I've played a lot, but still don't have a great feel on how much of an impact potential should have on my recruiting. I have 2 centers considering me:

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Center 1	Fr.	C	49	11	57	35	37	31	1	11	22	99	66	57	D+	476
Center 2	Fr.	C	38	12	72	29	69	86	21	6	21	45	80	37	D-	516

Center 1 has far more potential and a 99 WE, but Center 2 is much better now (100 pts if you exclude WE/ST/D) and will always be better in LP, perimeter, shotblocking, and passing.

In general, in this situation, do you go with the potential or the talent? I haven't recruited a super high WE guy since potential came out and am not sure what kind of growth to expect.  Thanks for your help.

Depends.  Are those potentials the 20-30 growth or the 30+ growth,  I think I go with Center #2 though.

I'm no super coach by any means, but I'm with reinsel.  I'd take #2: his DE will eventually be as good or better than #1.  #1's LP & Reb may never improve to #2 starting level.

What level? #2 is much better imo, unless that kid has TREMENDOUS upside in all the green categories, then I might re-consider.

Additionally there are many other aspects you might want to consider, what is your offense/defense? If you play the press and/or fb then maybe center one is a better choice for you. What does your team need? A guy who can come in and put in 15 mpg? or a kid you're looknig to redshirt? All those factors make a huge difference.

How much will this guy play as a freshman.  That might sway me to #2 more.  Player #1 is tempting.   The more green I see the more I like a player.  It's impossible to know without seeing the evals, but they could end up at:

                 At   Sp  Re   De  Bl   LP   Pe  BH  Pa   St  Du
Player 1  60  40  85   55   65  60    30   35   30  85  75
Player 2  50  30  90   60   80  100  30   30   40  90  55

It's hard to ignore the Blk, LP, and Def superiority of #2.   Pretty close though.

I'm an eternal optimist dac!

IF we assume that the high potentials each go up by 25, one gets ultimate results along the lines of the following - IGNORE THE COLORS - seems to me that #2 is better because the LP edge is more significant than the other gaps - AND #2 is better right now as well

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Center 1	Fr.	C	49	36	82	45	62	56	25	36	22	99	66	57	D+	476
Center 2	Fr.	C	38	22	82	54	69	86	21	31	31	45	80	37	C	516

sorry, I didnt see john's similar chart

Is this D III  or d II? At D II I don't like either of them. At D III I like #1. The 11 pts of ATH from day 1 and the eventual spd advantage, the fact that everything else except LP is close - I think they'll end up around the same FT% , and I don't really on my C for my primary scoring option. #1 would still be a decent mid distro scoring option, between putbacks and what not he'd score 6 or 7 per game, and ATH is king...#2 would have a higher scoring avg, but I think #1 does everything else better (because of ATH's impact on just about everything).  Then there is always the possibility that those greens are high-high. #1 has a 99 WE...Spd is almost never HH, but reb frequently is, as are bullshit things like PE and BH for bigs. Lets speculate that the kid has a few HH potentials, he could reasonably look like this by Sr year:

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Center 1	Fr.	C	52	36	93	48	75	56	25	38	22	100	79	70	C	694
Center 2	Fr.	C	38	22	82	54	69	86	21	31	31	45	80	37	C	516

Even at mets numbers I like #1. John's numbers are unrealistic. No red category is going up 11-14 points, and few average categories will go up 18. (I'd still like #1 with John's numbers, although the 40 LP diff would bum me out...)


ETA: nvm, D II (I looked...) I'm not crazy about either at D II, as I said - ATH too low, Def too low. #1 is almost viable for me.

if #1 has TREMEDOUS (high/high) in LP, REB and SPE i would go with him...if he has it in 2 of the 3, i would consider it more of a 50/50...anything less than that, i'd go with #2 i think.

I like number 1 better, without looking at your particular needs.  Generally, I recruit for Sophomore and later years.  I find Freshman big men can generally contribute as a backup with decent Athleticism, which number 1 has.  With his WE and the right practice plan, he could surpass C 2 in most of the categories he is down in now.  If he has HH lp, he could get close to the LP numbers of C 2. 

If 1 had a bigger advantage in Ath (or high potential in Ath), id probably take him. But without that, I think it's at least your junior yr before they begin to equalize, so I would take 2.

As far as the 99 WE, maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a dramatic diff between excellent WEs and crazy-high WEs. So I'm not sure that WE will give you substantially more growth than, say, a 70 WE.

I still think its almost impossible to judge anything on these guys without knowing what their potentials are (ie 30+ or 20-30) that makes a HUGE difference in these guys. #1 might never be as good of a rebounder, low post scorer or shot blocker as 2. If that is the case than the point is moot.

I decided to go with #2, as I didn't any of the "tremendous" or "sky's the limit" type messages in the scouting, I may only stay 2-3 seasons in DII, and I'll need this center to play 10-15 minutes per game as a freshman. Thanks for the feedback.