BuzzerBeater Forums

2) Completely dividing our scouting apparatus into a NT track and a U21 track, so that managers with prospects get an initial contact that asks them if they would like to have their player be a part of the U21 (short-term gain) or the NT (long-term strategy) track. Then instead of depending on rounding out U21s (or near-misses) we have a whole crop of players designed for the NT stage.

2) The only issue I see with this is that the Junior NT may become worse as a result of this. We would be taking potential JNT players out of the rotation if we had two different groups. While a player is less than 21, they should be able to play on U21. Few players that make the national team wouldn't have been able to make the JNT when they were younger anyways.

As someone with an interest in the U21 team, I like this response. I'm curious to see other candidate's thoughts on this idea.

Last edited by fewmit at 3/6/2013 10:21:55 PM

Im pretty sure we discussed this to a certain extent on the offsite at some point didnt we?

I mean, something like this would need to be talked about between first the NT and U21 managers to figure out whats best.

I think this was discussed as a lot of MVP players, since very few can make the NT any more, were going to be trained towards the U21 team. While the HOF and ATG( very few) were trained towards the NT. As for SFs though, I think thats where more thought needs to be put into it. But it seems a lot of the great SFs that make the NT, usually make the U21 team as well.

This can be a potentially good idea to keep the U21 great, while still improving the NT though.

Creating a USA NT "Bank." We find a way to have people update their finances on the offsite and/or make a pledge to reserve X amount of money... And then when a player comes on the market the NT manager can try to put together enough money to get/keep the player in American hands.

Bank of America?

That gave me a good laugh +1

Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results = insanity.

Welcome back?

Problem with convincing anyone to deviate from their current training path to an outside offense training path is that until they are sure that the GE changes eliminate the LI advantage, they won't want to deviate training. No one wants to train a JS/JR player, currently they have high salary and no value. Our best outside offense guard (Logsdon) retired at 30 because no one wanted to pay $1m for him. Convincing people to train more balanced players (train secondaries) we are already doing, but training outside offense guards will be extremely difficult to convince anyone to train those types of players until we know for sure the GE changes will be significant.

Edit: We do have guards and bigs with secondaries in the pipeline, takes at least 8 seasons of training from rookie year for balanced type players to be NT ready. So we are doing what people are talking about, one could argue that we didn't start doing it soon enough like CR, Poland, Slovakia did. Arguing it wont change the past, but currently we have been deviating, just no one is training another Logsdon, and no one would even if we asked them to.

Last edited by jfarb at 3/6/2013 10:39:05 PM

Is the GE supposed to have a big update or something. I guess I missed something but I haven't heard any news of this. Can anyone explain this a bit more in detail to me. I agree that major changes should not be made, but we should be heading toward a newer path seeing as this one isn't working as well as we assumed.

Yes some GE changes have been announced to be implemented after next season I believe. Something about reducing the dominance of LI, increasing effectiveness of shotblocking skill.

Point I was making is we have been heading towards a new path, but again it takes 8 seasons of training from 18yrs old for a player to be NT ready. So all of this discussion about deviating or changing as far as player development is not that relevant in my opinion. The discussion of changing tactics...idk itd be nice if we have the ability to change offenses to bust 2-3 zones etc, but with Logsdon/Bronson retired and limited roster space in which to assemble a versatile team it will be difficult in the short term until other players are ready or the GE changes.

Can we really? In my term we had Logsdon, Bronson, Madrid, Medrano, Dube etc. Guys with heavy JS/JR, so we went outside offense, that and our bigs were garbage outside Jairo. Now our guards top out at what 18 JS/13 JR? Up against 19-20 OD opponents every game, plus the top tier Worlds opponents have OD at PF and C so even if we had several Nielsens as we hope we will idk how much it will help. I think we would need the GE change to be significant plus a Logsdon or two.

Agree building a roster that does both will be difficult. Making bigs that can do both is easier, guards and SFs that can do both very difficult and not enough roster spots.

Last edited by jfarb at 3/6/2013 10:57:39 PM