Recruits and Potential Topic

kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by scottyj74 on 6/28/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Maybe its just me, but with just 60 passing I wouldn't want him at SG either. 60 just seems too low for a D1 gaurd.

Not at all, watch some college games you'll be amazed at how many guards are not very good passers, mainly from having poor decision making. Since there is no decision making rating you have to account for that somehow, and the way you do it is by having lowish pass ratings. It's not to say 60 rated passer can't make a great pass from time to time, but often he will make poor decisions when passing the ball.
6/28/2010 3:17 PM
aidiamo
Posts: 25 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 13
Prospect
I think it's realistic to have a guy maxed out in a category or two - and typically in areas that aren't of their main core.  But to have so many players maxed out in 5 plus categories is a bit crazy.  This "what you see is what you get" mentality for the majority of players isn't realistic.  There should be a direct correlation between WE and the total number of low potential grades but unless a player is nearly completely unmotivated a player will improve in most areas if only a slight degree. 

I would like to see however players achieve potential MUCH quicker with playing time.  A guy who starts his FR and SO year should be nearly full potential by the beginning of his JR year and with average knowledge be maxed out in OFF/DEF knowledge if a coach only runs one of each and puts in the normal amount of time.  His SR year should be fully realized, IMO.  As it stands now, I don't see a ton of difference between a guy who starts his FR and SO years and a guy who rides the bench both of those two years; WE increasing 6-10 points aside, those points don't translate to a large scale difference between the two players like it probably should be.
6/28/2010 3:22 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/28/2010 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sully712 on 6/28/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/28/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it your fault for recruiting a SG with low potential per? I don't see how you can complain about a player with low potential maxing out early when you signed him. I think his actual ranking is irrelevant to his improvement, maybe it was just a bad ranking.

Maxing out early and one game into his career are a little bit different.

Not all great shooting guards are great shooters, what per rating do you think  guys like Richard Hamilton and Dwyane Wade would've had in college, what about MIchael Jordan? But did that stop those guys from being all-americans and in Jordan's case the greatest player ever. D Wade still hasn't become a good 3 point shooter, I doubt he ever improved his 3 point shot in college. Not all players improve in college.
I agree with your overall sentiment, although I'm not sure Wade is the best example.

Wade only played two years at MU after being ruled a non-qualifier his first year.  He only took about 100 threes in his career.  While he didn't really improve, he didn't need to shoot threes, and who knows where he was when he started his freshman year?

Anyway, my man-crush on MU's finest aside, I agree that there are some guys who just don't improve.  Take a guy like Jason Bohannon for example.  Not sure he ever really improved his shooting, he was always a great shooter.  What he did is improve his athleticism, speed, ball handling, and IQ, and that allowed him to do things that he couldn't do when he started at UW - catch and shoot with a hand in his face, shoot off the dribble, etc.

6/28/2010 3:25 PM
kmasonbx1
Posts: 353 (0)
All Star
39
Prospect

I agree isack, I think people look at an idividual rating and think that's the end all be all for that area. Like you said you can never technically improve your shooting, say taking wide open 3s in the gym but you get stronger, faster, more athletic and improve your ball handling that helps your game situation shooting. So while a player may max out in their per rating at 70 if their speed improves by 20 points and their athleticism improves 20 points and their ball handling improves by 25 points they will be a much better shooter then when they started their career because now they have more ways to make a jumper. An example of this is JR Smith, in high school you did not want JR to take more then 2 dribbles, his ball handling was attrocious (btw that did not stop him from being a McDonald's AA, I know some would say no way a D1 guard should be a  bad ball handler) but now he's improved his ball handling to the point where he plays point guard for the Nuggets from time to time.

6/28/2010 3:41 PM
emy1013
Posts: 2731 (0)
Hall of Famer
899
Prospect
Posted by sully712 on 6/28/2010 10:11:00 AM (view original):
So, I signed a SG at Georgetown in Tark.  His starting ratings at Per were 70 and his potential was low.  After the two exhibition games and one regular season game, I get the e-mail saying he is maxed out in Perimeter and we should focus practice time somewhere else.  He was a top rated SG and I realize his starting ratings were higher but does it not seem very strange that he is maxed out in Per after ONE regular season game?  His PER did not change at all.  So, I have no control to make him a better outside shooter?

I thought we were supposed to have more control over how the players ended up.  This does not seem to back up that aspect.

EDIT: I do like the aspect of not having all players in the 90s at all positions, this just seems a bit harsh to me.
It's karma........
6/28/2010 4:44 PM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
I was waiting for you to chime in!
6/28/2010 8:03 PM
aidiamo
Posts: 25 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 13
Prospect
I agree with Emy, having a guy in his 90's now really means he is special in that area. 

I still think players should be able to improve some though in areas.  But I also want to see guys with a 90 rating have a better shooting percentage on average than players with PER in their 60's and 70's; I see players in each range constantly shooting the same in terms of 3pt% with all other categories basically equal (speed, ath, bh, etc).

A general obvservation in Phelan with recruits this year is that a lot of C's and PF's are much better from PER, BH and Passing as in the past but with much lower potential in core categories.  The exact opposite for PG's and SG's where you are seeing more 40+ LP players who are maxed out at 70 or so in terms of PER, BH or Passing.  Basically a lot of teams are going to look a lot like 5 SF's of varying degrees are on the floor at once.

6/28/2010 9:14 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
Posted by scottyj74 on 6/28/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Maybe its just me, but with just 60 passing I wouldn't want him at SG either. 60 just seems too low for a D1 gaurd.

That is because you are so use to the old recruits. This makes it 10x better having some guys that are not great at everything.
6/29/2010 3:51 PM
scottyj74
Posts: 72 (0)
Hall of Famer
243 1
Prospect
Posted by furry_nipps on 6/29/2010 3:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by scottyj74 on 6/28/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Maybe its just me, but with just 60 passing I wouldn't want him at SG either. 60 just seems too low for a D1 gaurd.

That is because you are so use to the old recruits. This makes it 10x better having some guys that are not great at everything.
No, its because I think 60 is too low for a top level D1 recruit... Heck, I'm a 5 foot nothing white dude that played 4 years of high school ball 20 years ago and I'm better than a 60 passer.
6/29/2010 4:02 PM
◂ Prev 12
Recruits and Potential 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.