BuzzerBeater Forums

I feel dumb.

No need. It is also a Stripes reference. The general tells the captain that if his platoon screws up the 'Urban Assault Vehicle' project, he will have him transfered to a radar station in Alaska. Which of course, at the end...he is.

Will you look at that! Heath. Your skills are beyond reproach.

I feel dumb.

No need. It is also a Stripes reference. The general tells the captain that if his platoon screws up the 'Urban Assault Vehicle' project, he will have him transfered to a radar station in Alaska. Which of course, at the end...he is.

That's what I was thinking - John Larroquette ends up on one of those newspaper shots at the end.

Better? :)

Oh, was that an attempt to make me feel better after you said I underestimated Patriotism? I missed it.

I would be both proud and excited about one of my trainees becoming a NT player, but as a new player, it isnt the most important thing for me at this time. With a lvl 4 trainer and without the funds to support such a player before he reaches full maturity, it is not a present goal for me. If this makes me unpatriotic, I can live with it.

One thing mentioned before is true. Scouts shouldn't scout the second time if the players show pretty bad skills in the first game. What's the point of reaffirming that the player is indeed a D- rating?

The other thing mentioned is that height should be shown, because it has effects on training.

First of all, you are right about age. I would mix that in the 2-3 range. Here is my thinking-
If you are in a top division, trainees won't help you so you might as well get trainees that play the position(s) you train. Thus, position for me is the most important factor. After that, grade because I think the grade is an indication of a player's skill levels. Potential is widely overvalued I think. If an all-star can be triple sensational +, I see no reason to put a player's potential too high in my drafting criteria. I am not patriotic at all, so NT doesn't make a difference to me. I can understand why others would value that, but for me it is unimportant. I think the game stats are an indicator of a player's secondary skills more than anything, so if players are similar that could influence me or if a guy fouled out in 14 minutes I might slide him down the list a bit.

What's the point of reaffirming that the player is indeed a D- rating?

The point of double-scouting is not to reaffirm the rating, but to disclose the potential. Would you rather have A+ announcer, or a D- hall of famer?

i think instead of making points and another point and in the end we will be again lose in translation.

the point is drafting players aint a sure thing of what kind of a complete player one is, but the best way to approach this is to get the right information for you to decide which of players listed here can somewhat supplement a teams need.

regarding sam bowie, just because people say his a bust we all label him a bust. but if you read the artcile of the trainer and asst. coaches of his team then you would see why and your understanding will be different.

i remember reading " the poor kid was really bad luck, because he just get injuries so easily". what do i mean, i read that even the slightest turn around in one game did break his knees.

if you say one player to develop he has to have time to really play, he was young yet he couldnt play to his full potential due to his problem. imagine your playing but in your head you have this fear anytime your knees wont hold.

also, some ask why micheal jordan the best nba player wasnt even in the top 2 picks , did anyone actually read or know why? how did jordan play during collage? imagine one of the best scoring guards in college only manage 9 points in his last game and couldnt help his team advance to the next round of the ncaa playoffs?, scouts says he shoots a lot questioning his all around game, reports say questioning his shot selection , but a dominating scorer and you get 9 points?

he had proven in his early years in the nba that he can score, but he did evolve to another player by trying to do other aspects of the game like defense etc etc.

imagine the all time story of bryant reeves , in his college days when you see him play , you can see potential as a dominant big man, he runs, he shoots , he has inside moves and all. but look at him averaging 10 and 10 at best this was before he signed his lucrative offer.

how about boozer, he was a big man with good set of skills in duke, im a duke fan so i know he can pass,good hands , rebounds and all. im shock he fell to the second round but who would imagine him as a second rounder to even get a 10 million offer a year.

all this said and done, its just tells us there is not sure thing but one thing have to change, scouts job is not just to give stats but in a way understand what a players strenghts and weaknesses.

if your watching every year the nba draft, you would hear analyst say this player can play, he has a nice shooting touch, can read the defense, has a high IQ etc, good inside game, lacks game as a finisher, lacks rebounds etc.

the teams that are picking know what this player can do best and what he needs to work on still. its like comparing sebastian telfair and deron williams. you know the risk your taking in by getting this player.

we all want substance that tells us what this player is. since we are already arranging our draft picks.


Last edited by Shoei at 2/9/2009 11:02:30 PM

Better? :)

Oh, was that an attempt to make me feel better after you said I underestimated Patriotism? I missed it.

I would be both proud and excited about one of my trainees becoming a NT player, but as a new player, it isnt the most important thing for me at this time. With a lvl 4 trainer and without the funds to support such a player before he reaches full maturity, it is not a present goal for me. If this makes me unpatriotic, I can live with it.

There is a lot of misunderstanding. I was pointing out that not all arguments pro invest more into scouting are rational. Not that anyone should or shouldn't follow those factors. So the blance of non investing and invest much bgandwagons is kinda unbalanced in favor of the latter. Nothing more.

of course the criteria varies with drafting for further training or immediater selling of the draftees. And you can combine both in one draft - then the position is not so crucial i would even say that the heigh is more important but height is not scouted (which is right).

There is a lot of misunderstanding. I was pointing out that not all arguments pro invest more into scouting are rational. Not that anyone should or shouldn't follow those factors. So the blance of non investing and invest much bgandwagons is kinda unbalanced in favor of the latter. Nothing more.

Ok, but I think this just expands on what I said and isnt counter to it. My only point before was that if you look in previous threads and this one you will see people respond both pro and against, for whatever reason. To me this shows more balance than if everyone thought one way or another. I just dont see a real problem here. Those that dont want to invest are happy they dont invest, and those that want to invest seem happy they invest. Who is losing out?

Last edited by Heathcoat at 2/9/2009 10:52:40 PM