BuzzerBeater Forums

Jelme,

I hope you are up for some friendly debate because I think there's a few things we may disagree on.

I don't think training a SF for the U21 team is impossible, I just don't think its encouraged! I think we tend to promote training PGs and C's and then fill out a 5 position roster with an imbalance of converted PGs and Cs. But if you think about, you are naturally going to get a dominant center (or 3) and a dominant point guard (or 3), so why not focus on training the weaknesses?

There's a few guys in the NT database that are 21 and are fairly close to being ideal SFs. Now I can't see their heights, but I would guess at least one of them has the size to play the position.

Personally I think the SF position is one that requires more balance and less specialization. My post Nigel Marcus is a highly specialized post with over indexed IS, ID and REB. But it cripples my game style because he's so one dimensional. I'm pretty easy to scout. I'm likely to play LP or LI a majority of the time, and I see a lot of 2-3. I learned quickly to balance out my attack with shooters to take the pressure off and keep the defense honest. The only problem? I focused so much on the JS and JR categories that I ended up with a team that had no handling because everybody only trains the sexy categories.

Which leads me back to my point. . .I think you can still focus on single position training a SF. OS, HN, Pressure, ID, SB and Passing all allow for single position training. And all are valuable skills for a SF to have.

But I don't think this discussion is about our philosophical differences about the SF. I think its more about strengthening the program. . .something we are both committed to.

You once replied to one of my previous posts in the forums that this is a strategy game. I believe it was a training discussion about developing bigs. You also said that you would hesitate to encourage your friends to train for the NT because of the salary impact. Why aren't we communicating this upfront? Training an NT player is a 3 season (minimum) commitment. When I started this process I was a D5 team with no revenue, a basic trainer, and no concept (or mentor) to help me in developing my player. No one reached out to me. I reached out to Burlington Mountain Goats and a few of my friends for guidance. They told me to single position train and get a good trainer. That was it.

I completely agree with you that this is a strategy game. The top teams can play motion, RnG, PTB, low post, look inside, and they vary their defensive looks and change up their rotations. They do this based on matchups, game shape, training progressions, or even just a deep down gut feeling based off of their research of the opponents tendencies. Look at the Philippines this year. In their first 5 games they played 4 different styles. That's 4 different offensive AND 4 different defensive styles. Something I think we could have used more of last year.

My only criticism with Jelme is that he/she didn't manage enthusiasm too well. That ultimately is the most important aspect of the national team, but this was his/her first term, and first really difficult stretch, so I feel that I am going to give him/her another term, and see how he/she improves before I call him a U-21 'bust'.

I agree about the up front communication. I think that it is really important that these guys understand what they are getting into by training a highly specialized player. The bigs on the current U21 NT all jumped from about 20-30k last year in salary to 70-150k. That's tough to stomach. And if you're doing it right you're training two bigs at the same time. So those teams are getting killed by salary.

I think Jelme did a really awesome job in Season 12, but I question his enthusiasm management in Season 13. CT'd China and they TIE'd (after CT'ing Italy two games before). That probably cost him the next game too.

@Tru6Playa: I completely agree with you. I don't have the personal drive to keep reaching out when I don't get responses. Last season was pretty lackluster and it was a downer from the start for me. =( Sad, but I am human.

@clubber_lang: Size doesn't matter when you are actually playing at the position. It only matters for training speed in different skills. You can make a well rounded player, but it is impossible for a real SF to be the best choice at the U21 stage. I've conceptualized a 3-skill SF that could work situationally. Train hard in three of IS, ID, JS, and OD. This should get the skills closer to what a pure guard or bigman will have. Bill Weeks (21 yo this season) is probably the best 21 yo SF we've had in a while (he's more balanced than Goldstein, Velasco, and Smiley). It will be hard to figure out where/when to use him. I ended up getting him a dream matchup in the 20 yo vs 21 yo scrimmage. =D

Just like with club teams, the tactics you can effectively use are dictated by your personnel. You can only effectively run inside offenses. Last season, our team's skillsets dictated that we run mostly outside offenses. Our bigs could not stand toe to toe with the bigs that Chile, Turkey, Philippines, and Italy were carrying. Even against a 3-2, they would not have been very effective. 200k C's at the U21 level all look very similar and unfortunately, we did not have any last season.

Your point about communicating the impact of having a U21 level player on your team would be my main objective in the coming term. Along with doing the best with the players I have.

Finally, reaching out to all the 18 yo's gets to be pointless. These players change hands quite often and can be ignored easily. From my experience, people interested in training their shiny new draftee will ask for help. I try to contact the most promising of the batch as well. It is much more rewarding to contact 19 yo's that have received some amount of training and direct these owners in getting their player going.

@jfriske from Speeches thread
Training for winning at the U21 level does not inhibit the development of players for the NT. Our most effective guards were guys like Ritter, Ugona, Dennison and Bobby Joe Jeffrey. In terms of primaries, Anglin and Waller were superior to these guys. The season 12 guards had better handling, driving, and passing and were on par in terms of OD. This made them more versatile and the team more effective. Not to mention cost effective.

Giving a player big man two seasons of guard training to start his career is a smart idea if you want to make a NT PF. You shouldn't expect him to make the U21 team though. Very similar to your fictional draftee, I have a 6'9 MVP guy I bought last season, and he is receiving 2 seasons of guard training. I know he won't be on an U21 team, but he may end up being an asset for the NT.What benefit for me, my player, and the community would there be if my player was on the team? A bit of merch for me, maybe a pop in experience for my player, and zip for the community. The other major drawback is the type of player that can be made into a well rounded player like this are few and far between. You need at least MVP potential and they need decent starting skills. I doubt there are 10 players like this a season.

So while you have a good intent behind this, I don't see being of any help sacrificing the U21 team to serve your purpose. I'm not even sure if it's worth it to use roster spots on them. It would be more effective saving a draftee or preparing for a disastrous GS update. If you make the commitment for the long haul training, you'll be rewarded down the line.

Edit: I'm running on allergy meds and serious lack of sleep. So if I'm repeating sentences or not making any sense, sorry. =P

Last edited by Dawson at 10/6/2010 11:53:32 PM

I was not particularly pleased with Jelme's performance this past season for reasons that have already been given. However, if he is up for it, I'd like to see him get a second term. Our undefeated Season 12, while due largely to being handed an amazing squad on a silver platter, should earn him the benefit of the doubt.

More importantly, I think it's unfair to judge a U21 coach on his first term. The players being used in the first two years were well over halfway to their U21 levels before the new coach comes on board. No, a coach needs to be judged on his second term, when his influence has been able to shape his squad from the early stages.

As such, I consider Jelme's tenure incomplete, and I'd like to see what he can do for the next couple of seasons.

First off, Jelme should blame the U21 performance on me considering my boys massively underachieved on the team.

Second, I'm about to start a pure SF training regimen, hopefully with an American (though looking at the TL, it seems unlikely), but about what baseline ratings would you consider SF worthy as well as being U21 worthy? And in which ways would this be a better option than playing a SG at SF for outside offenses or C at SF for inside offenses?

Hope this is the place to ask questions, I forget.

I have a feeling that community involvement will spike up this season for two simple reasons that are uncontrollable.

Game time will be at 6 PM Eastern time instead of 10:30 AM. This is huge. More people can watch the game and tactics can be altered during the day. Last season, all tactics were set the night before.

This team is more exciting and versatile. There has been a Trickle vs. Rainey thread for awhile and a couple other players are interesting (Weeks and Meeks). We have the personnel to go both inside and outside.

It's hard to see our community evolve without more commitment from it. I'd love to see all the serious candidates pledge their time, win or lose, to helping the team.

One more thing, regarding Small Forwards (one of the speeches mentioned this as a lack. EDIT: it was actually clubber_lang's pot above).

Having a SF for the U21 is nearly impossible, and widely acknowledged to be so (it is false that managers are not encouraged to do this).

I just want to chime in on this as well, but first on the comments above that SF's are "undervalued" and "not encouraged". This is kind of crazy--for anyone that follows the TL at all, it's obvious that good SFs are the most overvalued asset in the game. This is true of the NT and u21 teams as well... we almost always encourage people to take well rounded training routes to increase the likelihood a player is able to be used at SF in some capacity down the road. For the NT, training a guard to get on the team at this point is frankly very difficult (with guys like Bronson and Madrid around), so making a SF is much more practical, since there are more types of players that might be appealing. In fact, we have a whole section of the offsite devoted to team training logs, and just about everyone that posts there is working on SFs.

As to the difficultly, I think it helps to put some numbers on the issue. By the start of the age 21 season, a really well trained player is likely to have gotten 30-35 pops. A well rounded SF needs at a minimum, JS, OD, IS, ID, Rb, and ideally Dr, Hnd, Pa. Even if you had an amazing 18yo prospect, with 7's in all skills, and absolutely perfect training (and perfect luck, no injuries, etc), your player is going to end up deficient (meaning a skill <13, and even 13-14 can be a liability at times) somewhere. So the question is, do you want a guy with only 11-12 in JS (which eliminates outside offenses), OD (which eliminates the 3-2 and leaves you vulnerable to outside attacks), ID/Rb (which leaves you vulnerable to those teams that still use 3 bigs), or horrific peripherals (likely meaning lots of turnovers and poor passing)? Or is it better to get a couple specialized guys (say, guards with slightly better than usual rebounding, or bigs with decent jumpers and OD) and just pick whoever fits your game plan best on a week to week basis?