Veney, Richard.....we all have had one Topic

milwood
Posts: 514 (0)
Hall of Famer
79
Rookie
Last recruiting cycle I signed Richard Veney.  I couldn't sign my first choice for a big and just before signings I recruited this guy for about $500 (one home visit and the scholarship offer).  I couldn't afford any scouting trips, all I had were his low starting values and the fact that he had seven highs. 

I know it is often better to just take a walk-on, but what kind of luck have you had with your own Veney, Richard.

12/10/2012 7:08 PM
chris_x2
Posts: 7 (0)
Hall of Famer
51
Prospect
Unfortunately, not enough luck here lately...
12/10/2012 8:42 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by milwood on 12/10/2012 7:08:00 PM (view original):
Last recruiting cycle I signed Richard Veney.  I couldn't sign my first choice for a big and just before signings I recruited this guy for about $500 (one home visit and the scholarship offer).  I couldn't afford any scouting trips, all I had were his low starting values and the fact that he had seven highs. 

I know it is often better to just take a walk-on, but what kind of luck have you had with your own Veney, Richard.

it is a LOT better to take a walkon that a prospect you cant see the potential of, in d2/d3. i mean, maybe if his starting ratings were the rage (but then, you almost know if he had good potential, someone would have taken  him...). but for a guy like this, i would take a 4th or 5th walkon before signing him. people just worry way too much about walkons. that said, you are probably not going to win a championship if you take 2, 3, 4 every season (well, you definitely can with 2 per, but then it gets tough), and it gets hard to be consistently great without them. but still, the walkon is a way better bet, when you don't make a bad habit of taking them. 
12/10/2012 8:56 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
If he has a lot of high potential areas (and maybe some high highs) I"m not sure what's wrong with this guy unless he somehow just doesn't fit your team at all. His overall rating is low, but so is his durability, so it's not like that's taking up a lot of what skills he does have.

I'm actually not sure why you think this guy is so bad. Granted he isn't good, but he seems serviceable to me.

12/11/2012 8:40 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
bistiza, you're asking the wrong question about Veney-- the question is, what CAN he do for you?

he's two monster growth seasons away from being a starting SF, so if that's the plan, and he has the growth in him, great.

he's at least 30REB away from being a palatable PF, and that happens pretty rarely overall, much less quickly. If that's the plan, more practice time needs to go into REB than into making him a well-rounded player.

is there another spot to play him?
12/11/2012 9:09 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
I think CBG is saying that 99% of the time you sign someone blind, he's going to be terrible. If the player is good or even decent, someone probably would have signed him already. And if you sign someone terrible, you are stuck with him for 4 years or you cut him but do not get scholarship money. In this situation, it's better to take the walkon and the scholarship money for next season. 
12/11/2012 11:20 AM
milwood
Posts: 514 (0)
Hall of Famer
79
Rookie
yeah, I am just taking a huge chance on this guy that he can be a contributor in a couple of seasons.

I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle.....for goodness sake his name, last name first, first name last, is Veney, Richard. 

I've seen some good names out there, but this is the best.

12/11/2012 11:21 AM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
he's two monster growth seasons away from being a starting SF, so if that's the plan, and he has the growth in him, great.

I'd say he's probably one season away from starting if necessary. Sure, you'd love to give him two seasons, but I'd love to have everyone be rated at 100 in every category too and that isn't happening.
he's at least 30REB away from being a palatable PF,

Right now he's at 38 REB, so you think a "palatable PF" at DIII is at least 68 in REB?

That means you have much higher standards for players than I do. At DIII, I realize every player is going to be flawed, and I don't feel like players need to be elite or even close to serve on my team, even as starters at times. Granted, I'm not one of the better people at this game right now (I am working on getting better), but if I needed every PF to be at least 68 in REB at DIII, most of the time I'd feel like just giving up and quitting the game entirely because it doesn't always happen that way.

If that guy won't be a great rebounder, compliment him with someone at C who is. That's usually what I would do. Use him for spot starts or find a spot for him if he's the best you've got and don't have another good option.
12/11/2012 11:30 AM
udm_mike
Posts: 603 (0)
Hall of Famer
109
Rookie
Posted by milwood on 12/11/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):
yeah, I am just taking a huge chance on this guy that he can be a contributor in a couple of seasons.

I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle.....for goodness sake his name, last name first, first name last, is Veney, Richard. 

I've seen some good names out there, but this is the best.

I used to work with a guy named Richard Seaman.  He actually preferred to go by the other version of Richard, if you know what I mean.  Great sense of humor, as you can imagine.
12/11/2012 11:41 AM
milwood
Posts: 514 (0)
Hall of Famer
79
Rookie
BIstiza, I took this guy because I wanted a guy that was a complete shot in the dark.  I have a very strong team around him, so I felt like I could take that chance.  I do not think he is very good and the chances that he will be good are slim, especially playing man. 

That said, I don't think you should settle for guys at any position.  I only want guys that are elite on my team.  They don't have to be elite at everything, but that is the nature of DIII.  I think my Worcester St. team will be very competitive next season and my PF will have a rebounding in the 40s, but will have an athleticism pushing 80, defense in the 70 (maybe 80s, 66 and still blue) and a low post somewhere in the 60s (54 and still blue).  His skills are elite in other areas, so I hope the rebounding won't hurt me.  I also knew when I recruited that guy that I had another guy that I will be playing at sf that has a rebounding in the 50s and an athleticism of about 70.  this guy is also a strong defender, he'll be in the 70s next season.  His offensive potential is still up in the air, low post is 41 and per is 46, they are both still high, but his work ethic has hindered his growth.  My center's rebounding will be mid 90s but his ath is only going to be about 50 (okay, but not elite for DIII). 

So sure you can have a guy with 68 or lower rebounding in your starting lineup, but he shouldn't be in your lineup because his rebounding is 68.  He better have other skills that are pretty great and other guys that can help out at his weakness.

Oh, and fwiw I am not a very good recruiter, but I recruited most of the guys on the team with a c- prestige.  The players are out there

12/11/2012 11:50 AM
milwood
Posts: 514 (0)
Hall of Famer
79
Rookie
Posted by udm_mike on 12/11/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by milwood on 12/11/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):
yeah, I am just taking a huge chance on this guy that he can be a contributor in a couple of seasons.

I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle.....for goodness sake his name, last name first, first name last, is Veney, Richard. 

I've seen some good names out there, but this is the best.

I used to work with a guy named Richard Seaman.  He actually preferred to go by the other version of Richard, if you know what I mean.  Great sense of humor, as you can imagine.
There is a family in a neighboring town to me that has three generations of Richard head.  And yes, they all go by Dick
12/11/2012 11:51 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
I'd sign that guy with 7 highs and that name in a heartbeat.
12/11/2012 11:52 AM
gillispie2
Posts: 22 (0)
Pro
13
Prospect
Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/11/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I think CBG is saying that 99% of the time you sign someone blind, he's going to be terrible. If the player is good or even decent, someone probably would have signed him already. And if you sign someone terrible, you are stuck with him for 4 years or you cut him but do not get scholarship money. In this situation, it's better to take the walkon and the scholarship money for next season. 

this sums it up. even if you could click a "give me a random player with X attributes button" - which you cant - you STILL wouldnt want to. potential is so important, i totally agree with the OP, you dont want to settle. and bistiza, no offense, because my opinion of you has gone up considerably - but i do think you recruit players who aren't good enough for people trying to do things like, compete for final fours. you seem to be decently on the mark on a lot of things, but your standards for great recruits are too low at every division, at least based on your posts. so, if you could click that button, you wouldn't want to - just too much chance of getting someone bad and being stuck with them for 4 seasons. and in reality, you CANT click that button, you get someone from a pool thats already been picked over, so like tianyi said, hes almost definitely terrible. i cannot conceive of signing players without seeing their potential (except like a d1 super star who is so good you dont care if hes low in everything) on any of my teams, in any circumstance. id take that 5th or 6th walkon before i blindly took a scholarship player.

12/11/2012 12:38 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
That said, I don't think you should settle for guys at any position.  I only want guys that are elite on my team. 

Don't we all? I would love all of my guys to be elite. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work out that way, at least for me. I'm sure you're a much better coach than me and that's why you have higher standards for players, but I usually have to make do with what I can.
So sure you can have a guy with 68 or lower rebounding in your starting lineup, but he shouldn't be in your lineup because his rebounding is 68.  He better have other skills that are pretty great and other guys that can help out at his weakness.

I have a guy on my DIII team right now who is my best option at PF as a senior, he is the second best rebounder on the team and his rebounding is 69. He does just fine and has for the past couple of seasons on teams that did well in terms of wins and made two NT appearances.

My team lacks in many areas I wish were higher, but that's the nature of DIII, and I'm just not an elite coach. I'm very happy with the way my team has performed, and I would say I don't have many elite players at all. In fact, some of my recruits have looked very similar to the guy you list here and have turned out to be key contributors to the team's success (I probably have lower standards for success than you do, too).
and bistiza, no offense, because my opinion of you has gone up considerably - but i do think you recruit players who aren't good enough for people trying to do things like, compete for final fours

I know this is true. I apparently lack the ability to properly utilize my recruiting cash at DIII in order to compete for better players. Every recruiting season I try to find them but I just don't have the cash to battle for the ones I want and can't find other good ones that aren't already essentially claimed by someone I'd have to battle with.
you seem to be decently on the mark on a lot of things, but your standards for great recruits are too low at every division, at least based on your posts.

I know but apparently I suck at recruiting. I make my teams work to be functional to at least have winning seasons and a chance of making the post season. To be honest, my standard for success is so low I'm thrilled if I simply make the post season sometimes.
12/11/2012 1:38 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
Posted by gillispie2 on 12/11/2012 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/11/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I think CBG is saying that 99% of the time you sign someone blind, he's going to be terrible. If the player is good or even decent, someone probably would have signed him already. And if you sign someone terrible, you are stuck with him for 4 years or you cut him but do not get scholarship money. In this situation, it's better to take the walkon and the scholarship money for next season. 

this sums it up. even if you could click a "give me a random player with X attributes button" - which you cant - you STILL wouldnt want to. potential is so important, i totally agree with the OP, you dont want to settle. and bistiza, no offense, because my opinion of you has gone up considerably - but i do think you recruit players who aren't good enough for people trying to do things like, compete for final fours. you seem to be decently on the mark on a lot of things, but your standards for great recruits are too low at every division, at least based on your posts. so, if you could click that button, you wouldn't want to - just too much chance of getting someone bad and being stuck with them for 4 seasons. and in reality, you CANT click that button, you get someone from a pool thats already been picked over, so like tianyi said, hes almost definitely terrible. i cannot conceive of signing players without seeing their potential (except like a d1 super star who is so good you dont care if hes low in everything) on any of my teams, in any circumstance. id take that 5th or 6th walkon before i blindly took a scholarship player.

He knew there were 7 highs, just not whether they were high-highs.  I think 7 highs is enough information to recruit that guy, particularly if 2 of them are ATH and SPD, which appears to be the case based on progression so far.  I'm not saying it's a great recruit, he'll really only provide 2 years of useful service, but you could absolutely do worse...
12/11/2012 3:56 PM
123 Next ▸
Veney, Richard.....we all have had one Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.