BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, since you're the only available candidate above division IV, I'll ask a question or two.

I sorta think of passing in the same way for both big men and guards. In very low amounts its horrible, but above a certain threshold the returns from training more passing are small.


1.) How much passing on a C/PF would be enough for you to sacrifice a level of one of the three main inside skills? How much is too much?

The u21 is an arms race.


2.) Do you feel it's worthwhile for a manager of a U21 player to train his stamina or FT to an acceptable level, or do you find this counter-productive to winning the arms race?

3.) In your opinion, does the arms race itself entice owners to train players (particularly centers) to unsupportable levels? Does it discourage training well-rounded players?


Unrelated to your post above:

4.) Would you CT your first game in qualifications?

1. I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of the question. Are you saying, taking the time aspect away, how much passing would it take to make me sacrifice one level of a primary skill. That is more case sensitive, and handling will play a role too. I don't want my C to turn the ball over like crazy . If the C is sitting on atrocious for handling and passing, I'd reccomend fixing it if the owner wants his C to see playing time. There might be an example of this in this seasons u21. =P For u21, at C, there is no need to go over inept. I'd rather have the bigmen skills. At PF, there is some room for flexibility and more "creative" builds could possibly see playing time.

2. This is also a bit case sensitive. If the player is likely to be a starter anyhow, stamina becomes important enough to train. If he is a more physical player, free throws become more important. Atrocious FT's is unacceptable. In general, it is counter-productive to "win" the arms race. Stam/FT is excellent in weeks that the training minutes get killed by injury or other things.

3. Yes. This does create players that are unsustainable for their teams and players that are less balanced. It's horrible, but I'm here to win with the U21 team. The balanced players can shine more at the NT stage.

4. I can only think of one situation where a CT would be considered to start the season. Repechage. Imagine last season with Germany starting out the repechage instead of ending it.

There is a 200k Brazilian C that is 21 this season.

even the idea of asking a manager to sell a player due to their plans for him differing from those of the goals of the U21s comes off as a prick move; and further, I feel this sort of crap is detrimental to garnering interest in the NT/21s.

WHY? So perhaps we should allow the roughly 50% of great prospects go because their managers signed up diddled for a week and then quit? Or perhaps allow all sorts of talent go to waste because nobody has taken the time to explain training to some of these great managers?

If they've quit, I'd imagine it would be possible to have the players released as FAs if they are really that good. If not, to je život. And if they're not great managers, what makes you assume they'll make a good managerial decision?

I've contacted well over 100 managers since the draft and yes we have gotten some great players put onto the market and sold for large sums of money. This money helps the young team, however I did make sure to mention the offsite forum, to mention if they need help on figuring out what to do with the money or had questions about their team we would be glad to help.

On the flip side we have had a surge of new managers on the offsite because they didn't want to sell but they did realized they didn't know how to best utilize that player. Now they are becoming active w/ the U21/NT asking questions and bringing new life to the forums. With out me first approaching them they would still be sitting in the shadows not communicating with those in charge on the national team, probably two position training or god forbid team training and squandering that talent.

I've never claimed your efforts were in vain, in fact, I find your dedication to the NTs commendable. However, most of your talking points seem to assume that all managers who win the draft lottery are new, and while that may be the case of the great majority, it cannot possibly be the case for all.

Its only a question daryjozef, each manager has the freedom to say yes or no.

Apologies in advance, as I'm only on my first cup of coffee and you misspelled my name; but if you ever sent such a message to my BB-mail, you'd receive a rather terse response about how you could go fellate a donkey.

I think the idea was trying to give reasons to sell in the cases in which the managers have no idea of what they are doing. As FC is saying if you're sitting on a HOF 18yo but you're not planning to train him, it is in in your best interest to sell. I'd give this advice to any manager whether they were from the US or not. Why not give it to our own managers?

This is a better response, and I kinda wish I'd read it before replying to FatCurvy above.

That said, with an 18yo HOFer in hand, a manager could be "planning to train" a player, just in a much different capacity than what would make the player relevant to the U21s. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but has there ever been a well-rounded SF in the U21s? Or is the decision always between playing a PF or SG at the 3?

Last edited by darykjozef at 3/28/2010 3:14:49 PM

I'd imagine it would be possible to have the players released as FAs if they are really that good.

They can only be saved if we put them on the NT or U21 at the time of the team going Bot. If their not great managers then we have to hope we can motivate them with $ to get the potential stars off their team and allow them to buy others to play around with and waste.

As for assuming the managers are new, of the rookies I had on my list to contact only 1 was in DIII, over 75% in DV.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but has there ever been a well-rounded SF in the U21s? Or is the decision always between playing a PF or SG at the 3?

Velasco last season was one but they are very rare.


Darykjozef <----Correct this time

1. I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of the question. Are you saying, taking the time aspect away, how much passing would it take to make me sacrifice one level of a primary skill.

I'm saying the time aspect is irrelevant. You're running the U21s, you have to set match orders for a game, and assuming GS, experience, stamina and FT are equal you have to choose between the following two hypothetical players:

Player A:
Jump Shot: average Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: pitiful Handling: average
Driving: respectable Passing: respectable
Inside Shot: wondrous Inside Def.: tremendous
Rebounding: tremendous Shot Blocking: respectable

Player B:
Jump Shot: average Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: mediocre Handling: awful
Driving: atrocious Passing: atrocious
Inside Shot: marvelous Inside Def.: tremendous
Rebounding: marvelous Shot Blocking: respectable

Who do you pick?

That is more case sensitive, and handling will play a role too. I don't want my C to turn the ball over like crazy . If the C is sitting on atrocious for handling and passing, I'd reccomend fixing it if the owner wants his C to see playing time. There might be an example of this in this seasons u21. =P For u21, at C, there is no need to go over inept. I'd rather have the bigmen skills. At PF, there is some room for flexibility and more "creative" builds could possibly see playing time.

Wait, you'd recommend what could amount to 6 weeks of passing training to take a 7-footer from atrocious to inept (6 weeks is a guess, I have no idea how long it would take honestly, as I've never tried to train passing on a big man)? How does that factor into the arms race?

The reason I brought up this point in the first place was from seeing so many USA C's on the TL with a great complement of inside skills and high salary, but absolutely nothing else. I'm of the opinion that if it weren't for managers trying to pack as much main skill as possible into players to give them a shot at playing for their country, they might be inclined to train more well-rounded players. Which brings up:

3. Yes. This does create players that are unsustainable for their teams and players that are less balanced. It's horrible, but I'm here to win with the U21 team. The balanced players can shine more at the NT stage.

So you support the training of players who, come their 22nd birthday, will be relatively useless to most teams so that they can help win qualifications?