Posted by l80r20 on 4/23/2018 1:20:00 AM (view original):
Answer #3 [and final] ... do you see any impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting under ANY definition you care to employ? I don't, and that's the sole point I was making. And I think making it three times is enough.
I actually like 3.0 recruiting, and your explanation still sucks. It's like saying "sure the air is polluted, but does that stop you from breathing it?" - theoretically, an incredibly intelligent recruiter can recruit intelligently and still lose out on all of their targets.
Your next response is one of two things - 1. "Well clearly he didn't recruit intelligently, he should settle for players underneath that top tier that doesn't require battling!", which is a terrible response to people trying to be competitive in a B6 conference. Sometimes you don't get the guys you're targeting, or the back-up plan, or the back-up plan to your back-up plan. This probability-based model (which, again, I prefer) lends itself to scenarios like that.
The other potential response is some variation of "Suck it up, that's how it goes, it happens to everyone, quit being a baby" etc. etc. etc....which is also a terrible response because what are the forums for if we can't come here to vent about things happening with our teams that are [somewhat] outside of our control.
Either way, hiding behind some broad "intelligent recruiting is possible!" defense is a lame attempt at trying to sound smart. Nobody thinks you're smarter because of it; come up with new material. Maybe try the MikeT approach - ignore facts/other peoples responses and pick out one specific thing and argue it to death.