Recruits: Commentary? (Div III) Topic

He isn't meant to play PG.  Not paying any attention to the named positions, since they have said there is no out of position penalty now.


8/30/2010 10:12 PM
put 20 into conditioning for ferrell and keep it at least that high until he starts to peak in ath/sp/st. he's a d2 center with middle school conditioning. i literally would have considered him for merrimack if he had better stamina to begin with
8/30/2010 10:19 PM
Yeah.  I figured I might be able to get him because of the stamina, seemed worth taking a risk:  From the scouting report it looks like the stamina was a "High high" So if the stamina takes off. He has a high enough WE . . . it seemed worth rolling the dice.

8/30/2010 10:24 PM
what position were you planning on playing sechrist at?
8/30/2010 10:26 PM
And yes, Crocker is embarrassing.  FOr some reason early on I put a schollie on him and then forgot about it.  I had been intending to leave an extra Schollie open (represented by him)and hunt the last minute leftovers and dropdowns after signings started  for that elusive PG.  But I got the Load of Crocker instead.  Bah.

8/30/2010 10:27 PM
SPlitting time with Poche at SF.
8/30/2010 10:28 PM
Posted by 4green2 on 8/30/2010 10:11:00 PM (view original):
Hoping the 76 WE is high enough that if I pump minutes into conditioning, it will get that STA up.  A question:  WOuld it be worth it to pump more than 20/25 minutes into conditioning (For Ferrell) just to get that stamina up, or woudl diminishing returns make it still more effective to spread those minutes around?
Not knowing which categories he's high-high in, I'd put 22-27 mins in conditioning for Ferrell. That's partly to jack up his anemic STA, but also because he's high pot in ATH (and SPD) too. Besides, he's already more than serviceable in REB and LP, so you can wait a bit on investing heavily in those categories. (And better ATH will improve his board and low-post work anyway.) You'll get the most bang for your buck putting a ton of time into conditioning.

Btw, if you're planning on sticking at this school for a while, you might consider trying to redshirt Ferrell. Your big men will suffer this year, but you'd get 4 years of a beast at center after that. (I'm actually doing the same thing with a high-potential freshman C right now.)
8/30/2010 11:45 PM
Seriously considering it, yes.
8/31/2010 6:36 AM
Id give the following ratings:

Poche - B - He should develop into a very nice SF in a couple years. He will be very reliable for you. Great BH/PASS at that position.
Randle - C - Defensive big man. Never going to score but should provide some defense and rebounding in a couple years.
Crocker - D- - That low ATH for a PF won't let him amount to much especially playing FCP/ FB
Frankling - B - If you play him at SG he is a B-. At PG, probably a C-. That PASS is too low for a PG but will work in a couple years at SG especially with already good PER and BH. He should become a good scorer
Sechrist - F - Too low on BH/PASS to ever amount to anything. Great ATH/SP/DEF but will turn it over way too much. Maybe you can try him at SF down the road but I wouldn't place him at any guard position.
Ferrell A-/B+ - Guy would be A+ in any system other than FB/FCP. His ST won't allow him to be on the court more than 15 MPG. Once this gets up to 70 or so by SR year, he can be much better. Hate to waste such a great talent though b/c of the system.
8/31/2010 1:46 PM
Going to wait for the recruits to show up, see the offenses and defenses that they are best at, and pick two. Basically am sacrificing this season record wise.
8/31/2010 4:01 PM
So, no, not sticking with FB/FCP anyway.
8/31/2010 4:02 PM
ok, here are my thoughts... if you are basically starting with a clean slate, i will ignore the rest of your team :)

starting fresh, with 6 men, you ideally would have put together a 5 man starting lineup with very complementary skills. for your sixth man, ideally, you would get somebody to lead the backup line - particularly, a great scoring guard works well.

in summary, you signed 3 bigs, a sf, a sg, and a guy who can't play anything. you can't put together a starting lineup out of that, which is a shame. and it sucks the position you are missing is pg, as that is an important one (sf or a big would be better IMO). you bigs are decently complementary, but overall, your synergy is not very good, and that is possibly the most important part of the game. so you really want to focus on that going forward. everyone talks about the raw quality of those players, so i wanted to start in a different direction. not surprising though, that most people just looked at talent - team planning (building a set of players who strongly comlement each other) is probably the worst thing the HD community is at as a whole, for the major things (scheduling, recruiting talent, game planning), and its often overlooked (which is crazy, considering it is the single most important thing in the game).

anyway, here is what i think of each player:
poche - strong sf, will have decent ath/spd for a sf, but high quality rebounding and perimeter/bh makes him a good pickup. especially with that ft shooting. nice job
randle - terrible lp is more than offset by his strong rebounding/defense. a high quality reb/def big can be an exceptional player, often having 2 offensive bigs is a waste because you could just give most of the distro to 1 and do as well. so i think he is a good type of player - he will fit well with other players, and is talented. now, that stamina, ouch! even with high/high, he wont be worth a damn until his junior year, and even then, he will be held back a lot. overall, if you are playing zone, you will get a lot more out of him, if you are playing press, you almost may as well cut him :O
crocker - horrible ath and poor reb make this a no-win player. he can't fill any role on any team, i would strongly consider cutting your losses and cutting him next season.
franklin - any time you have a guard with speed like that, you have a good chance of a great player. its a shame his per is low, but he still can be a big time scorer for you. not a super star, but very good is definitely possible. honestly, your best bet in d3 is a terrible shooting pg with a great shooting sg, and you probably could find a better shooter - but he has the right shape of player to play sg given his talent level. strong on defense and good ft% round him out nicely :) nice job. honestly, i might try to play him at sf, if you consider him in vaccum - that passing is a serious liability at sg, but is much more tolerable at sf. and his reb would be good enough, although its a huge pain to get 1 reb up to 20 :O
sechrist - if you are not playing man defense, cut him ASAP. that per/bh/pass is a killer combo for any guard. his rebounding precludes him from being a good sf->c. however, his defense can be really good, so if you play man defense, you may be able to use him to shut down an opposing player. still, if its a pg, you are basically shooting yourself in the face by playing him at pg. so really, his goal is, shut down a killer sf. that is a few games a year. so i would probably cut him no matter what defense you are playing.
ferell - man, that stamina is agonizing. he won't be able to do anything until 3 seasons are behind him, so i'd redshirt him. start him as much as possible afterwards, and put at least 24 mins into conditioning. i am not sure which guy you said was high/high stamina, hopefully its both of them, stamina like that is brutal. you REALLY can't play press now. the thing about stamina is, great stamina doesn't make a mediocre player any better. but bad stamina REALLY hurts a great  player. and it can make a great player spectacular. so its like, it doesn't matter until your player is good, and then it is really important. in this case, it makes a great player mediocre. it sucks, but thats the reality of the situation. still, don't despair, by senior year he could be very good - still, never will be great with that stamina :(


in closing, i just want to say, you said full brutality allowed, so i tried to give you some real constructive criticism that you could apply to become a better coach. i think you did a fine job for how little experience you have. but, i don't think telling you all the good things would help you be a better coach. so i tried to pick your class apart the best i could so you could grow from it. its also seemingly very difficult to build a great synergy class in d3 in this newest engine, but make it your top priority anyway - it makes all the difference in the world. come up with a vision for your class before recruiting starts, and have a vision for your team 4 years in advance. really, think of what you think would make the ideal team, what shapes of players you need, and what shapes of players you could make work. finding the right man for the spot is more important than just finding the best talent out there. good luck!
8/31/2010 9:31 PM
Switching out of press either way.  Not sure what to yet, but not press.  And not FB.(Unless you have any reccomendations for either o or d)  And my only goal recruiting next year is Point guard(s).  Crocker. . well. . mistake there.  For some reason I put a scholarship on him early on. . then forgot about him.  And signed him.  ANd cursed myself.

8/31/2010 11:44 PM (edited)
JUst curious, but how useful have people found high passing rating to be in a small forward?
8/31/2010 11:47 PM
Posted by 4green2 on 8/31/2010 11:47:00 PM (view original):
JUst curious, but how useful have people found high passing rating to be in a small forward?
Nice to have, esp in a half-court offense (MO, tri, flex), but to me it's not as important as ball-handling, which allows a good SF (one with high ATH) to drive effectively to the hole without committing turnovers.
9/1/2010 1:44 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Recruits: Commentary? (Div III) Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.