BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't know what I'm talking about? LOL. He has 16 Passing and 13 in JR, definetely an incomplete player.
I'm talking about the NT games, he has 19 JS, 19 Driving and 2 IS and he shoots 6-19. So when you say that IS doesn't make a difference then YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Guess what sunshine, I took my sweet time to check up on those two games for Bronson in Play-by-play which can also help me in my little "research". From the results, I think throwing out numbers without any backup arguments makes you a bit foolish, eh?

Game against Australia for J. Bronson:

Jump shots made/attempted: 3/14
Layups made/attempted: 2/5

Game against Misr:

Jump shots m/a: 4/9
Layups m/a: 3/3

I don't think results need any further comment. Bronson's skills do.

I will say it again: Bronson is not a good PG for Look inside. I played Look inside a lot last year with a PG who had better passing and driving skills than JS and JR. Guess what? He had more assists than FG attempted.

Now don't get me wrong, against Misr Bronson had a very good 7/12 shooting with additional 8 free throws coming from fouls he drew either by driving or making jump shots. So he made 20 points. But he had only 3 assists in Look inside game. This means he took more shots by himself because he has better shooting than passing. For a Look inside PG, I want it viceversa for those two skills.

And against Australia, this became obvious - he took a lot of shots when he should pass the ball instead. USA manager probably wanted to play Look inside because Australia had better outside defense than inside. And for that tactic to work, of course a passing PG is a lot better than a shooting one!

And of course he's an incomplete player. His passing ability is too low compared to shooting for inside-oriented tactic and his Jump Range is again too low for outside-oriented tactic.

I think training is a bit more complicated than "let's bust his abilities as high as we can!" In my opinion, Bronson can become a great PG for USA NT team if he gets 2-3 more pops in Passing or a great SG if he gets 3-4 more pops in JR.

Go watch Joe Bronson of the US playing look inside with his 2 IS then talk to me.

It's ironic and funny - an argument you tried to made to prove me wrong actually proved you wrong. And I guess I have to thank you because you found me two more games that speak in favor of my little theory of IS not mattering a lot for Driving.

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/27/2010 10:12:34 PM

In my opinion, Bronson can become a great PG for USA NT team if he gets 2-3 more pops in Passing or a great SG if he gets 3-4 more pops in JR.

Colossal passing, seriously?

You're trashing one of the best PG's in the game?

You really think him having a salary of 450k will make him a significantly better player than he already is now?

You're basing your LI IS PG opinion on games in a season in IV? Against PG's with 5k salary?

Really?

I'd also like clarification on this too. Can you train driving and make your player a good slasher, or do you have to pair driving with inside scoring too? For guards, for example, training inside shot is so slow...and if its not necessary to pair with driving, I'd rather never train it!

Yes, really. I am trashing "one of the best PG's in the game".

However, that's what you said. It's funny how some of you throw around statements without any explanation (the other was "look at Bronson and then talk to me"). I'm already feeling kinda stupid because instead of hearing your arguments, I'm making a case for mine and when I succeed, you never show up anymore in the same thread. I can bet this will happen with pmfg10. Maybe he will throw an insult or two, but that's the best he will be able to do.

You really think him having a salary of 450k will make him a significantly better player than he already is now?

I already said a couple of times now that I think (see? I THINK is not a statement, it's an OPINION) a PG with better passing than shooting can work better in Look inside tactic.

"Best PG" is not the same as "PG with highest salary". Some newbies can stare in awe and whisper to themselves "Holy smoke, JS 19, PA 16... I want to have a player like this someday!". But when said PG plays against best in the world, maybe he isn't the best suited for the job.

I know passing is an expensive skill, so why not try popping up jump range 3 times. That's "only" around 35k more of salary instead of nearly 200k. Since he likes to shoot more than pass, this will help him in his jump shots.

You're basing your LI IS PG opinion on games in a season in IV? Against PG's with 5k salary?

Keep in mind my PG was a rookie with 4.5k of salary, so other PGs were generally better than him. But BB is a game of numbers and it's almost the same if two PGs who face each other have both 5k or 500k of salary. What matters is game engine, not the salary. And I believe that I have a slightly better knowledge about it than the average BB player. Of course everyone can be mistaken, that's why I always put "I think", "it's my opinion" and so on in front of my opinions.

And one of my opinions is each player in BB is doing what he knows best. If you put on PG a player with good shooting and bad passing, he will shoot more and viceversa. If a player has better driving than shooting, he will drive a bit more (but IMO, generally a player almost always makes twice more jump shots than layups).

So I think Bronson's passing skill is too low compared to his Jump shot to make him look like Rondo, while his Jump Range is too low compared to his Jump shot to make him look like Steve Nash (or maybe John Wall, though I've never seen him in action besides statistics and "Daily top 10" videos).

And to update you on my rookie: Since he's better now in jump shots, he takes more shots and passes less, which suits me because this season I'm playing outside tactics. But since his Jump range is quite low compared to his JS (Proficient VS Inept), he takes more midrange jump shots and layups and his FG percentage is almost always around 45-55%, which seems pretty good to me. And he still has Pitiful Inside shot.

I call this "knowledge of game engine", although I don't want to brag about this too much, because I feel like I know about 10-15% about it and a lot of things are still a "point blank" to me - for example, influence of Inside shot on Driving.

The point is that you need A LOT of passing to be successful in a inside tactic. IF you build a PG with 15 JS and 18/19 Passing he would be worthless in other tactics because his JS is too low. You can't build a 300k player just to be suitable for one tactic because you will be out of offensive options. Maybe you look at a PG with 20 passing and 5 JS, god's gift to look inside but he is a terrible player.

I'm glad we can have a conversation without the obbligatory "then talk to me" at the end

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you to some point. You can't put a 15 JS and 20 PA player on PG with Motion or Run and Gun. One way to handle it is to put such player at SF in Outside tactic, but maybe this is not an ideal solution.

Ideally I'd want to see 2-3 pops more in JR for Bronson, so he could be a shooting-oriented PG who can also pass. My preference though is a pure passing PG who can occasionaly shoot when required and has very high Driving and free throws so he can draw fouls.

So maybe a PG with more PA than JS would be more suitable for those two LI games of USA. Personally, I'm in favour of putting two PGs in PG and SG spot when playing LI, but maybe USA manager has different ideas.

Those 3 pops in JR would cost him 50k more... that's a lot! Barely any team can support a 300k player having profit and a balanced team. It probably would be more suitable more passing but even if his passing was 20 he would still shoot and miss a lot because that is just how it works, the other teams have defense too and isn't possible to pass everytime.

I don't like having 2 PG's playing Look Inside because of the reasons that I've stated before and I would rather have a PG playing in the SF postion with some passing and Inside Shooting.

There aren't those kind of SF for all the teams in the world. Despite not knowing his skills of course i would prefer having Kiebink but a good alternative would be having a PG to help with the passing.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and nothing I say can change your mind, nor can you change mine.

Those opinions of Bronson can be so easily manipulated because if he had 15 assists, which is entirely possible if his teammates finished their looks, the argument would be invalid. If the Australian defense wasn't as good as it was, he wouldn't be driving for a shot. There are so many hidden variables as to why he took the shot to end up with his shooting statistics. Maybe he received the ball towards te end of the shot clock and had to throw it up? See what I mean?

I will say though, I have trained 2 NT level players, so I do have a lot of experience with training high level players. But I'd never require a player over 150k salary. But nobody will ever require a PG will over 17 passing.. The return just isn't worth it.