And if yes, how would you use him? (These are his eventual ratings, not current, and this is for press)

Ath 45
Spd 50
Reb 55
Def 65
Blk 50
LP 70
Per 100
BH 80
Pas 40
Sta 80
FT C

I wouldn't. But some would. I'd use him as a high distro SF off the bench

Most likely not but maybe if hes an easy get and can allow me to go after some star types. If i did agree with top backup sf with high distro

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/17/2019 5:39:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't. But some would. I'd use him as a high distro SF off the bench

If it’s that guy or a walkon, i’d probably take him. Ok backup option, he’ll probably never start for a championship caliber team, but as doggg said, he can certainly be a capable bench scorer as an upperclassmen; and until then, he can rest your frontcourt players for 7-10 minutes per game.

i would take him over a walkon but he would be nothing more than an emergency last cycle sign for me.

Those type of guys (high LP and/or PER) tear up crappy competition but the lack of SPD?ATH make them not so effective against high quality human teams.

i could see slotting him in the 4th position at any position 2-4. I would put him where i needed him and pray he doesn't need to play much.

Thinking a little contrarian, you could start him against SIMS and jack his distro through the rough to inflate your team 3FGA. That might mess with game planning.

Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/20/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

I think it's difference of opinion really. I'm a coach that swears by ATH/DEF (SPD as a relative). So when i see 45 ATH, even if everything else is 100, i tend to keep shopping. Just out of habit. I probably miss out on decent players because of it, but so be it. The coaches that responded ARE coaches that compete for titles, so that does play a role in the responses.

I think you are much better than a 40-80 rpi coach without question. And that's why my response was what it was. If a new coach came here and asked me, I'd say "sure, take a chance on him if that's the best easy signing you have lined up"

Also, you know me well. And my Coker team well. If you notice over the years (seasons), i usually have much lower LP/PER than most teams that contend (although this season is different for me in that area). So it's just kinda my style.

THE biggest issue that i see with coaches, is that they OVER value per and lp for scoring. Sure, players with 100 there, will score. But so will a player with 80 ATH, 80 SPD, 60 BH, 90 ST, with maybe 50 LP and 0 PER. That guy will score 20ppg at 50% if i force the issue. But some coaches see 50 LP and 0 PER and don't try to score with that guy.

https://imgur.com/a/joy0Ge6

The guy pictured is my leading scorer in Coker history. Sr season he averaged 22.2 ppg on 51% shooting. You see his LP/PER is low

I only play D3 but if he was green in Ath or Spd I would take him very optimistically. My lead guard the year I won a NT in D3 was this guy with 15-20 more in Ath, Spd, Lp and 30 more in pass but with no Blk. He was very good but he wasn't my best ever player or anything and he wasn't my most efficient scorer ever either.

Short answer: no. Let's just compare a D2 second round exit NT team to a F4 D3 team just for the sake of this argument. I wouldn't touch that guy at D3 because of the low Ath/SP combo.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/20/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

I'd take that guy (not that I'm a D2 expert).
I value balance in my roster, and am totally OK with taking role players.
So I wouldn't build a whole team of dudes like that, but he has a role to fill (as others mentioned, a bench scorer).

I'm surprised to see so many good coaches say they wouldn't even touch him.
Does everyone really have better recruits than that for every spot on their roster?

Like top said, if you knew me you'd know I'm a big Ath/SP believer. If I see that Ath/SP, I keep scrolling.

Posted by Jdizzpimp on 9/27/2019 10:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/20/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

I'd take that guy (not that I'm a D2 expert).
I value balance in my roster, and am totally OK with taking role players.
So I wouldn't build a whole team of dudes like that, but he has a role to fill (as others mentioned, a bench scorer).

I'm surprised to see so many good coaches say they wouldn't even touch him.
Does everyone really have better recruits than that for every spot on their roster?

I do some years. Not always. So like I said, if it’s that guy or a walkon, I will normally take him (unless I already have a few older versions of him). Otherwise I agree, in a somewhat limited role, he can help a title contender, for sure.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/20/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

aren't there barely more human teams than NT spots in d2/d3 these days? in that context, sure seems like 'simply trying to get to the NT' or having 40-80 rpi is setting the bar really low. i mean, if that's the bar, i guess that's fine, but i definitely didn't take that from the OP.

Posted by Jdizzpimp on 9/27/2019 10:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/20/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Good feedback, thanks. For teams that are simply trying to get to the NT, or win a round or two, I think he's a bit better than you guys are suggesting. If your realistic goal is competing for a F4 berth or so, I agree he's a four-year backup (but a pretty high-caliber one, imo).

I just looked at 4 human teams that have consistently been in the 40-80 RPI range for the past few seasons, and once he gets closer to his potential, he could start on most if not all of them.

I'd take that guy (not that I'm a D2 expert).
I value balance in my roster, and am totally OK with taking role players.
So I wouldn't build a whole team of dudes like that, but he has a role to fill (as others mentioned, a bench scorer).

I'm surprised to see so many good coaches say they wouldn't even touch him.
Does everyone really have better recruits than that for every spot on their roster?

I think the combo of ATH/SPD for D2 has to reach a certain area for players to be considered "good". There's TONS of C's out there with 100 REB, SB, LP, and they have 45 ATH and 10 SPD. But without enough ATH in a big, that player will not be effective when trying to make a deep post season run. As gillispie1 said, if you're just trying to make the NT at D2, sure players like that are fine. But that is a terribly low "goal".

So to answer your question, yes.... I have 12 players every season on every team, that I consider to be "better" than a 45 ATH, 50 SPD guy, even if everything else is good. I just think that 45 ATH is too low for any position, unless it's a PG that has 90 SPD to go with it. With 45 ATH, the lowest speed I would even glance at, would be 70. And all the ball skills would have to be above 90 (I still would subconsciously keep looking most of the time).

Your example guy appears to be a Forward type. The 50 SPD is ok. But for me to consider him, he'd have to have about 60 ATH (55 might be ok, but I know that I wouldn't pursue him with a 55. Others may be ok with it)