* This post is purely hypothetical and in no way should be taken into account if you happen to be game-planning or recruiting against me *
Asking the collective wisdom of the HD forums, if you were to run a team with 2 guards (a point and a 2) - 2 wings (2 SF, no true PF) - 1 big (high ATH/REB/BLK/DE) that sets up in a 2-3 zone (guards on top, wings on sides hopefully), how would you value perimeter vs rebounding in any individual non-big player?
Now, assume you are not a rebuilding mid-minor conference DI team that needs any talent it can get, but instead are doing this to see the 2-2-1 build in its most pristine form. What does that look like to you?
Because there are at least two ways to skin this cat as I see it, either use the zone to get 4 shooters out on that court, bump the speed, wear your opponents down, and regularly score 3 instead of 2s to make up for all the opponent offensive boards, or put 4 rebounders out on that court, limit second chances and outside looks, win the foul-battle, and forget about the lack of turnovers your zone is generating. Obviously the more of both the better but if you're choosing between the two (or another option), which one and why?
Also, I've done zero research but I would love to know of any coaches actively or in the past implementing this kind of team design.
(History note: this is my brain's theoretical antidote to the dominance of the D3 press, but ambition and curiosity didn't let me see that through)

I like where your head is at. I think a good coach committed to either setup (perimeter scoring forwards, or rebounding forwards) can make it work very well. I would also say, I don’t think you have to limit your thinking in this regard to a 2-3 base, this concept can work with a 3-2 base as well. I mention that, because since so many good human coaches use good perimeter scoring, 3-2 defense tends to be a little more effective, a little more often. One nice thing about zone in general, and stocking up on good, versatile wings within that scheme specifically, is that it gives you that flexibility to move back and forth, provided you don’t mind doing the day-to-day gameplanning.

Personally, with a flex offense, I might tend to lean toward trying to stretch offensively, if I was going to use this approach. Flex utilizes more perimeter at all 5 positions. With triangle, I would lean the other way, toward rebounding, and good LP forwards. With motion or FB, it would probably just come down to best players available in those positions for me.

I have thought about this kind of thing before, but haven’t committed to a plan yet. I use a half-court press to give myself a possession advantage, and don’t really want to give up rebounds for that reason. So I focus on two and sometimes now 3 good rebounding positions, which limits my options for perimeter 4s.

Your biggest problem here is that zone defense (even in a 2-3) is the worst rebounding set. I already want my SF to have a bit of rebounding in a zone(20-30 at D3) but if your PF is going to be a D3 wing (thinking at best 50 Reb), you are going to get killed on the glass. Regarding how it translates to the offensive side, I am always a proponent of more 3s. Having more players that can score that way is always useful. Just be a bit cautious regarding how completely one-dimensional you are because teams can obviously game plan for that. Also, I think you get fairly diminished returns for a 3-point shooter at PF.

I do think alot of success is commonly had in D2-D3 with a 2 guards, 2 wings and a post (or 1 guard, 3 wings and a post) but it is more easily applied with the press where the extra speed leads to considerably more turnovers. If your heart is set of zone (a defense I enjoy playing with), I think a better strategy is to get more rebounders/shot blockers which are alittle less prized from the FCP/press teams. I would especially target low stamina players since the vast majority of D2/D3 coaches are using the press and low stam guys kill them so the smart coaches will typically avoid the low stam guys even when they are better recruits.

Two important caveats, I mostly play D1 these days and the all important reminder that any time of team with the right players and the right coach can be a successful strategy. It just may be more difficult that other routes.

Posted by texashick on 11/18/2020 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Your biggest problem here is that zone defense (even in a 2-3) is the worst rebounding set. I already want my SF to have a bit of rebounding in a zone(20-30 at D3) but if your PF is going to be a D3 wing (thinking at best 50 Reb), you are going to get killed on the glass. Regarding how it translates to the offensive side, I am always a proponent of more 3s. Having more players that can score that way is always useful. Just be a bit cautious regarding how completely one-dimensional you are because teams can obviously game plan for that. Also, I think you get fairly diminished returns for a 3-point shooter at PF.

I do think alot of success is commonly had in D2-D3 with a 2 guards, 2 wings and a post (or 1 guard, 3 wings and a post) but it is more easily applied with the press where the extra speed leads to considerably more turnovers. If your heart is set of zone (a defense I enjoy playing with), I think a better strategy is to get more rebounders/shot blockers which are alittle less prized from the FCP/press teams. I would especially target low stamina players since the vast majority of D2/D3 coaches are using the press and low stam guys kill them so the smart coaches will typically avoid the low stam guys even when they are better recruits.

Two important caveats, I mostly play D1 these days and the all important reminder that any time of team with the right players and the right coach can be a successful strategy. It just may be more difficult that other routes.

Yeah, conventional wisdom is that 2-3 is a set where you want your 3 to have much more reb than usual, not your 4 having less. But obviously this isn't a fast rule.

This is going to be somewhat random, all over the place ramblings -- but all of which leads to me saying I am preparing the process to put in place something like this.

Right now I have Texas Tech (Phelan) FB/FCP and Army (Tark) Motion/Zone. Phelan B12 is brutal. I was looking for ways to differentiate Tech and cushion "down" seasons (beyond me being not as good as the B12 coaching comp).

Started reading through forum threads about pairing/matching offenses and defenses. Came across a post by gil about pairing FB/Zone. Alot of HD seems to be pair a "slow" offense with FCP to offset stamina and depth. IRL, Bob "huggy bear" Huggins practices a hyperkinetic defense with a basic offense; Chris "loves him some WhataBurger" Beard practices a lot of defense before he gets to the offense. What if HD went other way -- hyperkinetic offense with a zone to help with stamina and depth.

Conceptually (but probably not way HD actually plays), I am shifting to FB/Zone to try what was originally posted.

i think there's a couple interesting concepts in there, and some good feedback in the comments, but i don't know exactly that all the concepts in the original post go together. i think you have a few things going on.

in general, the 2-3 vs 3-2 is all about fg and 3pt defense. it also plays in a big way into depth and balance, but things like offense (especially) and rebounding don't generally function differently than in any other approach. you still are bound by all the same rules of gravity in terms of things like loading up with a ton of per from the 1-4 is probably going to be wasteful, or having crappy rebounding to go along with the crappy turnovers of zone is effectively conceding total defeat on the possession game, which excludes one from being a top tier team.

now, if you are talking about having some flexibility in taking a little less rebounding here or there and having a little more per here or there, because you have these 2 wings instead of 2 bigs - i think there is nothing that says you can't have some per at the 4, and use that to offset lacking per elsewhere. but still, that per scoring from the 4 is rarely going to be super efficient on the 3pt scoring scale, you aren't going to have so much bh and spd that it makes sense to load up on it at the 4, so you still want most of your per scoring from the 1-3. also, you can always use flexibility in rebounding, pg and sg contribute in a big way to rebounding if they have it, and in general folks undervalue reb in the pg/sg - so sure, that sounds fine. i'm not exactly sure how any of this is any different in the face of a 2-3 or 3-2 zone, however.

the one area i see that really ties to zone is the comment about the dominance of press in d3 and bumping the speed to wear opponents down. i think that is an under utilized strategy. a lot of folks build zone to focus on stars, but i like the idea of focusing on uptempo zone and man as counters to the over usage of press in d2/d3. you have to have depth, but i think its totally viable. running uptempo into press is an underutilized counter, but you can't just start doing it, you really have to build the team for it first. and that team very well may be more small ball or per oriented than the average team, because you are prioritizing bh, pass, and stamina (or whatever). i think that could work well for you, but you are REALLY going to have to find a way to be good at rebounding in spite of that. and also i wouldn't over-complicate the relation between the 2-3, 3-2, and any of this - yeah you don't want a straight guard at the 4 in the 3-2 for fg defense, but you don't want it for many other reasons - i wouldn't go that far. m2m would also be suitable for this approach.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/18/2020 12:40:00 PM (view original):
I like where your head is at. I think a good coach committed to either setup (perimeter scoring forwards, or rebounding forwards) can make it work very well. I would also say, I don’t think you have to limit your thinking in this regard to a 2-3 base, this concept can work with a 3-2 base as well. I mention that, because since so many good human coaches use good perimeter scoring, 3-2 defense tends to be a little more effective, a little more often. One nice thing about zone in general, and stocking up on good, versatile wings within that scheme specifically, is that it gives you that flexibility to move back and forth, provided you don’t mind doing the day-to-day gameplanning.

Personally, with a flex offense, I might tend to lean toward trying to stretch offensively, if I was going to use this approach. Flex utilizes more perimeter at all 5 positions. With triangle, I would lean the other way, toward rebounding, and good LP forwards. With motion or FB, it would probably just come down to best players available in those positions for me.

I have thought about this kind of thing before, but haven’t committed to a plan yet. I use a half-court press to give myself a possession advantage, and don’t really want to give up rebounds for that reason. So I focus on two and sometimes now 3 good rebounding positions, which limits my options for perimeter 4s.

I'm curious here about the interplay between 3-2 and 2-3. The 3-2 offers better perimeter D, but can that be off-set but a +3, +4, +5 gameplan in 2-3? And would the 3-2 not hurt you additionally on the boards because now you've only got two players close to the basket and your big with high REB is off-center?

Posted by bpielcmc on 11/19/2020 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/18/2020 12:40:00 PM (view original):
I like where your head is at. I think a good coach committed to either setup (perimeter scoring forwards, or rebounding forwards) can make it work very well. I would also say, I don’t think you have to limit your thinking in this regard to a 2-3 base, this concept can work with a 3-2 base as well. I mention that, because since so many good human coaches use good perimeter scoring, 3-2 defense tends to be a little more effective, a little more often. One nice thing about zone in general, and stocking up on good, versatile wings within that scheme specifically, is that it gives you that flexibility to move back and forth, provided you don’t mind doing the day-to-day gameplanning.

Personally, with a flex offense, I might tend to lean toward trying to stretch offensively, if I was going to use this approach. Flex utilizes more perimeter at all 5 positions. With triangle, I would lean the other way, toward rebounding, and good LP forwards. With motion or FB, it would probably just come down to best players available in those positions for me.

I have thought about this kind of thing before, but haven’t committed to a plan yet. I use a half-court press to give myself a possession advantage, and don’t really want to give up rebounds for that reason. So I focus on two and sometimes now 3 good rebounding positions, which limits my options for perimeter 4s.

I'm curious here about the interplay between 3-2 and 2-3. The 3-2 offers better perimeter D, but can that be off-set but a +3, +4, +5 gameplan in 2-3? And would the 3-2 not hurt you additionally on the boards because now you've only got two players close to the basket and your big with high REB is off-center?

Playing +3 and above is rarely ideal IMO (likewise -3 and below) because you’re really vulnerable on the extremes. You want to be sure you know what your opponent is going to be throwing at you if you do that. I usually determine 2-3 vs 3-2 based on my team’s personnel first and foremost, and then tweak slightly to my opponent. So if I have 6 bigs and only 4 guards, including a freshman, my team is going to struggle going 3-2 effectively, even if my opponent is taking half their attempts from beyond the arc. In that case, 2-3 at +1 or -2 and maybe doubling a couple of their high distribution guards is going to be my best option, if I don’t feel my defense can handle them straight up. Trying to switch to 3-2 and playing a rebounding forward with substandard speed is not likely to give me the results I want, in that case.

On the other hand, from a rebounding perspective, I don’t really like the trade off of moving 3 good rebounding front court players away from the basket, versus moving 2 good front court players in. That’s why, all else being equal, I am much more likely to default to a 3-2 at -2 than I am a 2-3 at +1. I’ll often use both when I have the personnel for it, but my preference is for the 3-2.