I'm beginning to think that 3-2 hurts rebounding much more than I had originally thought. I have two pretty stout bigs with 90+ rebounding on my UT-Arlington team and am still out-rebounded on a pretty regular basis. I just lost a 1st round NT game where I was dominated on the boards despite having a back-end rebounders.

Am I missing something?

The rebounding disadvantage is significant for zone, especially the 3-2. Among starters, I’d say you were at a disadvantage anyway, position by position. You had some slight rebound attribute advantages in the frontcourt, but you were at an athletic disadvantage.

I default to -2 when using 3-2 as a base. Against a normal, balanced offense that shoots what I consider a normal amount of threes and gets a normal amount of scoring from guards, I play -2. That’s for rebounding purposes more than preventing inside scoring. I move to -3 and -4 pretty fast, if they have big rebounding advantages.

Yeah, you need great ATH plus Reb for bigs. Also you need a SF that can reb. to help offset 3-2 reb. disadvantage. Like shoe said always go 3-2 -2, I usually go 3-2 -3 as my default.

You pretty much need everybody to rebound while playing zone, especially 3/2. And pretty much everybody needs to be 50+ ath.

Posted by mbriese on 4/19/2018 10:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm beginning to think that 3-2 hurts rebounding much more than I had originally thought. I have two pretty stout bigs with 90+ rebounding on my UT-Arlington team and am still out-rebounded on a pretty regular basis. I just lost a 1st round NT game where I was dominated on the boards despite having a back-end rebounders.

Am I missing something?

Yeah... I would definitely expect the rebounding margin to be better for you especially with a great rebounding SF.

But you did have a very big disadvantage in ATH in that game. 15-20 Ath all all those positions does make a big difference.