SF 1: 50 WE

Athleticism	41	Low		Perimeter	19	Average
Speed	30	High		Ball Handling	33	High
Rebounding	32	Average		Passing	42	High
Defense	17	High		Stamina	68	High
Shot Blocking	8	High		Durability	68	Low
Low-post	17	High		FT Shooting		High

SF 2: 47 WE

Athleticism	58	High		Perimeter	1	High
Speed	4	High		Ball Handling	1	High
Rebounding	42	Low		Passing	1	High
Defense	55	Average		Stamina	78	Low
Shot Blocking	18	Average		Durability	70	Average
Low-post	35	Average		FT Shooting		High

SF 3: 34 WE

Athleticism	15	High		Perimeter	31	Low
Speed	39	High		Ball Handling	26	High
Rebounding	35	High		Passing	43	Low
Defense	18	Average		Stamina	60	High
Shot Blocking	8	High		Durability	42	Average
Low-post	44	High		FT Shooting		Average

I actually was planning to take 1 and use him as a PG, but 2 seems like a better player overall?

I'd give 1 a slight edge over 3 but I wouldn't touch 2. Number 1 won't be much of a shooter but he should develop nicely in most other areas. Number 3's athleticism will likely max out around 40 otherwise I would pick him. Number 2 has no speed, BH or Passing and IMO that makes him too much of a liability.

Posted by Weena on 8/25/2010 12:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd give 1 a slight edge over 3 but I wouldn't touch 2. Number 1 won't be much of a shooter but he should develop nicely in most other areas. Number 3's athleticism will likely max out around 40 otherwise I would pick him. Number 2 has no speed, BH or Passing and IMO that makes him too much of a liability.

Thanks. I'll try to pull down a D2 PG, but with a C- prestige, most likely, I'll end up with #1. 

I'd take a #3, I like his reb,spd and lp are pretty interesting.

Team is motion/m2m btw. 

I might take 2 as a good athletic big guy.  I might give the edge to #1 for the WE, but if you're going to play him at PG, he might be a little slow.  Overall, I think 1 and 3 are close as SFs and it really depends on which one fits your team better/what role you want them to play.  If you want a good scorer you'd go with #3, but if you wanted a guy who could be more versatile and play PG, SG, SF, or PF and is more of a distributor, you'd go with #1.  I definitely wouldn't touch #2 as an SF.

I'd go with #1 if I had 2 or 3 other guys who can score well.  That good of a passer/ball-handler will help good scorers be better scorers and really improve your offense.  If you don't have other guys who can score you might go with #3.

Also, it's not like #1 can't score at all.  He looks like a better version of this guy, who hasn't been totally worthless scoring the rock.

SF is the most interesting position.  I tend to look at my sf's one of two ways - either as a pf or as a guard.  3 is the pf type, 1 is the g type.  I recruited a d2 version of #2 last season, he just finished his frosh season - he was a 9 at bh,pa, per, but high pot, and a 70 defender hi pot, decent reb, decent ath, hi pot 25 speed - time will tell with guys like him, but for all it is worth, I did take a flyer on a guy like #2 once, it is not the high percent play.

I am almost sure the hi pot 1's improve slower than say a hi pot 20, does anyone know that for sure?  I think the formula works on %'s rather than digits, so a 50 lp hi pot increases 40% or 20 pts, a 25 hi pot increases 40% or 10, and a 1 hi pot increases 40% of .4????  I don't know if it is quite that radical, anyone know how it works for sure?

Posted by oldresorter on 8/25/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
SF is the most interesting position.  I tend to look at my sf's one of two ways - either as a pf or as a guard.  3 is the pf type, 1 is the g type.  I recruited a d2 version of #2 last season, he just finished his frosh season - he was a 9 at bh,pa, per, but high pot, and a 70 defender hi pot, decent reb, decent ath, hi pot 25 speed - time will tell with guys like him, but for all it is worth, I did take a flyer on a guy like #2 once, it is not the high percent play.

I am almost sure the hi pot 1's improve slower than say a hi pot 20, does anyone know that for sure?  I think the formula works on %'s rather than digits, so a 50 lp hi pot increases 40% or 20 pts, a 25 hi pot increases 40% or 10, and a 1 hi pot increases 40% of .4????  I don't know if it is quite that radical, anyone know how it works for sure?

Hi potential 1 definitely is slower than high potential 20, at least that's been my experience. I have a PF who's huge upside kind of high potential in passing, and is still stuck at 1 after 7 games despite 12min practice/game. I decided to just stop practicing passing today and just boost his ath/spd and LP (he's avg on reb, which is why I'm not focusing on it) as much as I can. 

Well ended up taking #3. #1 was a D2 pulldown and someone came in to challenge my other recruits late on day 2 so I didn't pull down #1. Funny thing is, after #3 signed, #1 dropped down so I could have easily signed him as well. But I think #3 could be a pretty good player with his high potential ath/spd and reb.