BuzzerBeater Forums

Good question.

It's no longer really a question of whether or not you use the offsite, but whether or not you use the managers that are on the offsite to your advantage. A lot of people on the offsite, many of which have become good D.II and NBBA managers, will post their paths to success. You will no doubt have noticed a few of them on here already (Phyr, A-Dub, and the NT Manager). I would suggest that any manager who is in D.III or D.IV and in need of that extra boost sign up for the offsite. It helps you see a lot of information that the game may not present to you in any other fashion. For example, there are old crowd-sourced data that offers some indication of what shots are taken in what offense, and what positions tend to shoot the most in those offenses. You will also note a heavy amount of conversation about the u21 and NT strategies. In short, i believe any u21 manager, whether or not they have currently signed up for the offsite or not, will miss out on a significant tool at their disposal in job, and would probably do their country a disservice by refusing to use it as a tool.

I think if tough wins, i will happily aid him in the game planning against the opponent, something that he sometimes struggles with, because it's the right thing to do. Similarly, if I were to win i would think he would be willing to contribute to the scouting of the team because more than anything else he really desires to win and is really good at scouting. He's so good at scouting and getting people behind the cause that I tried to get him not to run so that he could keep doing that for us. I think without him here the last 3 seasons, you aren't looking at the same level of players as we have now, and as many as 5-6 managers will have not found additional info to aid in their own team's development.

Josh

Shadowslam (EPK) has already touched on this just a bit, but i would like to provide my theories on the u21 training and why training primaries is important but not always the right path.

Whether people wish to admit it or not, the training path for the u21 and the training path that a trainee might otherwise take for team use are typically no different. When training a Big for the u21, you get driving, handling, and occasionally add some other outside skills, but for the most part you hit some combination of IS, ID, REB, and SB to get that player to a comparable level. The only time one would not build a player to a high combination of IS and ID is lower potential (star and all-star). It's simply a matter of timing and effectiveness of the player that a team wishes to have. Some would rather spend fewer games on training a guy on their secondaries, which would lead them to develop primaries after the age 20 season. This is a double-edged sword, as that guy with great secondaries now will have a long road to actually being good enough to play on the inside.

In reality, the only other time someone might not want to develop a guy's primaries right off the bat is when they wanted to keep salaries lower to make more money. This is true in some ways as you spend less per week, but you are likely winning more games and filling more seats the other way. I trained my players well rounded because i wanted to try and land the #1 pick in the D.III draft while training players, so winning wasn't important and therefore salary wasn't important.

This does not mean that every player should be a cookie cutter design. In previous seasons, we might have had 15-16 players that fit the offense desired. This season, we only really had 8. This is not because of a lack of scouting, this is because of a lack in players properly developed for the u21 team for that offensive scheme (PTB/LI). IF we attempt to follow this design to the end, I think we limit what we can be as a u21 squad. We need to be accepting of those 7 potential guys that may lack rebounding but have other skills that benefit the cause (such as better flow from passing, or higher OD so that they might fit the SF mold), even if our ideals fall in a different player build, otherwise we are a victim to any week where gameshape falls short. Unless we want to do the advertising for the game ourselves rather than hope that BB wants to invest in SEO again, that is a big part of what will help reestablish this team as a power.

Josh

In most cases you might want to run with player B. There are differing situations however.

For example, in a game where i had a match-up against a team that was reliant on getting rebounds to get the second opportunities to win games, i would likely want to have player C instead. That player is several levels higher at putting a higher total of rebounds up, and additionally has a higher IS for offensive rebounds.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another issue is game-shape on the players, which is something you unfortunately decided not to include. In fact, the u21 manager basically told you that he wasn't going to call him up because of that game-shape issue he felt the player had.

I am not in the business of calling up guys in 7 GS, especially with limited call up spots.

We need guys with IS with Avalos and Barth are in terrible game-shape and we are in the knockout round if we want to run LI.

Lets play the game again.

Player A - Average game-shape of 8.1
7/3/5/1/4/6 - 14/14/12/6

Player B - Average game-shape of 7.1
7/1/7/9/8/5 - 12/13/12/13

Player C - Average game-shape of 8.4
4/1/4/1/4/4 - 15/15/15/2

Now which player would you want? It's significantly more difficult for me not to side with player A and player C over player B. I'd beg the guy with player B to change his method of training his player so that he might gain the bonuses of better game-shape for his own team and for our team. But i would inevitably settle for player C if i was going to run LI, and Player A if i was running more of a PTB scheme at that point in the season.

Josh

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

EPK/Shadowslam's response

I will immediately resign in Embarassment if there are any forfeits under my tenure.

Taken from Phyr's offsite post after we secured HCA

Thank you to all the owners who trained players this season. If anyone was considering selling before the beginning of playoffs, I wouldnt blame you. I will probably call up 2 20 year olds for the last two spots. Obviously, I wish I didn't *(mess)* up the semifinal game, but we came away with the best possible outcome for being in the Consol tourney. We have won 27 of our last 30 games but I feel like I have been very underwhelming as manager. I hope someone that has the time and is an experienced offsite manager will decide to run next season.

For all purposes, that is basically what the previous u21 coach is doing. As frustrating as it was to see that forfeit, at some point you are going to have to let it go and move on to what we can take away from other teams in the consolation tournament and work on ways to have an answer for those types of teams.

With regards to the way he picked his own guy over other options, The same potential problem concerns me going forward with you running for the u21 job. You have two very good players that will be u21 players when we get to that point in time, but if there are other options available in better game-shape are you going to have the ability to put one or the other on the bench or in a backup role for the sake of the result for the team?

I chose not to include the gameshape of likewise builds from this season because I wasnt holding any water in this seasons events. I was the first one to comment about the gameshape of the particular player and situation your referring to if you do recall.

Im not asking in the case of any particular player, simply from a standpoint of what builds you think are better given they are all in optimal gameshape. Gameshape is something easily changed, the player build is not.






Last edited by tetrahydroc at 2/16/2016 3:30:19 PM

Is it really that easy to change someone's belief that a certain GS is better for not only their team but for the u21? I would think so, but occasionally people will want to do things differently for a host of different reasons. In Player B's case, i believe you suggested on the USA-offsite chat that "(B's owner) just wants to get him 48 minutes for training because he doesn't want to risk injury". If thats the case, when will he be convinced that he needs to change that theory? did Otto Cameron have great game-shape the entire u21 season with his great TSP?

I think most people will be receptive to changing the way they manage a player if you point out benefits to doing so. But that doesn't mean we call up the higher TSP regardless of game-shape and hope to convince them to change. I would rather convince someone to change and then put them on the team, rather than the other way around.

it helps when someone is actually in contact with the manager though right?

As far as the mindset goes, I would think you would surely understand the process of getting 3 players training a week.
There have been many times I have said GS be damned as the long term goals outweigh the short term effect and when I dont care about winning and only training as many managers do I could really care less what GS my guys are in.

If that is my mindset as a manager and there has not been a slight inclination that the player could play for the squad why would it be any different then business as usual?
Regardless, my question was simply about player builds given optimal GS.

Again, Im not debating the situation from last season, of course you want your best GS option available, however just for the record, in the subsequent weeks the manager in question did raise his players GS at my suggestion and it was equalized and there was never any contact made outside of me and I was in contact long before this ever happened as we are real life friends. We were also still in contention for a good portion of the season before we inevitably forfeited again.

I understand getting each of my three trainees 48 minutes. However, i also have my guys play backups even when they aren't part of a u21 squad to get them an additional 10-22 minutes a week. This allows them to be in 8-9 GS, which helps me win games. It's part of that whole conversation of "It's not just the u21 we're getting you to build for, it's the betterment of your own team".

I won't defend not contacting that manager sand trying to explain that it not only benefits his team's performance but his chances of making the u21 if he were to manage minutes better. That falls on the u21 manager if he doesn't send a three sentence note saying "You get more cash from merchandise and you get better performances from your player for one extra backup spot a week after he gets his 48 minutes for training". But it's a shared blame between the u21 coach, u21 scouts, and the coach in question all the same.

People who cannot change with the times will get surpassed, if the entire U21 and NT program outside of the USA is training all around players and destroying us every season, isnt the logical step for us to adopt this style of play?

Well rounded "inside" players (low JR w/ lots of JS/IS, somewhat low PS depending on position), that's the global build. It's no secret. I've adopted this style; though, I have a preferred player build template for each position that varies in secondaries for each position with a minimum/maximum requirement (depending on said prospect).

1v1 F is all i hear anyone talk about on the offsite, this is nohing new from the same old builds that have been pushed down USA managers throats for years.

To train well rounded players, I recommend using 1v1f -- at every position (G,F,C). This is a proven globally used training method, one I personally implemented for my prospects. I can assure you that the U21 is not pounding 1v1f's down managers throats, if at all (other than at SF/PF), but they should be.

I have experience training players at a top level. I am confident in my training methods and my player builds -- and the success they will bring. I'm not here to argue what works and what doesn't -- I know what works. My goal is to educate the rest of America, those wanting to contribute to the success of the U21/NT.

Furthermore, I encourage my fellow American managers to acquire US prospects via draft/TL and join the US offsite where you can create a team diary and be counseled by experienced managers like my self. Or, if you wish, BB-mail me directly and I will help advise you in your training of US prospects. There is strength in numbers, something BB America has much of, and something I would like to utilize. It's not a one man team. The involvement of others will be instrumental. I will take you to the destination you seek, but you have to hop on the A-Train.

When U21 player builds come to mind, you can't ignore subs on C/PF when they already have high subs. But even if C/PF sub's are high, player builds to me have to field the best Inside defense and Inside offense in any circumstances, just like the NT does, however there is a big discrepancy between U21 and NT finalized skillset and there should be a fine line drawn to that because of the time involved as managers have mentioned.

Having said that the demand for sub's on U21 bigs can't go to far because primaries are an utmost importance because it will generally always field our best m2m defense, plus again time is a factor and sub's train slower. It also depends on the players starting skillset in correlation's to the potential of the player when they're 18yol. So for me even though PF's can be flexible, when it comes to sub's, managers can't over due it, unless their training their players for the NT.

No, as U21 Manager there will be no forfeits. In fact, I will have Game Threads posted every Friday Morning/afternoon. I'm not for forfeits. If you want to look on my history, I can guarantee you I have never forfeited a match with the Mountain Eagles. Never in a day. I came close to it last week, but I still had the players to field.

There will be no forfeits, that is inexcusable.