Posted by Sportsbulls on 2/3/2020 12:45:00 AM (view original):

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.