BuzzerBeater Forums

Didn't factor that in. 2 for 145 would mean that you'd still have to do a lot more than previous jobs.

Not sure you got what i meant by what i said on the increase in managers in Jamaica right before their election and suddenly someone who previously had 1 vote then had 4 votes (3ball 743 was his name, he didn't last beyond his term as a club team afaik). We had not much country support, we brought foreign managers who wanted to make money training that we recruited from BB-global and helped them learn how to train.

I've had people from Canada come forward who talked about u21 stuff with me and even general team stuff. I've had two former US national team managers come in here and vouch for me, as well as someone that i didn't see eye to eye with on the US side even come in here and speak. So some people like me, some people dislike me. I'm sure if i looked a little bit i could probably find people here who would speak ill of you. That is why i keep trying to push this back to the actual team.

My hope is that if i win, you stick around. It'd be really easy to help setup some things on the u21 side that at least make it reasonable for others to participate, give you some new ideas on what you could do to take the u21 team forward, and then let you do so after a term or two.

Also, while i did have more than 2 people, i think you VASTLY overestimate the amount of people involved in the day to day work of the u21 on the US side, at least from the tough era through the jkalltheway era. I think RiP does as well.

Last edited by FurY at 10/29/2018 12:45:40 PM

You haven't wanted to speak about the actual team. You have constantly spoken vaguely about topics because you do not want to lose on a battle of tactics.

There will always be people who dislike you, but when they speak of you with such disapproval like those who came to me have, you have got to wonder what the manager had done wrong.

Also, why have you turned your back on America's u21 programs?

Tactics:

I Will not 2-3 ever: The SF/PF have to have extremely high OD for their position for this to work. For example, the SF/PF will typically handle about 25-35% of the total 3 pointers. To think of this zone in terms of traditional thing (which the game does not follow btw, it's a math game), it is basically saying that 3 pointers from the corners will be guarded by the nearest member of the 3 man group. The amount of times your PF has 5+ OD is limited at best, and the times that a u21 big will have 10 OD and have enough skills inside to be useful? even in a big nation, that number is zero in the amount of weeks you have to pull it off. I think i've only had 1 big make it close, and even then they sacrificed rebounding down to 2-3 levels below that of other bigs on the team and Id 1 level below as well. Not to mention that a 2-3 is really only a reasonable play in a situation where you believe doing so will blow your opponent out by 20+ rebounds, with many of those boards being offensive boards, so you ideally want to utilize an inside SF at SF, and two bigs at PF/C.

I Will not 1-3-1 ever: Similar to the issue of not having bigs with 10 OD, the amount of times you have guards with 10 ID is few and far between. And the SG takes considerably more than a man to man setup or most any other setup.

I tend to default to Man and 3-2 defensively: I man to man in games where i think that a traditional lineup will be played by the opponent, and said lineup will play mostly neutral and inside offenses. I tend to go to the 3-2 against teams that i feel are not capable of a proper flow rating and a proper rebounding rating, and against teams that i feel have a chance at playing a patient with a player out of position. The 3-2's shot distribution also leaves fewer scenarios than the other zones that lead to a poor defender matching up with a real offensive weapon. I have also been 50/50 in mind games where the opponent assumes i will default to a 3-2 or a man against them and i play it opposite of their expectations. Unfortunately, has told you, such a thing cost the US a chance at gold in season 39 to some degree (although i contend i had to Playoff Crunch Time to have a realistic shot of an upset).

Why have you turned your back on America's u21 programs?

If you want to know why i don't want to be a part of the u21 USA team, i suggest you take a gander at the spam and the craziness in that u21 thread. Then let a few of those guys run rampant on discord all day long without punishment, and then let them also spam mail onsite with no BB punishment. If i wanted to watch a circus act, given that Ringling Bros. has stopped bringing the circus to town i suppose that would have to suffice for me. But no, i have no aspirations any time soon of participating in the us u21. Maybe if those managers eventually fade away perhaps :). If i turned my back on the u21/nt program entirely, i'd have fired Winston Pham from my team. Seeing as i haven't done that, i haven't turned my back on anyone.

There were some issues that I wanted to be addressed, and now that he has answered, I am done. Also, if we're not going to try to get into the intricacies of each other's candidacy, how will we choose the correct manager. I have not used personal attacks and just want to find holes in his arguments, like the way all elections go.

I'll hold back now.

Thanks for answering. I do agree quite a bit with the whole defensive tactic system. I do think that when facing a tough inside opponent, who may play 3 centers at C/PF/SF it is acceptable to play 2-3. This is only acceptable if you know they'll go inside since 2-3 mistakes can result in losses. I won't completely rule out 2-3. I do rule out box offenses and 1-3-1 due to their unsuccessfulness in almost all situations.

3-2 can be quite successful when noticing that the opponent has a strong PG to prevent big men from receiving the ball. Man to Man is the overall best defense, yet, other's can work in certain situations.

Of course it’s important to know the background of someone but it does appear you were a bit excessive. I understand your passion though.

Furyak was always locked in on his goal (making the U21 better/successful) and always put in an insane amount of work into it. Of course not everyone is going to see eye to eye with the manager and while you are claiming there are many who said negative things about him I can point to many who have said positive things about him.

I was the USA NT manager at the time Furyak was the U21 manager and I can tell you first hand that he was a damn good manager in my opinion. He never half heartedly did anything and was always precise.

We've established that people will like him and dislike him. It's not excessive to try to point out fallacies in opposing arguments as that's just how election processes are run. We have different approaches to our agendas and that's fine.

You would think that a 3-2 is more effective when the opponent has a good PG, but it's actually the opposite that i find is true. a 3-2 is more effective when the PG has a more pedestrian PA rating. I'm sorry in advance to Cletus for this one, but here's a game from my s39 worlds run when i 3-2'd Canada:

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/43093/boxscore.aspx

We knew that Canada's flow rating from previous matchups was never above a mid 6. Given that, it seemed likely that the PG could not have a PA rating above 13 in most instances, and instead was more likely to have a 12 PA. At worst he had not enough handling in our eyes.

It works really well when the opponent also walks into your 3-2 zone with a patient. About every time we predicted the patient correctly against a decent opponent with a 3-2, the results were devastating. Unfortunately, i went to the well one too many times (or two too many maybe). Anyways, this speaks volumes to the necessity for a good owner to develop a good PG for their club team even, if you want to attempt to run slower offenses in general a good PG is paramount to breaking some of the defensive holds that the opponent can put on you.

Funny that we have different views on what makes a certain defense successful. In the end, you can see that the PG is what decides if you use a 3-2 or not. The PG has always been IMO, the second most important player on the court, after a small forward. Since small forwards can be so diverse, it really makes the PG the most necessary player to train to your exact expectations.

I would agree that the 3-2 can work well against a patient. Yet, if you have a shutdown defender, and you know where the opponent will play their star shooter, MtM is a better option.