BuzzerBeater Forums

I KNEW someone else had to be thinking that! I figured you, the Andersonville Alligators, and myself might do it.

Too many guards on the roster to not have had that thought. I'm not too far from actually doing that...

Go back and look at my games from season 60, I used FCP all season. Decided though that I needed to build inside guys differently than I could buy them to maximize it. Thus my experimental trainees I’ve been building. Problem is the other players I’ve found on a budget on the TL haven’t been optimal for FCP and I’ve gotten side tracked mastering a different build for the 3-2 defense also. But I will return to FCP at some point.

Last edited by ehoosier at 11/18/2024 2:36:27 AM

What are some general requirements to run FCP effectively?

Outside of the obvious, very good OD at all positions. I’d suggest a good deal of shot blocking and decent rebounding across most positions. My theory is that because of the pace the offense gets few post up opportunities but lots of drives to the basket. This makes ID less important but shot blocking more important. I don’t think you need a level 18 rebounder but I think more rebounding across the board. Give me 4 guys with 9 through 12 rebounding (at D3) over 1 or 2 big rebounders. Main thing is to keep rebounding as close as you can to not offset the turnover advantage you generate.

Last edited by ehoosier at 11/18/2024 3:11:53 PM

Keep the rebounding close is huge. I have found (small sample size) in my experience that if you don't keep the rebounding close, you ansolutely have to have huge margins in turnovers and generate a ton of steals.

This was probably the most fun game I remember my team playing in when running the press. We weren't even close to being as ready as we are now to do it.

(https://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/120858856/boxscore.aspx)

The thing I remember most about this was the highly unconventional deployment I used. I sacrificed any hope at rebounding by having guards on centers and power forwards. I had a decent team, but they were far superior; we lost this at the buzzer... and a light bulb went on for my roster builds that i've been tweaking ever since.

If memory serves, we lost at the buzzer (we missed).

I have honestly never thought of building a team centered around tactics. I always just try to grab the best player for each position. It certainly would be an interesting experiment.

I'm not so much building around tactics, but if I know I'd like to play a certain way, why not get players that fit?

I look more for size and skillset than anything else; all skills being the same, a bigger guard has more value to me than a smaller guard. If I have guy that's a 6' 10" forward who can guard the perimeter and defend in the paint, that guy is a weapon. If I can play him with a similar sized guard who can defend the perimeter and the paint, even better. Skillset determines the best position fit for me, then size. I don't know if you looked at the link i shared, but in that game my small forward for that season was a 7 foot point guard. His skills determined where I deployed him.

Even if it never happens in this league, Joy Beko, my 6' 10" power forward, has actually run point guard for me numerous times. His assist to turnover ratio this season is actually one of his worst since I acquired him. I've long used big point guards at small forward, but I've also had some that were strictly point guards. If I have a guy that can only play one position, he better be REALLY good at that position or have a really special skill that makes him valuable. Being versatile lends itself to a press, IMO.

I was under the impression size means literally nothing outside of more proficient skills progression.

If everyone builds their players the same way? That’s why some tactics are less successful. You have to have guys that fit the system. For a few of these tactics there just aren’t many players to buy that fit those systems so you kind of have to build them yourself. A lot of copycatting going on in this game so the diversity in player is not available a lot of times.

I sold two of my 5 trainees off my Utopia team who would be perfect for a 3-2 or FCP tactic…and they both went to teams that run strictly man. I mean sure they will be ok playing man but that’s not really what they were optimized to do. So even when those guys are available you have teams outbidding others for them and then using them incorrectly. It is what it is I guess.

Last edited by ehoosier at 11/18/2024 10:34:22 PM

But everyone doesn't build the same way, and they don't look for the same profiles. I will overpay for a player that fits a specific profile i'm looking for. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that i value things that others don't. Those player profiles change and evolve based on what I need or what I'm trying to do. Also, I have no issue with acquiring a younger player who has traits I llike and think I can build up to what I want.

I have no illusions of playing in the Division 2 or higher; If i get there, it will be on my terms. I'm not trying to get there, but I'm not not trying. When I can no longer get what I look for on the market, I'll just change tactics.

I used to run a motion offense and man defense only.

I rarely find players of specific builds that I’m looking for. A lot of guys on the TL look very similar.

This is my second run at the game, I got bored and went bot and regretted it about 6 months later. But I’ve spent tons of seasons at D2 and 4 or 5 seasons in the NBBA. A couple runs to the conference finals in the NBBA and this is with the game having a lot more players than it does now.

So I agree today making that jump again isn’t the be all end all, I’m just enjoying developing different players and trying to figure out some of these lesser played tactics. And how to maximize them. That’s been fun for me. I want to build a Princeton based team at some point.