina - which is super important - so if they way you succeed there, is to have extra 1-3 type players, and you play some of them at the 4 while they are young or whatever - that's fine, its a reasonable tradeoff. but i hate for people to think trading speed for rebounding at the 4 in a vacuum is anything but a substantial loss.