BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > New inside zone or fix 2-3.

New inside zone or fix 2-3.

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
181900.207 in reply to 181900.206
Date: 7/21/2011 9:53:59 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
But for 2-1-2 in reality you need... Im just suggesting a new defensive zone.. that could stop inside defenses while having great OD players..

This Post:
00
181900.208 in reply to 181900.207
Date: 7/21/2011 9:57:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
oh sorry i though i am used for 2-1-2 as a collective term for the 3-2 and 2-3 zone and though you meant 2-3 because you mentioned 3-2 before.

Edit: just googled it, must tactic page say that the same then the 2-3, but it isn't used so far for 3-2 which could be named 1-2-2.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/21/2011 10:03:57 AM

This Post:
00
181900.209 in reply to 181900.208
Date: 7/21/2011 11:25:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
Yes and basic differences between 2-3 and 2-1-2 would be:

2-3:
C: is near the basket
Boost in rebounding
C doesnt draw that many charges and SB is working against driving more than ID
C is mostly responsible for rebounding
PG SG doesnt need high OD since PF and SF are helping them more than in 2-1-2



2-1-2:
C is farther away
Not so big boost in rebounding
C draws charges and ID is working against driving because hes being near driver for a while
PF and SF are more responsible for rebounding than usually
PG and SG needs high OD since SF and PF are more responsible for defending bigs and rebounding than in 2-3

Last edited by Phantum at 7/21/2011 11:28:45 AM

This Post:
00
181900.210 in reply to 181900.205
Date: 7/22/2011 4:11:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
A 2-1-2 would make sense... if the court was 20 feet wide.

If you're using 2-3 without good OD at SF and PF, you're doing it wrong.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 7/22/2011 4:12:43 PM

This Post:
00
181900.211 in reply to 181900.210
Date: 7/23/2011 3:31:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
(36138185) - another top team which couldn't beat my 2-3 ;) To get back to examples.

This Post:
00
181900.212 in reply to 181900.210
Date: 7/23/2011 7:15:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
You havent read my message at all... i wrote in 2-3 SF PF are more responsible for outside than 2-1-2 im suggesting a new zone whatever it is 2-1-2 or any other because there is 2 outside zones and if you can find how to beat one with current lineup another will hurt you more while there's 1 inside zone and if you find how to beat it... well...

and 2-1-2 and 2-3 is actually the same thing but players are slightly doing different roles...

so youre sating that for 2-3 court must be 20 feet wide...

This Post:
00
181900.213 in reply to 181900.212
Date: 7/23/2011 9:27:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
My point is that in a 2-1-2 nobody is guarding the wings. Nobody can drive on you but who cares when their shooters can stand in the corner with nobody even close to them. Try diagramming it. You'll see.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 7/23/2011 9:27:22 PM

This Post:
00
181900.214 in reply to 181900.211
Date: 7/24/2011 12:10:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
152152
Wow that's insane, to beat a team like Flumpaci with the 2-3 zone... incredible.

Check the Suggestions they are important
This Post:
00
181900.215 in reply to 181900.214
Date: 7/24/2011 2:05:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i got frydek too in the past with it.

From: Marot

This Post:
00
181900.217 in reply to 181900.216
Date: 7/24/2011 7:54:33 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
916916
It's the only team where 2-3 seems to work.

The question is, why 3-2 is so easy to play and 2-3 need so special players?

Advertisement