#1 is no good. Tossup in my book between #3 and #4 really with potential in there. #2 is far and away the best player on here.

Posted by 1calloway on 8/11/2010 2:55:00 PM (view original):
#1 is no good. Tossup in my book between #3 and #4 really with potential in there. #2 is far and away the best player on here.

Any chance #2 will consider me as recruiting moves on? My team does have B+ prestige and currently, he's considering no one. He has told me he won't play for me during my last call.

And for #3 and #4, are they good enough to be taken onto a playoff caliber D3 team?

I would probably lean towards 3 over 4.  Close however.  again with guesses at their ending numbers.

ATH is a wash (both 35-40) , close in SB (both 75-80), tossup in PER (both 12-15), close in DUR (both (35-40)
#4 has edge in DEF (40-25), huge edge in REB (95-65).
#3 has in LP (90-80), slight edge in FT, considerable edge in WE which means he will reach potential quicker (75-45), big edge in SPD (50-35), big edge in BH (40-20), big edge in PAS (35-10) and a slight edge in STAM  (85-75) 

The question is; does the 30 point advantage in REB and the 15 point edge in DEF offset all the advantages #3 has in the lesser categories?

in my mind the 30-pt REB edge almost cancels it out alone. Add in the D, and it's easy for me.

as for the last question, yes, they are good enough to add to a tournament-ready D3 team.

I would lean towards number 4 because if you are going to give him decent playing time, his WE will improve.  Rebounding is required and I would definitely take a 71 with high potential over a 62 with low potential any day.  His LP is already serviceable, I am just concerned about his weak ATH and abysmal defense.  

His IQ will take a bit longer to develop since he has a low WE, but again, I think this player is an upgrade over 3 in a season or 2.

I would definitely take 4 if you can't get 2.  He will be ok this year and a pretty darn good D3 center by the time he graduates.  You'd prefer if he were a better defender yet and certainly a better passer, but he will be a very solid rebounder and scorer in the triangle.  I have to wonder if the people recommending #3 are forgetting that you run the M2M since it isn't in the thread title.  That poor of a defender in a man defense could give up 20 points a game to average centers, let alone what he might give up to guy #4 if you ever have to play him.  I really don't think you want to go that route.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/11/2010 8:10:00 PM (view original):
I would definitely take 4 if you can't get 2.  He will be ok this year and a pretty darn good D3 center by the time he graduates.  You'd prefer if he were a better defender yet and certainly a better passer, but he will be a very solid rebounder and scorer in the triangle.  I have to wonder if the people recommending #3 are forgetting that you run the M2M since it isn't in the thread title.  That poor of a defender in a man defense could give up 20 points a game to average centers, let alone what he might give up to guy #4 if you ever have to play him.  I really don't think you want to go that route.

Given the m2m, and the strong focus on ath/reb/blk/lp, I searched more states and found these 2 guys. I think they are much better than those D2 pulldowns, the vets agree?

Player 1: 36 WE

Athleticism	53	Low		Perimeter	1	High
Speed	9	Average		Ball Handling	9	High
Rebounding	72	Average		Passing	20	Average
Defense	33	Average		Stamina	65	Low
Shot Blocking	77	Low		Durability	41	High
Low-post	46	High		FT Shooting	61.1	High

Player 2: 52 WE

Athleticism	46	Low		Perimeter	1	High
Speed	13	Low		Ball Handling	18	Low
Rebounding	69	High		Passing	3	Average
Defense	28	Average		Stamina	59	High
Shot Blocking	73	Low		Durability	72	Average
Low-post	30	High		FT Shooting	55.8	High

I would take player 2 from this list.  Both of them look roughly on par with the original #4, but neither he nor new #1 will ever have enough stamina to play the kind of minutes you would prefer from your big man in the middle.  New guy #2 should end up at least over 80 and possibly much higher depending on how high that high potential is.

Sorry to keep posting so many players but I just am not very sure about player evaluation. Would this guy with higher ath and spd, but lower PF/C cores be better long term, since he has higher potential and a 70 WE?

Athleticism	50	Average		Perimeter	27	Average
Speed	32	Average		Ball Handling	28	Low
Rebounding	33	High		Passing	17	High
Defense	30	Average		Stamina	71	Average
Shot Blocking	13	High		Durability	56	Average
Low-post	17	High		FT Shooting		High

bump

Nah, that guy's probably never going to be as good of a shot blocker as you'd prefer and he'll almost certainly never going to have the LP you'd prefer in a triangle.  Even if he's high-high he's probably never going to hit 55...

Actually ended up going with this D3 recruit, which I had on my recruit list all along:

46WE

Athleticism	34	High		Perimeter	1	Low
Speed	20	High		Ball Handling	5	Average
Rebounding	53	Average		Passing	1	High
Defense	24	High		Stamina	50	High
Shot Blocking	47	Average		Durability	62	Average
Low-post	59	High		FT Shooting	68.9	High

I figure he's gonna be a great offensive threat, hitting 60s (maybe 70) in Ath, 50s in spd, and 70-80s in LP. High potential in passing will facilitate things for my wings in the triangle and he definitely is the best defender I can get. Maybe throw in a RS on this guy and next yr recruit a high rebounding big to balance things out. I hope this is the right choice.

I dunno how you calculate your projections.  I'd figure that guy to end up at 55-60 athleticism, 60s would be good and 70 would be unusually high (though not impossible), 40s in speed (again, 50s aren't out of the question but don't count on it), and the lowest his LP should finish at is 80, could easily be up in the upper 80s.  It'll be hard to get his passing above 12-15 since it's starting at 1, but if you put a lot of practice minutes into passing, defense, and conditioning during a RS year he should come out of that ready to be a solid offensive and defensive player if not a very good rebounder.  I hope whatever big he starts next to is a dominant rebounder and/or your SF rebounds solidly.  You should probably move this guy around to play the other teams' better scoring big.  His defense isn't going to be great, but with his athleticism and speed he's likely to be your better defensive big man.  Alternatively, if the other team is running a man defense you might want to move this guy away from his better defensive big to maximize his scoring ability.

My projections are just guesses. I think his rebounding could be decent, because the scouting report had him as "- Fantastic rebounding instincts - good upside if he works at it." I think this is at the high end of avg? I also sent a couple more scouting trips to see which side of high potential this guy is.

My returning bigs actually aren't good rebounders, at 57 and 52, but the returning sfs are in the mid 40s so maybe they can grow into the 50s.

I'm not really sure of the potential of these returning guys since I took over this team this season, and only chatted with the last coach about recruiting, but not about potential of the players.

Looks like his LP could be in the 90s.

- Definitely wasn't the best athlete on the floor - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he could improve substantially if he really works at it.
- Just average from the line - the fundamentals look solid, with time and coaching, he could really show some improvement.
- Fantastic rebounding instincts - good upside if he works at it.
- Mediocre student in the classroom and on the court.

- It's like he's never been taught basic defensive fundamentals - if he's willing to listen, we could really see some major improvement.
- Very hard to stop inside - sky's the limit.
- Poor court vision/passing skills - with more experience I expect to see TREMENDOUS improvement.
- Looks very uncomfortable facing the basket - not expecting any improvement.