Posted by fd343ny on 4/9/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
high school IQ doesnt matter much unless you absolutely have to start the guy as a FR - I use it as a tiebreaker at times
the different systems dont differ that much - yes tailor your team to the system - BUT get the best players you can get. It is almost never wise to pass on a better player - a clearly better player - because there is another guy who has skills for your system or because that better player isnt at a position of need. There are exceptions, but if you are - say - short on bigs but have a chance to grab an excellent (for your team's level) SF, you are likely better adding the excellent SF than adding a bench level big.
i pretty much agree with this. it seems often the reality in lower divisions is, unless one of those freak dudes who somehow slips through low d1 is available, that there are a bunch of guys around the same talent level. when its close, team planning is really of utmost priority. a **** big vs an awesome sf, yeah thats easy - but a good big vs a slightly better sf, which i think is generally more realistic (scout more if you cant at least get a decent guy at the position you need), thats easy too - take the big, if you need him much more.
i think getting good team chemistry has really risen in perceived importance over the last few years, but its still underrated, IMO. with potential, team planning in recruiting became the most important factor in success (IMO) - previously, you could adapt through practice planning, and team plan after the fact, if you will. in recruiting, projecting your team forward a couple seasons, grabbing the guys who will fit well with the core at later times, that is very important, and also one of the more difficult parts of the game. so when the talent gap is big - i agree, you have to go with talent. but well constructed teams with a little less talent will routinely beat more talented teams who are poorly constructed and/or played (the two so often go together). so its critical to strike the right balance, and i think its most often the case that you have relatively suitable candidates at all positions, at least after that first guy or two, so i lean towards need over talent. of course, ill never pass on that one killer guy, should i be able to grab him, but the rest of my scholarships are pretty clearly devoted to specific causes.
i always say, never go into recruiting without knowing exactly what you need, and the acceptable variations... then adjust for the reality of the recruiting generation. dont look at recruits first and bias yourself by what is available.