BuzzerBeater Forums

Q:
Should we EXPECT any U21 forfeits from "you" as a new manager for u21 like we have ... started to grow accustomed to?

We haven't been winning lately because we haven't been training winning builds. I'm half joking because that's only part of the issue. You have to understand that we're not always dealt a great deck of cards each season, so some seasons we bluff it. And that's OK. The odds aren't always in our favor, but Rocky still beat the Drago didn't he.

The fact is, we have a dedicated staff of volunteers on the US offsite, but many mangers of US prospects refuse assistance, so that's not on the US staff members. Dedicated managers are the ones that help our NT program succeed: the managers that want to win. And that's it. Anything else I say, I'm just talking out my ass. Actually, I've been talking out my ass this whole time. But, hey...as long we win, right? That's all that matter. Winning. And Tiger blood.

Here's the deal: If you have a prospect and want to train him into a player that will help your club team and NT win, join the US offsite or BB-mail me directly. I'll tell you exactly what needs to be done. But only if you want to WIN. I don't tolerate losers.

The last few seasons we have suffered some... unfortunate losses. As a owner of a U21 player last season i was quite upset. What will you do to prevent these forfeits/upsets from occurring, and to please U21 player owners?

Now, I know you posted your recommended builds for players based on their positions as those 3 catch-all training plans.

Is there a particular reason you feel this is more effective than individualizing the builds based on the player's skill sets? Are those builds one that never have any deviation to where they would not be the most optimal way of training said player?

Would those plans on every prospect not give us more or less a team of the exact same player over and over?

But *most* of the managers, from what I have seen, read, and heard via discussions etc. Have been training in a near identical way to what you just recently proposed...

I find this very contrary to your prior statement.

Not true. If they had, we'd be winning by now. Inside shot+defense is what I preach. It is a proven method and that wins games. There is an effective way of training that some mangers neglect due to ignorance. I made this mistake, but with the experience I have gained from training U21 prospects I have improved my training methods.

Example: one of my trainees had 1 JS; Instead of training 1v1f and killing two birds with one stone (IS), I trained JS and 1v1G. The way you train is very important. I can show you a perfect cake and have you bake it. But your cake is going to suck. You need the step by step directions on how to bake the perfect cake.

In WWII, the Germans had technological advances that every one wanted to get their hand on. The jet? Rockets? America had its best engineers study and examine crashed jets -- fully intact. However, they still didn't know what the hell they were looking at. They tried to recreate it but failed. It wasn't until after the war when the US brought over German engineers and scientists to aid them in the production of the first US jets and Rockets.

I want to help you build your jets and your rockets. Together, we'll fly to the moon and back.

Now, I know you posted your recommended builds for players based on their positions as those 3 catch-all training plans.

Would those plans on every prospect not give us more or less a team of the exact same player over and over?

Do you want one superman, or a team of supermen? I want a team of Shaq and Kobes. There is never enough. I'm confident in my builds; They will win games.

Is there a particular reason you feel this is more effective than individualizing the builds based on the player's skill sets?

Prospects have different builds to begin with. You approach each player differently, depending on what skills need to be addressed first. There are guard prospects with 1 IS and some with more. Train 1v1f and OD, some passing and you're good to go. Base on a prospects starting skills, each player is bound to come out differently by the time they're 21. Just because they have different starting build doesn't negate the fact that IS needs to be trained.

Are those builds one that never have any deviation to where they would not be the most optimal way of training said player?

No, I address each prospect accordingly. The inside build is the optimal way of training every prospect.

Certainly, your experience with the game is vast compared to mine, yet I find it troubling that you seem to think this is the best way to win. This is not how your team or recent b3 winners or even recent NT winners are built.

Perhaps you've misinterpreted my training methods? Inside shot and defense, that's exactly how my team is built; I can assure you that.

What you preach here is no different then what has been preached to the managers of the USA by the u21 staff and offsiters for as long as I have played the game. This is a game of numbers, a giant math problem that leaves nerds like me salivating at the thought of solving it. I have seen what these donkey builds have brought us and really it isnt much. Simply looking back to last season my u21 big Robbie Hendrickson outplayed those bigs of the typical u21 IS/ID/REB donkey route significantly in almost every game even some where he had fallen to 7 GS.

My bigs would be more well rounded than your typical "donkey build" as I would have them train 1v1f along with IS, as I stated previously.

He was simply a SB heavy big, not that much different then the typical Donkey. Look at what Hrudey is doing with guys, the SF's being built by multiple managers right now are looking great. We do not need more of the same donkey build players. We need a manager who can look at the game as a giant math problem in need of solving, as that is what is is and looking at it in any other way with the intention to outwit our opposition is asinine.

Now you're just preaching to the choir. The inside builds I speak of are the same builds I used on current trainees: Isom, Kearney and Meek, for the U21 NT and my club team.

sure, your training methods you did describe accurately, that doesnt mean these players have not been trained in other areas by other managers before you purchased them off the market.

Not to mention the players you mentioned won nothing in the u21. And they are all well rounded players with both outside and inside defense and other skills at this point in there lives, I see no correlation with what you are preaching to the managers of the usa. Sure you may only train 1v1F/IS and defense on them, but someone trained there passing and other skills somewhere, unless they were lucky and started with all that passing and JR.

the fact of the matter is, you talk to some of the USA managers who are building u-21 players for other nations and these other nations have requirements of guys to have both inside and outside skills, passing and jr etc.

When was the last time the USA u-21 won anything with these same old builds? Isnt it time we realize that other skills make just as much if not more of an impact then the ones we have been focusing on?

sure, your training methods you did describe accurately, that doesnt mean these players have not been trained in other areas by other managers before you purchased them off the market.

Not to mention the players you mentioned won nothing in the u21. And they are all well rounded players with both outside and inside defense and other skills at this point in there lives, I see no correlation with what you are preaching to the managers of the usa. Sure you may only train 1v1F/IS and defense on them, but someone trained there passing and other skills somewhere, unless they were lucky and started with all that passing and JR.

Aside from Bill Isom (purchased off TL), Meek and Kearney are home grown players. However, all were trained by me from 18, to now. Meek was my first trainee, who barely missed the U21 squad primarily due to my lack of experience training forwards; and also because EBW (U21 manager at the time) hated Darry Meek's face. Kearney and Isom, however, were selected to the U21 squad that eventually won Americas Gold.

But enough about my trainees and all their glory, sure they're awesome, but this is about OUR trainees and the future of America!

South Stags from Season 32

I think one thing I would like to change is the training methods of 18-20yo players. By that I mean I would like us to identify roles sooner for players and have them work towards being those players when they start their 21yo season.

By that I mean I would move a away from saying "If training a big have big man skills all over x", and instead move towards "You big man's offense sucks, but his ID/SB/RB are strong, lets make your player a true R'n'G center and ignore his offense all together". I guess I ma saying that due to the size of the community I would want to have greater mix of Big men (some that a standard well rounded Bigs, some only for off, some only for def, and maybe even 1 that is a 3 point shooter).

This comment was from someone running for u21 last season. I think it's a relevant discussion to have now, given other teams have gone down the u21 path a bit differently. Can we afford to ignore having potential call-ups available to change the structure of the offense and defense to outplay another team that might be comparable to us? I'll post my response in a few posts, but wanted to see what other potential u21 managers think of South Stag's discussion point, and whether Serbia's victory over us last season with a star player a few weeks into the season is enough to at least consider opening up All-star level potentials to the u21.

This has been a huge problem of the last 2 teams that I have noticed. You point it out as "identify roles" I don't want to put words in your mouth, are you saying that the builds are all the same?

I agree that having 5 "bigs" is not the same as having a "true pf" a "true C" a hybrid C, a defensive Bigman, and an all-around Big. Different build, different role, I agree with you that it would be better if we recognized the difference in builds between players at a sooner age and then geared them towards those roles that better fit the players. A part of this change comes down to the training philosophy. it is currently a widespread belief to start every 18 year old with 1 v 1 F.