How much improvement can you expect from a freshman with a WE of 1. I made him my starter for the upcoming season, so hopefully his WE will go up some starting as a freshman. Is there anything else I can do to help him improve faster?

They will probably go backward through their career and there's nothing you can do about it. I would recommend not starting him this year if you wouldn't anyways and then rescinding him.

Cub is correct. The recruit will never gain enough WE to be useful.

I have a guy who started as a one WE guy at Tiffin. He is getting ready for his senior year. Here is the link. https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=8353&pid=4397031

What are you talking about?

His WE has increased by 100% !!!!

With work ethic starting below 20, if they aren’t good enough to play right away, probably best to pass on them. With guys in the 8+ range, they can see some WE improvement with starts, so if they have potential in the right places, you could see some improvement over their career. But then they do need the starts, so you’re back to, if they aren’t good enough to play right away...

Posted by shoe3 on 4/21/2020 5:07:00 PM (view original):
With work ethic starting below 20, if they aren’t good enough to play right away, probably best to pass on them. With guys in the 8+ range, they can see some WE improvement with starts, so if they have potential in the right places, you could see some improvement over their career. But then they do need the starts, so you’re back to, if they aren’t good enough to play right away...

I agree 20 is a good baseline as a newcomer, but I disagree a ton with that statement for a coach that has experience. Here are two of my best low WE starters. Both started below 20: Jerry Knapp and Gary Liriano.

You just need to give these types of guys starts and live with the fact that they wont be good until late in their career. But they still grow. I especially like these guys in rebuilds because you don’t need them to be good until late in their career.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 4/21/2020 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/21/2020 5:07:00 PM (view original):
With work ethic starting below 20, if they aren’t good enough to play right away, probably best to pass on them. With guys in the 8+ range, they can see some WE improvement with starts, so if they have potential in the right places, you could see some improvement over their career. But then they do need the starts, so you’re back to, if they aren’t good enough to play right away...

I agree 20 is a good baseline as a newcomer, but I disagree a ton with that statement for a coach that has experience. Here are two of my best low WE starters. Both started below 20: Jerry Knapp and Gary Liriano.

You just need to give these types of guys starts and live with the fact that they wont be good until late in their career. But they still grow. I especially like these guys in rebuilds because you don’t need them to be good until late in their career.

Both of those guys were good enough to play right away, though, at least at D3 (Knapp was probably borderline at D2, but I’ve taken worse). That’s the trick. If they’re good enough to play, and you can start them without them hurting you, then cool. But if you’re giving up better options, this year or in future years, in order to develop them, you’re not helping the team.

The OP example here is a player not good enough to give significant time to at D2, not on a team that wants to be competitive. He’s better than a walkon, and I might take him in a bind if I was already taking walkons and needed another warm body; but as has been suggested, I cut him first chance I get. Low WE players with green potential are always fool’s gold *unless* they’re good enough to play right away.

I’m starting him since I have 9 underclass men right now and know I won’t be as competitive this season

Hilario Velazquez is the player in question

Myles Dame is my sophomore I would be moving out of the starting lineup

Myles dame is slightly better at passing but they are very similar players

Posted by Rolltrees15 on 4/21/2020 8:26:00 PM (view original):
I’m starting him since I have 9 underclass men right now and know I won’t be as competitive this season

Hilario Velazquez is the player in question

Myles Dame is my sophomore I would be moving out of the starting lineup

Myles dame is slightly better at passing but they are very similar players

Velazquez also has green passing

Posted by Rolltrees15 on 4/21/2020 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Rolltrees15 on 4/21/2020 8:26:00 PM (view original):
I’m starting him since I have 9 underclass men right now and know I won’t be as competitive this season

Hilario Velazquez is the player in question

Myles Dame is my sophomore I would be moving out of the starting lineup

Myles dame is slightly better at passing but they are very similar players

Velazquez also has green passing

Cut him for sure. Starting doesn’t do much for 1 WE, he will go backwards, and he isn’t good right now.

The low IQ and low passing are really going to hurt. Dame isn’t ideal either of course, but he hurts you less. Even starting Hilario (his name alone might be worth keeping around, if you need chuckles these days) every game for 4 years will never get his WE past ~3, and his passing will never approach where Dame is now. He’ll be a painfully slow learner, as well, so don’t expect his IQ to make up for flaws until maybe his senior season.

I know it’s unsolicited advice, but this is probably what you’re looking at. With work ethic that low, you have to ignore potential. It actually works against you, because high potential attributes drop faster without playing time and practice devoted to them, making it hard to hold steady on a poor WE player’s cores year over year. What you see now is basically what you’re going to have 4 years from now, except with B to B+ IQ. Hilario is an ok defender getting limited minutes on the bench, but as a starter he will cost you multiple possessions every game.

I recruit very low WE all the time, and you recruit them only for what they are today. Once in a blue moon, they put one out that WE also improves. But do not recruit them expecting any growth. If they do it is a bonus.

i agree with most of the info here, lot of good info.

for newer players, you generally need to use this two-point rule of thumb (sorry guys, even my rules of thumb are gillispie-length) -

1) a guy under 10 work ethic will not improve at all, so you only should get him if you are happy with him as good as he is today. generally, this means you shouldn't be recruiting players in this range - but there are exceptions, especially when you are going for 2nd options. but truly - do not expect any improvement.

2) guys in the 15-30 range need *substantial* work ethic growth to hit their caps. assuming we are talking anything but high d1, most players have substantial room for improvement, and work ethic in this range will really hold the guy back - unless you handle it appropriately. in short, you want (need?) to be able to start these players most or preferably all of their freshman and sophmore years (not for the post season). starting gives a significant WE growth boost, over just playing the minutes, so you really need to be doing this. if you can't afford to get the low WE guys the PT - you generally should pass on them.

of course there are exceptions for all of this but for coaches who aren't able to maintain A prestige yet, this gets you pretty far.

The only time I've looked at guys with <25 WE (at the D3 level) is when I'm starting a big rebuilding project where they would start. Even then I don't see them as ideal recruits, as they have pretty limited upside. On the other hand, you're more likely to be able to find a relatively talented underclassman with lower WE that other users with higher prestige might not go after. It's a balance, as an F/F- WE recruit is still going to have interest if his attributes are too high.