BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Defence training should be upon diffence positions

Defence training should be upon diffence positions (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
203874.11 in reply to 203874.10
Date: 12/3/2011 1:05:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
When one is playing 2-3, there are two players at the backcourt and three at the front court. Each has a different role.
Have you ever played basketball? For the 2 defenders in the backcourt, it does not matter which one of them is PG and which one is SG. Are you trying to say that, PG is always left and SG is always right. Comon stop going nuts again.
Your suggestion makes training a lot more random (depending on the luck factor of who is playing more on offence/defence). It would even be better to bring back the old system, than to implement your suggestion. The current version is understandable and works like it is supposed to. Why downgrade?



He isn't against switching the position, but there are 2 guys mostly working at the backcourt since three of them take care of midrange and inside.

I don't think that he want to implement the exact position during a zone, which could have mean that FCP could lead to a guard position training OD ending as a "team training".

he want to combine, the defense training to the role where the player play defensively and not in offense, which makes sense. And off position training getting (much) harder through it too, since the player could play there natural position in the offense.

From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
203874.12 in reply to 203874.11
Date: 12/3/2011 1:18:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
He was talking about splitting minutes on offence and defence. For this to actually work, we should be counting minutes at offence and defence while set to play one position aswell. So 48 minutes might look like PG - 22 minutes offence, PG - 26 minutes defence. That's one game. Good luck getting 48 minutes for defence training. If you change something it should be implemented on all training. Perhaps lowering the minutes to 24 at defence/offence for full training. What happens when you get unlucky and log minutes below 24 on offence, because you played a fast offence and opponent was playing slow.

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
203874.13 in reply to 203874.12
Date: 12/3/2011 1:40:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
He was talking about splitting minutes on offence and defence. For this to actually work, we should be counting minutes at offence and defence while set to play one position aswell. So 48 minutes might look like PG - 22 minutes offence, PG - 26 minutes defence. That's one game. Good luck getting 48 minutes for defence training. If you change something it should be implemented on all training. Perhaps lowering the minutes to 24 at defence/offence for full training. What happens when you get unlucky and log minutes below 24 on offence, because you played a fast offence and opponent was playing slow.


this 22 and 26 minutes game, would be the same in offense then. like playing 22 minutes SG and 26 minutes PG, else you wouldn't manage to get the minutes in defence.

So about managing minutes it won't change ... Ok it get easier to build a plan B, since you have the oppurtunity to have different training plans for offensiv and defensiv training.

main think i don't like at this suggestion, that it will lead to a lot confusion, when they change it for newcomer it should be easily understand(even when you could argue if rebounding is offensiv or defensiv)

This Post:
00
203874.14 in reply to 203874.8
Date: 12/4/2011 1:56:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
Disussing how hard it will be to implement is pointless.

Generally it is not pointless. It gives an idea whether we can realistically expect for something to be implemented or fixed quickly.
It is pointless as we cannot know what the BB can do and how hard it is realy is under their OS and current code.
It is pointless as we cannot know the priority order of the BBs.
It is pointless as it does not add to the discussion. In contradiction - suggesting a simpler way (instead) adds to the discussion.

This Post:
00
203874.15 in reply to 203874.10
Date: 12/4/2011 2:08:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
When one is playing 2-3, there are two players at the backcourt and three at the front court. Each has a different role.
Have you ever played basketball? For the 2 defenders in the backcourt, it does not matter which one of them is PG and which one is SG. Are you trying to say that, PG is always left and SG is always right. Comon stop going nuts again.
Your suggestion makes training a lot more random (depending on the luck factor of who is playing more on offence/defence). It would even be better to bring back the old system, than to implement your suggestion. The current version is understandable and works like it is supposed to. Why downgrade?
Oh help me god...

1) As you said - the two guards are the one who are playing at the frontcourt of 2-3 deffence.
It is not important who will play where between them.

2) When you are playing 2-3 and train only the PG, you will need to define who is trained!!!
Currently you are doing that by defininf the players at the offence.
What should happen when one want to train a player at deffence is doing the right same thing about the DEFFENCE.