I was looking at my D2 team that rolled over today and thought to myself “son of a gun, you might win a NC with this team.” Then I realized my best point guard was a true freshman. Season over.

What do you feel you “need” to have in this game to be successful? For me, I need a pg with high speed, pass and bh. It’s probably because I play triangle so much. I find that my average teams with great point guards out perform the great teams with average pgs.

Musts or targets or goal numbers..... this is my D2 approach to roster building. In a vacuum.....

PG - Sr, Soph
SG - Jr, Frosh
SF - Sr, Soph
PF - Jr, Frosh
C - Sr, Soph
-----------------------
PG - 50 ATH, 90 SPD, 80 BH, 80 PAS
SG - 60 ATH, 80 SPD, 100 PER, 80 BH
SF - 75 ATH, 55 SPD, 100 DEF, ball skills +55
PF - 75 ATH, 40 SPD, 100 LP
C - 80 ATH, 80 REB, 80 DEF, 80 BLK, 45+ PAS

The top part, I want a balanced roster, when a player graduates, I want a player to step in that has completed 2 years already and has good IQs and is ready to ball.

The bottom part, i left out plenty of things, like defense on most. I want all good defenders. Those listed above, are just numbers I really want to have. For the C, I want a defensive rim protector, that can pass. If he can score great, but if not, he already has a role. PG is the most important position in HD, gotta be solid there. SF is a wildcard for me. HAS to be a great defender. Can have REB but doesn't have to (I play a lot of press, so this is normally just my 3rd, and slowest guard in this slot). Can have scoring but doesn't have to. All numbers listed are expected when player is maxed. Players need to be fairly close to these numbers upon taking over the starting spot. Especially at PG

Here are my HD musts. There are rarely exceptions to this rule. For D3, 120 Ath/SP at caps for PG-SF and 65+ Ath for PF and C. For D2, 140 Ath/SP at caps for PG-SF and 70+ Ath for PF and C. Yes, there are exceptions, but I am a very Ath/SP focused recruiter.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/1/2020 10:14:00 PM (view original):
I was looking at my D2 team that rolled over today and thought to myself “son of a gun, you might win a NC with this team.” Then I realized my best point guard was a true freshman. Season over.

What do you feel you “need” to have in this game to be successful? For me, I need a pg with high speed, pass and bh. It’s probably because I play triangle so much. I find that my average teams with great point guards out perform the great teams with average pgs.

high Ath/Sp/Def

Three scorers, one lp, one per, one hybrid or per. Solid defense and ath everywhere except at PG where you can manage. A solid PG that plays 28-30 min. That’s how I win NTS in D2. I get more ath in man to man, more stam-spd in press.

Ha, you guys are way more structured than I am. I basically say grab 4 dudes who can rebound, a pg, and hopefully one mofo that can shoot and call it a day.

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/2/2020 12:19:00 AM (view original):
Musts or targets or goal numbers..... this is my D2 approach to roster building. In a vacuum.....

PG - Sr, Soph
SG - Jr, Frosh
SF - Sr, Soph
PF - Jr, Frosh
C - Sr, Soph
-----------------------
PG - 50 ATH, 90 SPD, 80 BH, 80 PAS
SG - 60 ATH, 80 SPD, 100 PER, 80 BH
SF - 75 ATH, 55 SPD, 100 DEF, ball skills +55
PF - 75 ATH, 40 SPD, 100 LP
C - 80 ATH, 80 REB, 80 DEF, 80 BLK, 45+ PAS

The top part, I want a balanced roster, when a player graduates, I want a player to step in that has completed 2 years already and has good IQs and is ready to ball.

The bottom part, i left out plenty of things, like defense on most. I want all good defenders. Those listed above, are just numbers I really want to have. For the C, I want a defensive rim protector, that can pass. If he can score great, but if not, he already has a role. PG is the most important position in HD, gotta be solid there. SF is a wildcard for me. HAS to be a great defender. Can have REB but doesn't have to (I play a lot of press, so this is normally just my 3rd, and slowest guard in this slot). Can have scoring but doesn't have to. All numbers listed are expected when player is maxed. Players need to be fairly close to these numbers upon taking over the starting spot. Especially at PG

Why do you think the PF must be a scorer and the C doesn't have to be?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/2/2020 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/2/2020 12:19:00 AM (view original):
Musts or targets or goal numbers..... this is my D2 approach to roster building. In a vacuum.....

PG - Sr, Soph
SG - Jr, Frosh
SF - Sr, Soph
PF - Jr, Frosh
C - Sr, Soph
-----------------------
PG - 50 ATH, 90 SPD, 80 BH, 80 PAS
SG - 60 ATH, 80 SPD, 100 PER, 80 BH
SF - 75 ATH, 55 SPD, 100 DEF, ball skills +55
PF - 75 ATH, 40 SPD, 100 LP
C - 80 ATH, 80 REB, 80 DEF, 80 BLK, 45+ PAS

The top part, I want a balanced roster, when a player graduates, I want a player to step in that has completed 2 years already and has good IQs and is ready to ball.

The bottom part, i left out plenty of things, like defense on most. I want all good defenders. Those listed above, are just numbers I really want to have. For the C, I want a defensive rim protector, that can pass. If he can score great, but if not, he already has a role. PG is the most important position in HD, gotta be solid there. SF is a wildcard for me. HAS to be a great defender. Can have REB but doesn't have to (I play a lot of press, so this is normally just my 3rd, and slowest guard in this slot). Can have scoring but doesn't have to. All numbers listed are expected when player is maxed. Players need to be fairly close to these numbers upon taking over the starting spot. Especially at PG

Why do you think the PF must be a scorer and the C doesn't have to be?

That applies to the part where I said, in a vacuum. And also that I left some ratings out. I want all 100 everything, but I'm not getting that surely. So I just put down some numbers. I'm fine with the PF and C being interchangeable for the most part. Or scoring from both. Or scoring from the C and not the PF. It was just me saving space from writing out every stat for every position.

The main thing I preach to people is you don't always get what you want. So I aim to get all of those type of ratings that I can.

So you want one of your post players to be a scorer? Also, do you not care about rebounding in PF?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/2/2020 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Ha, you guys are way more structured than I am. I basically say grab 4 dudes who can rebound, a pg, and hopefully one mofo that can shoot and call it a day.

I feel this way as well but it's on purpose. I don't think being more structured is always better. Especially at low divisions, I think it is important to be flexible and take what the game gives you. For instance, here are two totally different, successful teams. This team just won a ship a couple days ago, look at how putrid the rebounding is (REBOUND IS OVERRATED, but that's another topic I won't get into). Our default starting lineup had a SF with 17 REB, a PF with 50 REB, and a C with 59. Whereas another team (this link is post-roll so you can't see seniors that graduated) of mine that just lost in the ship last year had a default starting lineup of 59 REB at SF, 74 REB at PF, 96 REB at C, with backup bigs with 89 and 91 REB. Both these teams were successful and both were recruited by me, but I took what I could, so the teams became total opposite, but both good in their own ways.

I'm generally more of a talent and make it work rather than fully fitting your team, but people like top are opposite and he's super successful with focusing on team fit. It's just different styles of playing the game. I used to barely focus on team fit it all, but now I have found more of a balance. You can't just have a team with all Ath/DEF or a team with all shooters for example, it needs to be a balance. Grab a few defenders, some people with ball handling, etc., but I don't fully an exact team structure, I take what I can get.

It depends, again we're getting a lil deeper than I intended. I care about rebounding in PF, but if it's 60 I'll live with it. Would be nice to have 100 REB in C in that case.

And I'd love for both post players to score, but having one is enough for me if it plays out that way. I end up signing a lot of guys like this for free......

https://imgur.com/a/e1QiLeV

he's an athlete rim protector type of big, with some passing. And he can rebound. But because of his useful 40 SPD I play him at PF, and I'll want my C in this case to be a high scoring big. If I can get the pictured guy above, free, than that extra bucks can go towards spending on a scorer. Just an example

A few musts though I have is that I always want at least one 70+ PER guy, and one PG. In D2, I want at least one 70+ BH and P guy while in D3 I want at least one 60+ BH/P guy. A guy could be like 90 BH and 60 P though for example and could still be a D2 PG to me.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 2/2/2020 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/2/2020 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Ha, you guys are way more structured than I am. I basically say grab 4 dudes who can rebound, a pg, and hopefully one mofo that can shoot and call it a day.

I feel this way as well but it's on purpose. I don't think being more structured is always better. Especially at low divisions, I think it is important to be flexible and take what the game gives you. For instance, here are two totally different, successful teams. This team just won a ship a couple days ago, look at how putrid the rebounding is (REBOUND IS OVERRATED, but that's another topic I won't get into). Our default starting lineup had a SF with 17 REB, a PF with 50 REB, and a C with 59. Whereas another team (this link is post-roll so you can't see seniors that graduated) of mine that just lost in the ship last year had a default starting lineup of 59 REB at SF, 74 REB at PF, 96 REB at C, with backup bigs with 89 and 91 REB. Both these teams were successful and both were recruited by me, but I took what I could, so the teams became total opposite, but both good in their own ways.

I'm generally more of a talent and make it work rather than fully fitting your team, but people like top are opposite and he's super successful with focusing on team fit. It's just different styles of playing the game. I used to barely focus on team fit it all, but now I have found more of a balance. You can't just have a team with all Ath/DEF or a team with all shooters for example, it needs to be a balance. Grab a few defenders, some people with ball handling, etc., but I don't fully an exact team structure, I take what I can get.

A lot of holes in that theory tho.....

I can't disagree on some things at all. Taking what the game gives you is great. That's along the same lines as "we don't always get what we want in HD". I can't disagree with having flexibility. That's a plus also. But balance is something I strive for. It keeps you competing EVERY season. That's a preference of mine. But some coaches prefer to load up on 1 or 2 seasons every few. That's a valid strategy as well.

But the part I disagree with is your two examples of title game teams. First off, reaching the title game is as high as you can control with roster building. So both of those teams you shared are pretty equal, in this discussion. One won the championship game, and one lost the championship game. But that doesn't make them "better or worse". A random sim can happen in a final game. The matchups matter. You could've played a ****** team in one, and a team much better than yours in the other. The road to those championship games could've been "easier or harder"

And to get a lil more detailed with your description, the team you shared where you lost the title game, the biggest issue in that game was your opponent. You got beat by a super hot team that has won 3 of the past 5 titles there. That team..... was mine!

Moral; Don't mess with the doggg! (Only kidding! But I had to throw that in there!)

Fun. Otherwise I’d just play Minecraft or Civ in my free choice time/budget.

But seriously, my approach is to not have “needs” or “must haves.” I prefer to look at each team individually, and figure out what they can do well, what I’ll have to hide, and tailor my gameplans that way. So I don’t really enforce standards on my players. Obviously, the more ath/spd/def I can get, the better. I feel like pretty much everyone who has spent any time on the forums, or in conferences with other humans probably understands that. But rather than set minimum standrards a guy has to meet, I evaluate players against a generalized rubric to figure out what kind of player he will be, ie what he’ll do well, and what I’ll have to hide.

At D3, generally speaking, I consider ~40 to be replacement level; 50 to be mediocre; 60 to be good; 70 to be excellent; and 75+ to be elite. At D2,I add 10. At D1, I add 20.

In the scouting/recruiting process, I look at the different components I want to add to my team, and evaluate the players based on where they are and where they project to be, based on how I understand their attributes determining their abilities. I break it into 6 areas. Interior defense, perimeter defense; interior scoring, perimeter scoring; rebounding and distributing. I want a guy to be able to do 3 things well, 2 things really well, or one thing at an elite level. Where a player lands on the rubric basically determines what I’m willing to spend/do to get him. Replacement level guys won’t get anything other than minimum AP, and then only if I am desperate. Mediocre guys basically the same, but I will take them if I’m less desperate, if it means avoiding a *need* next year. Good guys will get more attention, and possibly small minutes promises and even a visit or 3. Excellent and elite guys will obviously get most of my attention and effort.

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/2/2020 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 2/2/2020 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/2/2020 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Ha, you guys are way more structured than I am. I basically say grab 4 dudes who can rebound, a pg, and hopefully one mofo that can shoot and call it a day.

I feel this way as well but it's on purpose. I don't think being more structured is always better. Especially at low divisions, I think it is important to be flexible and take what the game gives you. For instance, here are two totally different, successful teams. This team just won a ship a couple days ago, look at how putrid the rebounding is (REBOUND IS OVERRATED, but that's another topic I won't get into). Our default starting lineup had a SF with 17 REB, a PF with 50 REB, and a C with 59. Whereas another team (this link is post-roll so you can't see seniors that graduated) of mine that just lost in the ship last year had a default starting lineup of 59 REB at SF, 74 REB at PF, 96 REB at C, with backup bigs with 89 and 91 REB. Both these teams were successful and both were recruited by me, but I took what I could, so the teams became total opposite, but both good in their own ways.

I'm generally more of a talent and make it work rather than fully fitting your team, but people like top are opposite and he's super successful with focusing on team fit. It's just different styles of playing the game. I used to barely focus on team fit it all, but now I have found more of a balance. You can't just have a team with all Ath/DEF or a team with all shooters for example, it needs to be a balance. Grab a few defenders, some people with ball handling, etc., but I don't fully an exact team structure, I take what I can get.

A lot of holes in that theory tho.....

I can't disagree on some things at all. Taking what the game gives you is great. That's along the same lines as "we don't always get what we want in HD". I can't disagree with having flexibility. That's a plus also. But balance is something I strive for. It keeps you competing EVERY season. That's a preference of mine. But some coaches prefer to load up on 1 or 2 seasons every few. That's a valid strategy as well.

But the part I disagree with is your two examples of title game teams. First off, reaching the title game is as high as you can control with roster building. So both of those teams you shared are pretty equal, in this discussion. One won the championship game, and one lost the championship game. But that doesn't make them "better or worse". A random sim can happen in a final game. The matchups matter. You could've played a ****** team in one, and a team much better than yours in the other. The road to those championship games could've been "easier or harder"

And to get a lil more detailed with your description, the team you shared where you lost the title game, the biggest issue in that game was your opponent. You got beat by a super hot team that has won 3 of the past 5 titles there. That team..... was mine!

Moral; Don't mess with the doggg! (Only kidding! But I had to throw that in there!)

I'm not saying one team was better or worse. I'm comparing two title teams built by the same person and saying how they're very different but both great because I took what I was given.

My point of that wasn't AT ALL to say look this team is better because they won and the other is worse. It was saying one team has incredible Reb and worse other stuff while one team has horrible Reb and great other stuff but they're both good, showing that I am successful taking what I can get and not having a specific structure.