BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

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.

I don't know the current skills of Velasco, but I was under the impression that he was more of a defender than anything. It's possible his height hurt him from being more well-rounded at that age as far as inside skills are concerned (edit: not that that would have mattered at the U21 level, but still), though I don't know how his owner was training him.

Darykjozef <----Correct this time

Much appreciated. It's my real name, after all.

Last edited by darykjozef at 3/28/2010 4:23:31 PM

In my head I've always ready Darky. Oops.

Smiley was a balanced SF when he was around in u21, right?

I would also pick player A. What I was trying to communicate is that if a hypothetical owner's player looks like player B, a player with slightly lower primaries but enough secondaries to make a difference is more than likely going to be chosen over his or her player. If he wants his player to see the court more, the only option he has it to fix the secondaries.