BuzzerBeater Forums

2.03 cm is not that tall,i have a 2.08 PF with 10 in OD but he plays as a SF

and if I'm not wrong there are some very good SF tall enough to be PF with high OD

I didn't say it's not possible to train his OD. I said it's probably a waste of time, all things considered.

There's probably a reason why there isn't anyone on the transfer market with at least 8 in OD and 12+ in inside skills.

Firstly you tell the original poster exactly what he asked not to hear then you followed it up with a statement essentially telling everyone not to bother training guys over 6'8 in OD (or they'd be stupid too)

As for the above (in bold) - I would hazard a guess that if you've gone to the trouble to train such a player why on earth would you want to sell him?

But if there isnt such a player (cos its a waste of time to train) why are there guards with 12+ in outside skills and 8+ in Inside defence? Surely the ID training is a complete waste?

It is because of posts like yours that the transfer list does not evolve from the mono-skilled big men with no handling (oh but in your world they have JS which is nice).

I didn't say it's not possible to train his OD. I said it's probably a waste of time, all things considered.

There's probably a reason why there isn't anyone on the transfer market with at least 8 in OD and 12+ in inside skills.

In the future I am not going to bother buying a PF with OD below respectable, so that tells you exactly what I think of such a player. I am actually thinking of switching to training PFs because people are like you and just don't bother to see the value of it.

Basically, if your PF has no outside d, you are relegating yourself to playing 3-2 zones in order to cover for his weakness. It is not just the outside shot that is worrysome here, but you are leaving yourself open to good passes and drives from your opponent's PF.

Quality PFs are already rare without comments like this. There are already enough C trainers in the world, we do not need more of them (a PF without OD, HD and PA might as well be a C in my opinion).


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 1/25/2010 10:32:10 AM

Either that, or you're relegating yourself to living with an occasional jump shot made by opposing PFs.

With the right kind of outside offense (in other words: not run and gun) and a decent amount of flow, you are in for more than just the occasional jump shot by a PF.

Handling and Passing are not more helpful at PF than they are at C. And a PF with OD, Handling and Passing might as well be a SF.

Not really, because as people start to understand the implications of the new GE, high level SFs will need at least 12/12 passing/handling to be worth anything. I'm not looking for those levels on a PF, but lower than inept and you are asking for trouble.

Although, it is true that it all depends on the level of OD you are facing. So if I go up against your ideal PF, I can probably live with atrocious handling/passing. But if you go up against mine, with your atrocious handling and passing, I have found your weakest link.

In my opinion and based on the few feedback the BBs give us I believe that even C should have secondaries

it goes like this for C-secondaries between 3-5 is good and for PF betwenn 6-8

I believe JS should be at least 5for c and 8 for PF

and a PF with outside skills cant be necessarily a SF, especially a really good one,the SF needs 10+ in the outside skills

what I must agree is that if you have a tall player with low PA and OD, maybe its not worth training,and just upgrade when you have the money for players with secondaries

just one more thing-if you're talking about a especific player its good to make it clear and not make stamtement that looks like a universal one

Very well said. My friend HeadPaperPusher said that an SF needs 12/12 on HA/PA. 95%+ of the PGs have lower skills than that. I am really having hard time to see any good SF having good enough inside/outside skills PLUS 12/12 on PA/HA.

I dont think that the creators of the game they want big men to look like PG's, of PF like SF's. I think that they want to avoid monsters like Cardenas. They are trying to find some balance.

I dont really think that they want to go from the one end to the other. Every position must have there roles, and there skills to go with. If not, and they want C's like guards then the game is on a serious trouble.

Last edited by JohnnyB at 1/25/2010 2:16:24 PM

My friend HeadPaperPusher said that an SF needs 12/12 on HA/PA. 95%+ of the PGs have lower skills than that. I am really having hard time to see any good SF having good enough inside/outside skills PLUS 12/12 on PA/HA.

Well, as always it depends on the skills that your SF is facing. But I'm talking about high level SFs, the guys that you will see in division I of Canada, for example. Of course division IV teams will not need guys that high.

However, if you are talking about the guy you are developping for your NT, then 6-8 passing/handling is not going to cut it. One of the top teams in my division just picked up a PG to play SF. More will follow. While I don't think it is an optimal tactic, you have to make compromises if you don't want to spend 15 million on a beast.

Besides, I have already showed you it is possible to train such a SF. Passing and handling train quite fast, you just have to make sure your SF trainee is on the shorter end of the spectrum. Sure, you give up some inside skills by doing this, but inside shot of SFs is now over-rated. The offensive role of a SF in an inside offense is now to get the ball inside to your PFs and Cs. If they have inside shooting skills, that part is gravy.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 1/25/2010 2:34:13 PM

How many Wendons are out there? We are 50.000 users on this game. Wendon is unique. Very few like him. Maybe your describe the ideal kind of SF, but again the ideal is so rear like the 7 wonders of the world...What i wanted to point, is that we need to be more realistic in what we are asking.