BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Committee for the Rights of Small Forwards

Committee for the Rights of Small Forwards

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
67212.90 in reply to 67212.89
Date: 1/7/2009 9:20:01 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Sure it is. A uni-skilled player at any other position is useless. SF are so underdeveloped they can be successful.

SFs are just fine, there is just a littler wider variety of three-skill combinations that work there, which seems to be a disaster for people who are allergic to thinking.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/7/2009 9:20:11 AM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
67212.91 in reply to 67212.84
Date: 1/7/2009 9:20:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
it's impossible to train defence fo 3 position,is very slow when i mtrian 2 positions i dont'wnt to think 3 positions...

This Post:
00
67212.92 in reply to 67212.90
Date: 1/7/2009 9:44:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
SFs are just fine


I your "humble" opinion

there is just a littler wider variety of three-skill combinations that work there


....because most players at that position are underdeveloped, or are better suited for another position.

disaster for people who are allergic to thinking


*shakes head*

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
67212.93 in reply to 67212.91
Date: 1/7/2009 10:00:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Exactly you do not want to think. If I just want to train my PF I let him play at C. If you do not want to train SF with 3 position training then you have to play him at PF or SG etc and can even go C or PG. Yes you might give your opponent easier time but you have to lose something in order to gain something.

All I can read out of this thread is one thing make the game easier nothing else. Use your brains to buy SF-s that are already skilled at both def (yes you have to pay more but isn't that the point?) and then develop his other skills.

And btw this discussion is not getting anywhere and the SF only position training will be abused by PF's and SG's you can count on that if this petition goes through.

This Post:
00
67212.94 in reply to 67212.92
Date: 1/7/2009 10:09:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
SFs are just fine


I your "humble" opinion

Everything I post is my opinion. It would be weird if it were any different.

there is just a littler wider variety of three-skill combinations that work there


....because most players at that position are underdeveloped, or are better suited for another position.

I am not quite sure what definition of "well-suited" you use. To me, each player is best suited for the position at which he will provide the best chance for your team to win the game.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/7/2009 10:09:51 AM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
67212.95 in reply to 67212.94
Date: 1/7/2009 10:21:21 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Everything I post is my opinion. It would be weird if it were any different.


It would be weird if your opinion ever broke from supporting the game as it is in almost every way. You have an almost religious faith that this game was delivered to the BB's in perfect form by a greater being. Any compromise or criticism is a direct insult to your god, or something like that.

I am not quite sure what definition of "well-suited" you use. To me, each player is best suited for the position at which he will provide the best chance for your team to win the game.


As in, that player is in the position they perform best in. Whoever I start at SF is better at another position. On the US national teams, whoever plays SF is better suited at another position.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
67212.96 in reply to 67212.95
Date: 1/7/2009 10:25:29 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Everything I post is my opinion. It would be weird if it were any different.


It would be weird if your opinion ever broke from supporting the game as it is in almost every way. You have an almost religious faith that this game was delivered to the BB's in perfect form by a greater being. Any compromise or criticism is a direct insult to your god, or something like that.

Apparently you haven't bothered to read the forums enough, but that's not my problem. On the other hand, I am definitely opposed to changes that are only designed to make the game easy. But that's just me -- I like to adapt.

I am not quite sure what definition of "well-suited" you use. To me, each player is best suited for the position at which he will provide the best chance for your team to win the game.


As in, that player is in the position they perform best in. Whoever I start at SF is better at another position. On the US national teams, whoever plays SF is better suited at another position.

Then I suggest you organize something in defense of power forwards, since an overwhelming majority of them perform strictly better at the C position... I am sure the US national formations are no exception.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
From: chihorn
This Post:
00
67212.97 in reply to 67212.96
Date: 1/7/2009 10:41:32 AM
New York Chunks
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
943943
Buzzerbeater needs to have cheerleaders that affect the morale of the team at home games and for the squads that cost more (of course we'll be bidding on them) they will sometimes even travel with the team for help with enthusiasm on the road.

This in NOT my opinion, but sometimes I post things that are not my opinion.

It IS my opinion that we should just admit that SFs are oddball players without reasonable training options for development at an equal pace as other positions which makes the SF position the weak link in the training system, and this could be simply corrected, as described numerous times above. Let's make this game better, we can deal with changes if they lead to improvements, which in this case I really think it would.

Don't ask what sort of Chunks they are, you probably don't want to know. Blowing Chunks since Season 4!
This Post:
00
67212.98 in reply to 67212.96
Date: 1/7/2009 10:49:22 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Then I suggest you organize something in defense of power forwards, since an overwhelming majority of them perform strictly better at the C position


The difference is PF have the ability to be trained up from the PF position (JS for forwards, 1on1 for forwards, plus all the bundled PF/C inside skills). People just arent utilizing them all that much, or feel they are not worth the investment in training.

It's not an option for SF.

Even if your example was correct, why would pointing out another similar situation that could use improvement negate the need for the improvement being suggested in this thread?

That's like saying, for example:

"You can't advocate for greener energy alternatives from oil, look at all the coal being used!"

Um, why not work to address both?

Last edited by brian at 1/7/2009 10:50:20 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Mike

This Post:
00
67212.99 in reply to 67212.95
Date: 1/7/2009 10:55:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
Brian, kozlodoev: cool it! Characterizations like this don't take the discussion anywhere.

From: brian

To: Mike
This Post:
00
67212.100 in reply to 67212.99
Date: 1/7/2009 10:58:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
You're right. It's difficult to process these things before I type them, probably because I'm allergic to thinking.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
Advertisement