BuzzerBeater Forums

I dont think so.

It makes a huge difference if you can play your SF at his natural position or as a C or PG - you could use him in a 4-5 man rotation (less minutes per game) instead of forcing him to play the full 48 minutes plus the ratings and thus the output would be much better.

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

and i don't see the necessarity of a change in one of the game cores like the training, so it isn't trouble for me ;)

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

That might be, but if it is announced early enough - like 2 seasons before the change happens I think it will be a fair and good improvement.

On the other hand offering a 2-position training that is considerably slower than the complicated 1-pos training might not be such a huge change at all.

No, but he assumed the usual duties of a PG and C at times when learning how to handle, pass, defend bigs, and rebound. He still does, of course. How did he learn?

The point is that the rare versatile SF must be stretched to assume many different roles early on. He doesn't sit in his SF slot and magically learn how to assume PG and big man duties - hence why most NBA SFs don't have incredible all-around games, like BB managers seem to expect their SFs to have. You could argue that most are converted guards, or taller guys with jumpshots. Even Larry Bird wouldn't have great insides if he were a BB player.

Your expectations aren't in touch with reality, which is the underlying factor here. All-around SFs are supposed to be a pain in the ass to create because they're extremely rare to begin with and rely on a great deal of managerial commitment from the beginning. Mono-skilled bigs and SGs are not as rare in reality, or in BB, so it's easier to train them (once again, like real life)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 2/17/2011 2:57:22 PM

Haha i know what your saying here. I cant wait until my 20 y/o SF actually can play at the SF spot outside of PL's in say 5+ seasons

This sums up the problem perfectly.

The inflexibility is accepted from a difficulty perspective...but I wonder how many farm teams are created in order to create SF's for their NT?

Why should clubs be pretty much forced to enjoy their player in a capacity they never play to their full ability in order to improve them? You either are forced to buy supporter to actually see how your SF's play when in their natural position OR you have to be lucky enough to have them on a NT to watch them.

The argument... oh you have scrimmages to train out of position.... so as you say enjoy your player for 6-7 seasons and watch him come off the subs bench every once in a while at SF whilst 95% of the time you get to enjoy him playing beneath his capability.