BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand ur point on primaries, hence this question on secondaries.

If we LI, and we have a shooting guard that is the teams best shooter, and his driving is up to par, but has a 1 in inside shot and nothing special in passing, does he start? What do you think of inside shot for guards on a li?

Im going to answer this question as well. He does not start. I have continued to say it and believe it that IS does matter with guards. Of course it is easy to say it now because we don't know what we have in front of us just yet. I would love to have a guard playing with good passing and IS in a LI but if we do not have that option then we may have to play the guard you are talking about but I am a firm believer that IS does matter.

I believe I was winning the U21/NT prediction contest when it stopped! I feel cheated! lol

If elected, I'd be all for more contests and more of everything.

Specifically what does this entail and how do contests bring people to the offsite or cause them to get involved? Also, what is "more of everything?" Not trying to put you through a grinder here, but a lot of campaigns come and go and you here the same phrases without specificity every time, ya know?

The "influx" to the offsite is great, but getting them to get involved is key as well. Also, helping out new managers joins the realm of "scouting." I have heard it mentioned numerous times it would be great to assign mentors to all managers of players, but never heard of ideas to increase the number of scouts/mentors available.

So, all that the prospective coaches have to address is this question: can you give us some good evidence you won't go rogue and start selecting players on the basis of bizarre arguments?

I disagree that "what is good for U21" is very different from what's good for clubs. U21 players do not cost much, and usually their value is at the maximum just after the end of their 21yo season.

aka if it ain't broke don't fix it!

Also, I think we could provide plenty of evidence that training a U21 player is in fact good for your club team. We would have more difficulty proving that for the NT.

Please elaborate on the "rivalry" contest as well as other "games and contests" you may specifically have plans for.

Rivalry contest: It will be all about competition at the same position. What I would do is set up 2 players that will be considered "rivals". While we do this on the offsite as well as the BB site, I will keep track of the performance of each player as well as the players' abilities. My main goal would be setting up a scrimmage or two each season between the teams of these players where these two players will compete head to head against each other. I feel this will be a great way for owners to really want to train the best player they can and in return will not only help the U21/NT but their own club teams as well.

I have also had some thoughts of other competitions. One specific one is during the NCAA tournament. The top players in the pipeline will be divided up into brackets, just like the NCAA tournament, and there will be some kind of competition to see who has done the best job at training as well as what player performs the best in games. This idea hasn't been thought through completely yet so I know there are things that will probably need to be changed in order to do this. It's just an example of the types of games and contests I have planned.

One useful way of looking at the point is this: we, as a community, have accumulated too much knowledge of how NTs/U21 work, for there to be a promising newfangled approach. Any new team-composition strategy would need a comparable winning track-record to be even considered.

So, all that the prospective coaches have to address is this question: can you give us some good evidence you won't go rogue and start selecting players on the basis of bizarre arguments?

Beautifully stated, Coco. This is exactly my main though in choosing a manager. If someone says they want to do something more than a smidge different than what Rambo (and the collective wisdom) has been doing I want extremely documented and extensive agreements for the case. Otherwise I plan on giving you the stink eye.

Rambo should win. That is all.

Why did you post this silly message?

On a club level I'm a big fan of PTB. However I've been told numerous different times when I bring it up in a gameplanning thread that PTB is awful and it should never be used. Same thing with Princeton but I'm kidding more when I bring up Princeton than I am with PTB That is one of the things I've been convinced on to never run in an important game. Maybe in a scrimmage, but for the most part you won't see any base offense or isolation.

One useful way of looking at the point is this: we, as a community, have accumulated too much knowledge of how NTs/U21 work, for there to be a promising newfangled approach. Any new team-composition strategy would need a comparable winning track-record to be even considered.

So, all that the prospective coaches have to address is this question: can you give us some good evidence you won't go rogue and start selecting players on the basis of bizarre arguments?

Beautifully stated, Coco. This is exactly my main though in choosing a manager. If someone says they want to do something more than a smidge different than what Rambo (and the collective wisdom) has been doing I want extremely documented and extensive agreements for the case. Otherwise I plan on giving you the stink eye.

First off, I agree that the way things have been done has been great for us. The future U21 coaches are very lucky to be able to be the coach after what has been done with this team. All the hard work put in by Jelme and Rambo at the U21 level should not be destroyed. Their work is in fact the base for which future U21 coaches should build on and that is exactly what I plan to do.

It's funny because Jelme for awhile refused to call up Mason Pate because Clifford Turpin was the exact same player but better. He waited to see how Turpin performed before he he decided upon Pate. Turpin worked out so Pate got called upon.

That is my line of reasoning for not having two of the identical niche player. There is little experience with dealing with them and you don't want to waste a day 1 call-up on two of the same, or very similar player, when they end up not working. That way you only have 1 "wasted" roster spot and not two. If I see that a guard with high IS is a dominant force, I can now feel more confident calling up another one of similar build.

We need them because there are situations that the general combo guard and salary behemoth big don't cut it. Hell there has been several well respected managers that have said the only visable reason we won vs Poland was because of offensive flow. Interestingly enough before the game we called up an 18 OD 15 passing guard, a form of a LI PG, to be our starting PG over our usual, somewhat common, players. Would we have won with Kenny Luther as starting Pg over Selby? I don't know, but we can certainly appreciate such a risky move in a crucial game.

Teams built for one specific offense positions 1-5 on the court have succeeded in BB. Why not now?

Last edited by oriolekid at 11/2/2011 8:36:07 PM

Sorry I have not been on lately.

If you have any questions for me please ask.