I'm debating between a couple of recruits, one of whom I would take in a vacuum.  I think he's clearly the better overall player and would be very good.  However, I don't have many people on my team that can play point guard and the other recruit would be good point guard recruit that would fit that need.  In these situations is it smarter to after the better player, or the player that better fills the need?

Always go for need.

go for need unless you are so far away from contending that you can get the PG next season just as well - if you can compete now and dont have a PG then get one

generally you go for the need. but if you find a super star you just can't pass on, well, then you just can't pass on him ;) but generally you want to go into recruiting knowing what roles you plan to fill, and then try to meet that plan as best you can.

go for need, you can ruin your team otherwise

I prefer to recruit for talent, but it depends how pressing the need is.  For example, if I have a junior PG and a sophomore whom I would rather never start, I'd like to recruit a starter for 2 years down the road.  That being said, if I already have a redshirt freshman PF but there's a dominant PF 20 miles away, I'll probably recruit him and try to get a PG next year who can start as a sophomore.  If I need the guy next year I might still recruit the PF and just try to pick up a decent PG on the cheap on the last day of recruiting.  On the other hand, in a case like yours where maybe I'm looking like I'll come up about 10 min/game short this year at PG, and assuming I don't have a 2-guard who can step in, you'd almost have to get a guy.  You don't want to get forced into a situation where you need to play a walk-on on anything resembling a regular basis, particularly given that they're coming up in the low 200s OTR a lot of the time now.  I also try to avoid ever playing my guys tired.  Other coaches feel differently about that...

i've decided to RS one player every year. so if i have 4 schollies open... i'll recruit need for 3 and best overall for the 4th. 

If it were a big man I would say go for the better player but when it comes to PG I don't think you can pass up the need because good PG play is just so important in this game.

thanks for the responses everyone, I ended up going for the need at point guard

Here's an example of me recruiting for talent rather than need.  This year Rochester needed 1 big man who could play a few minutes right away.  Ideally after that I should have taken 2 guards since I have 3 of the 4 currently on the roster will be graduating at the end of the season.  Instead, I noticed that there were 2 dominant PFs at 10 and 60 miles and they were both willing to talk to me.  When it became clear that no equivalent guards in the state wanted to play for me, I went after both of them.  Here are their ratings and potentials:

Isaac Anderson (spent $2847):
Athleticism - 49, low
Speed - 14, high-high
Rebounding - 60, high-high
Defense - 33, low-high
Shot Blocking - 44, low
Low Post - 33, high-high
Perimeter - 1, high (not sure which, I think low-high)
Ball Handling - 20, low
Passing - 14, low
Stamina - 55, high-high
Durability - 40, AVG
FT - 65%, AVG
Work Ethic - 69

Donald Petit (spent $5757)
Athleticism - 63, low
Speed - 14, low-high
Rebounding - 46, high-high
Defense 52 - high (I think high-high?  "I think we could see massive improvement by senior year")
Shot Blocking - 48, average
Low Post - 41, high-high
Perimeter - 1, low
Ball Handling - 24, high-high
Passing - 13, average
Stamina - 62, high-high
Durability - 38, average
FT Shooting - 63%, high
Work Ethic - 62

Petit cost me a fortune (a D2 school showed up on his considering list the same cycle I finally succeeded in pulling him down and after spending something around $3000 on that I wasn't going to let him go if I could help it) and I don't have much money left.  I'm hoping I can recruit an acceptable guard on the cheap so I don't have to start a freshman next year.  I suppose I can always look for a transfer who knows my system if I need to.  Basically it's one of those situations where the need can be handled in the future if absolutely necessary and I decided that these 2 guys could help me be more successful in the future than a lesser guard in spite of the fact that I already have 2 sophomore post players.  The guys I had are solid but these 2 look like studs to me, particularly Petit.  The guy's going to be an above-average rebounder and scorer and potentially dominant inside defensive presence if he comes close to maxing out.  Quite possibly the best overall player in school history and a potential All-American.  Anderson is going to be a great rebounder who'll be able to stretch the defense out a bit with his speed and PER.  If I could I'd switch them up a bit so the speed and outside shot went with the lesser rebounder, but hey, we can't have everything.  Seems like a dynamic duo.

Anyway, I imagine some other coaches would have done the same thing I did and others would have done it differently and gotten one of the best available guards.  Given that most coaches are flexible enough to adjust their recruiting patterns situationally there's no true way to tell which way of approaching recruiting leads to more successful teams.  I'm personally still pretty new to this game and frankly not a good enough coach to keep up with my recruiting; I definitely feel that my teams have regularly performed below their potentials due to my lack of game-planning expertise.  But I'd like to think I throw together a decent squad of guys...

you can always play ineligible roulette and try to get a PG inel by offering a start and a scholarship - sure he might go juco, but if you are looking at a walk-on anyway, why not take a shot?

ben - what an impressive start for you at this game, you new to it, or an alias for an established coach?  Either way, I tend to go for need in a two man rotation sense, then for talent with my 11th and 12th men.  I tend to look 2-4 years out.  I took the liberty of showing you how I do it with your MSOE team.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
James Williams	So.	PG	38	75	2	41	2	1	42	60	56	32	78	36	B	463
Milton Rathbun	Sr.	SG	69	64	11	59	2	38	83	68	61	53	79	56	B-	643
William Seward	Jr.	SG	52	56	28	64	9	34	55	53	36	37	72	81	C-	577
Robert Murphy	So.	SG	48	66	1	49	3	40	60	39	59	50	79	18	C	512
Mark Schuler	Fr.	SF	42	43	42	54	37	52	26	37	34	40	70	48	C-	525
Christopher Fresquez	Sr.	C	66	20	89	48	63	48	1	2	15	81	74	53	B-	560
Michael Fairfax	Jr.	C	46	18	99	51	73	72	2	1	18	84	81	79	C+	624
Robert Trombley	Jr.	C	44	23	88	51	66	64	1	17	34	52	81	40	C+	561
Harlan Riner	So.	C	91	17	32	89	28	42	1	5	2	19	67	80	C	473

This year:  PG - williams (so) - 11 (fr) / SG Rathborn (sr) - Murphy (so) / SF Seward (jr) - Schuler (fr) / PF Trambley (jr) - Riner (so) / C Fairfax (jr) FresQ (sr)

If I were taking this team over, my 11th man need is a C, who I would call 15 (1=frosh, 5 = center, net 15),  that would leave my 12th man as anything.

Then I would look at next year:

wiliams jr - 11 so
Murphy jr - 22 fr
seward sr - shuler so
Trambley sr - riner jr
Fairfax sr - 15 so

Using this analysis, your biggest need for a 12th man may indeed have been a SG - who I designated as 22 in my quick and dirty team planning, that also would have been the ideal guy to recruit and redshirt based on team need.  I really don't have too much trouble finding talent I guess, I am more of a need recruiter, the more I think of it.

Is that confusing?  Does that help?  YOu can site mail me with any ?'s or jsut ask here.

i very much like this system, OR.

How do u figure out if potential is "High-High" or "Low-High"?

Posted by teajay3286 on 11/15/2010 12:42:00 PM (view original):
How do u figure out if potential is "High-High" or "Low-High"?

from the written words when doing player evals, words like sky is the limit or massive imply high-high, etc