Hey all - I am wondering how everyone evaluates small forwards, especially at the D2/D3 level which is what I play and where it’s harder to find well rounded players.

1. Do you value Athleticism or speed more or fairly equally? Like would an 80 Ath 50 speed guy be somewhat similar to a 65-65ish guy?

2. How much do you care about passing and ballhandling in SF’s? I just ask because sometimes there are very good players in all other categories but may not crack 35 in either passing or BH (that is for D2).

3. Would you prefer someone with say 60LP 65 Per or someone who was more elite at one or the other, say like 80-45?


Thanks for any insight!

One thing I like about this game is that you can play it so many different ways, and the SF position (especially at the lower levels). Depending on your system/sets, your SF can be 100 different profiles.

My personal rules of thumb when deciding who to play at SF in D2-D3:
- ATH trumps SPD
- BH and PAS are nice-to-haves but not deal breakers unless they're, like, sub 35ish
- Virtually always one of my best defenders

Realistically, the best well-rounded SFs are playing in D1, so I'm okay having a guy whose 60s across the board, but if my team is what I want it to be, that guy is depth. I want my starter elite at something between DEF, LP, PER

Usually, my SFs were listed as SGs as recruits. I basically play with three guards; I just make sure that the one in the SF slot has at least 20 in REB and LP to go along with reasonable SG ratings. Not really sure how much influence the REB rating has for someone in the SF slot, but I don't want to find out the hard way by using someone with a single-digit REB rating as SF.

I'm brand new to this game myself, but my plan is to view both SG and SF as "wing" positions so I will rate them fairly similarly. The only real distinguishing factor that I will value SPD, BH, and PAS slightly higher for SG whereas I will value REB a bit more for SF. I really want both of the positions to be good at PER (though I am willing to overlook that stat if I have good shooting at other positions like PG and the target is, say, an elite defender).

But like I said, this is my first season through the game so I'm not really in a position to give any advice. For the most part I'm just trying to adapt the information that was provided in the HD Player Guides on this forum.

D2 and D3 I will normally look for a "heavy" guard, or a guy with great lp and can snag a few boards. At D1 I tend to go High Ath, High lp, with some ability to shoot from outside, but sacrifice rebounds for a little higher Ath. That is my go to recruit.

Posted by wvufan76 on 3/16/2023 12:55:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 I will normally look for a "heavy" guard, or a guy with great lp and can snag a few boards. At D1 I tend to go High Ath, High lp, with some ability to shoot from outside, but sacrifice rebounds for a little higher Ath. That is my go to recruit.

My reasoning is at D2 and D3 your Centers are generally bad Athletes. SF needs to be a bigger part of rebounding.

Thanks ya'll. This is very helpful. Yeah, it seems like the ability to be a good defender at the SF position is integral and you can overlook certain things if the others makes up for it. But still figuring out the limits, like how slow is too slow, will terrible passing hamper your offense or not matter too much if everything else is good, etc.

I've typically run similar to what's said above, more SG type SFs with defense and some rebounding, but I think I recall a few seasons ago Shoe being successful and maybe winning a chip with a PF-type player at SF where it seemed like he dominated the rebounds. Haven't tried that yet.

Posted by jdreid159 on 3/16/2023 12:55:00 PM (view original):
I'm brand new to this game myself, but my plan is to view both SG and SF as "wing" positions so I will rate them fairly similarly. The only real distinguishing factor that I will value SPD, BH, and PAS slightly higher for SG whereas I will value REB a bit more for SF. I really want both of the positions to be good at PER (though I am willing to overlook that stat if I have good shooting at other positions like PG and the target is, say, an elite defender).

But like I said, this is my first season through the game so I'm not really in a position to give any advice. For the most part I'm just trying to adapt the information that was provided in the HD Player Guides on this forum.

You can totally do this but in my experience (and keeping in mind that I mainly play zone), I've had more success thinking of the PG and the SG as the same mold, and then thinking of the SF and PF as "wings". If I were to sum things up generally, the SG is a PG who can't pass and the SF is a PF who can shoot (keeping in mind that shooting relies on speed, ball handling, and perimeter).

As someone already mentioned, I also recall that for d3, SF usually ended up being where I would stick the guy I recruited for his elite defense only. Nowadays in D1, I still take 90+ ath and 90+ def potential projects with limited other skills to play bench minutes at SF.

Posted by jimbojam11 on 3/16/2023 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Thanks ya'll. This is very helpful. Yeah, it seems like the ability to be a good defender at the SF position is integral and you can overlook certain things if the others makes up for it. But still figuring out the limits, like how slow is too slow, will terrible passing hamper your offense or not matter too much if everything else is good, etc.

I've typically run similar to what's said above, more SG type SFs with defense and some rebounding, but I think I recall a few seasons ago Shoe being successful and maybe winning a chip with a PF-type player at SF where it seemed like he dominated the rebounds. Haven't tried that yet.

Yeah that was Lincoln, and William Hardin, who graduated last season, two titles under his belt. As a senior, he was at his natural PF position, but up until then he had been playing SF. I never had him as a primary scorer until that senior season, but for jr season his distribution was above negligible and he did ok. His LP was still growing a lot though that season so it’s hard to take the final stats and draw any conclusions. He would have been best utilized as a PF the whole time, in a perfect world - but for the team I had, it worked better with him at the 3. I had a plethora of excellent bigs. My guard options weren’t all thrilling. Playing triangle/man instead of my preferred flex/combo or FB/press is probably the big reason this worked for this team, where I probably wouldn’t have even tried it for others. Which is to say, under normal circumstance, I prefer the 3rd guard approach as well - but that’s in large part because I’m usually running sets that really favor the guards. Triangle/man or triangle/2-3Z are the best sets for going big.

Ah that's right, I remember looking at that team and being like holy **** they're all juniors.

Yeah that doesn't sound ideal but it's great that it's possible to pull it off and the rebounding could offset the deficiencies enough. And that maybe it's possible to creatively cobble together runs with less-than-ideal teams with creative use of the SF position.

You definitely want difference between PER/LP rather than them being mediocre at both at every position.

Posted by wvufan76 on 3/16/2023 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wvufan76 on 3/16/2023 12:55:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 I will normally look for a "heavy" guard, or a guy with great lp and can snag a few boards. At D1 I tend to go High Ath, High lp, with some ability to shoot from outside, but sacrifice rebounds for a little higher Ath. That is my go to recruit.

My reasoning is at D2 and D3 your Centers are generally bad Athletes. SF needs to be a bigger part of rebounding.

I don't value reb in SF's at all at D2/D3

SFs, in the ideal world, complement your other starting 4 to create a complete unit. i never really found well-rounded SFs to exist very widely, up until high d1, when suddenly there's like 15 750+ SFs every season. d3, d2, low d1 i usually just went with a guard - but i pressed. i think you can generally go either way, get a big, get a guard, it can work. as long as the SF is good at a couple things, like reb, scoring, defense, or bh/pass (probably less important than the other 3), they are going to be alright. try to avoid setting minimums like 30 reb or 40 passing for these players, players are just too imperfect down there, and its much better to get a SF who does 2 things well than one who does 4 things decently.

when you are trying to compete for deep NT runs, that is when you really want to focus on team synergy. the nice thing is, your SF can literally be anyone. if you are lacking per scoring, throwing a per scoring SF in (basically a guy you'd play at SG but with a bit more tolerance for less-than-exceptional spd/bh), can be huge for those teams. if you are pressing, throwing in a strong press defender who can help generate turnovers, can be huge for you. i tended to just treat my 3 as another guard, when i played d2/d3, because i pressed. in man or zone, i'd probably be keen to get some strong rebounding to help me on the possession game, the press can win the possession game against all other sets because the turnover generation is so strong, and the only real way to strike back against that with non-press sets, is to try to dominate on the boards.

anyway, just be flexible and don't be concerned with minimums, its alright for your SF to be absolutely terrible at something a SF would traditionally do in your mind. as long as they bring important strengths you'll be fine. i never really liked SFs who were **** defenders, but they can definitely work, especially for teams outside the top 10 or so.

This helps a ton, thanks all and thanks Gillispie. That makes a lot of sense on boards versus the press. I've always struggled against the press at D2. It seems like the years where you can snag an elite (for D2) small forward, with some rebounding, it will give you a lot of flexibility to build around. And otherwise, maybe there's more flexibility than I thought to play matchups with guys who might have a big flaw or two. Thanks!