player a - low potential for improvement
WE    ST    STR    BLK    GI    Tec
29     24       74      78       74    63

player b - lots of room for growth
WE     ST    STR     BLK    GI    Tec
1         23      80        90      58    61

yes player 2 has a 1 WE - but his cores are much better - and lots of room for growth - the question is - even if I start him every game Fr year on - will his WE ever reach a point where he actually improves?

Player B wont improve

True, but does he need to? He's already at 80 STR and 90 BLK.

Posted by rangerscott on 2/6/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):
player a - low potential for improvement
WE    ST    STR    BLK    GI    Tec
29     24       74      78       74    63

player b - lots of room for growth
WE     ST    STR     BLK    GI    Tec
1         23      80        90      58    61

yes player 2 has a 1 WE - but his cores are much better - and lots of room for growth - the question is - even if I start him every game Fr year on - will his WE ever reach a point where he actually improves?

I would take B... if A had higher potential I would maybe go him as he could develop almost to where B is. However, that low potential means he probably wont even make it to where B is at now so it doesn't matter if B won't develop.

BJ/Hook - that was my thought - even though player a has a better we - I dont know if he will ever get better than B is now

Even if A did get to where B is now, you'd have to wait until A is a SR....maybe JR. But you can use B as a SOPH, or maybe even now. 

B is the choice. 

I would call it a tossup.  B wont improve (regardless of his higher potential) and by his 4th year, A will be close to B in cores BUT will have a much higher GI.  

Neither of them is ever going to improve. Even lots of growth with 29 WE is not going to do a ton, and A has low growth.

Since neither is going to get any better, sign the one that is better now, which is B

I'd take B just to see what happens. He's a serviceable backup now, so if he never improves, you've not really lost anything.

Even though there is no reference to a certain world and team, wouldn't this whole thread for the most part be considered collusion by some coaches definition in a few other threads? I have no issue with it, just saying

Posted by starfinder77 on 2/7/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Even though there is no reference to a certain world and team, wouldn't this whole thread for the most part be considered collusion by some coaches definition in a few other threads? I have no issue with it, just saying

Seriously?

I haven't really looked at those threads, but like you, I have no issues with it.  Stuff here on the forums is publicly available to everyone; no secrecy.  Can't see how that's collusion.

Would be like Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg doing a secret deal with their companies, but doing it via Twitter.

Went with B - stagg D1AA Princeton - will be interesting to see if I can get his WE over 10 by the time he graduates - lol

Posted by caesari on 2/7/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by starfinder77 on 2/7/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Even though there is no reference to a certain world and team, wouldn't this whole thread for the most part be considered collusion by some coaches definition in a few other threads? I have no issue with it, just saying

Seriously?

yeah. but if you have to ask then ur not getting it or its proof that the forums aren't worth reading.