BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Scouting

Scouting

Set priority
Show messages by
From: yodabig

This Post:
22
155292.10 in reply to 155292.9
Date: 8/28/2010 6:40:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
14651465
So you are telling us that if you drafted a 7'0" PG with respectable handling, driving and passing but atrocious inside defence, inside shot, rebounds and shot blocking you would be so happy and would just get training on the 3 seasons it would take him to get up to the place where the other draftees start in their primary skills, but because you have good handling it will all be worth it in the long run?

I don't believe you.

From: Kukoc

This Post:
11
155292.11 in reply to 155292.10
Date: 8/29/2010 5:01:09 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Ofcourse I would not be happy if he had 4 atrocious skills.
Try to understand once again. If there are ONLY 2 players you could choose from.
I would take the guy (height 7'0) with respectable outside skills and atrocious inside skills. Rather than respectable inside skills and atrocious outside skills. Ofcourse none would be happy with 4 atrocious skills, but if you had to make a choise between these 2 players, the choise would be obvious for me.
It would have to be a really special player that would get a backup spot in my team. So basically draftees get their training at cup/scrimmage anyway. He does not have to start contributing right away.

From: Arsjitekt

This Post:
00
155292.12 in reply to 155292.11
Date: 9/3/2010 6:13:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
204204
I agree partly with LA-Kukoc. I would rather draft a player (with a high potential) of 7,5" with 6 x respectable on the outside skills and 4x inept on the inside skills than drafting a 7,5" with 4x inept + 2x respectable on the outside skills and 4x respectable on the inside skills. Simply because the latter skills train much faster, and in the end the player will be better than the other player.

However you should take into account that this way of thinking is better when you will be owning + training a player for a long time.