BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree in what you say, 2ndaries are very important. My PF have 8-10 on JS. I can train it. Tell me how long you need to train your C up to 8-9OD, and PA?

Play him 48 minutes as a PG in a friendly match. If not, do it in an easy league/cup game, you play him as PG, he deffend as C.

Half a year of training if you buy him with 7 OD and 7 PA (high secondary centers cost more, but then you can make effective and balanced monsters with the training).

The problem could came if you bought your center with very low secondaries.. in that case sell him and just go for another one in the market. Thats all.

Well good idea, buy that well rounded C, but again before some days 1 Cypriot guard who had lots of 2ndaries has been sold 1.9M. Imagine now 1 C with very good potential and nice 2ndaries. The money that i have paid for my SG until the start of this season that i have upgrade the position. Now those C's will be even more expensive.

Actually i have bought only 1 C, just for 100k, and now his main skills are 14/12/12. Not bad deal i think. All my big men came from the draft, (2 was in my team since day 1, 1 of those 2 he is still on my team) and my tactic until now was:Produce big men buy guards.

The fact will stay that the best players either they are Cardenas like or Wendon like players, the richest teams will be able to buy them, and the rich will still getting richer. Nothing will change that (as BB-Charles state)

Also now the farm teams will start to produce more all around big men (Italy has 3-4 at least monsters pure product of farms).

I have already tried you are idea to put my SF trainee (now he is listed as a PF) to play PG. It was painful to watch, but the games where easy, and i didnt pay it.

The benefits of secondaries for C claimed here are just not apparent enough to BB managers so they get ignored in training. (and they are a pain to train) Simple as that. It's no use blaming the managers as short-sighted. We need a more apparent feedback system than the match rating.

Last edited by 7ton at 01/23/2010 05:13:30

It's no use blaming the managers as short-sighted. We need a more apparent feedback system than the match rating.

To quote a line that at least one GM likes to use: ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This team f.e Dutch Pacers (38253) managed to make the required changes. I'm still hoping I succeeded as well

(18109987)

greetings.

out of curiosity, anyone able to determine whether this would be a typical result (19953695)? my guards have high driving and high passing but poor inside shot skill. surprised that with such low pts per 100 that the guards would throw up so many shots, especially when my guards and sf's all have between 10 and 14 passing levels.

If you search the right combination of players and skillsets, the inside offense is still very effective. Unfortunately I still see many teams playing the tactic with oldskool players, that's not gonna help you.

maybe vlad romagnoli is an oldschool player.

:D

This team f.e Dutch Pacers (38253) managed to make the required changes. I'm still hoping I succeeded as well

(18109987)

greetings.

Scroll up a bit, I already commented on this game, message 250 or something.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 01/23/2010 18:00:10

i read it later but, sorry, i think your reply isn't well-fitting.

i think you can't justify the defeat for the absence of a player or commenting other matches.

give me/us a better clue...

ps: i've seen a game of mine in this tread... (17979586)

it's funny to see this game :)

it's funny to see the MRs of my big men and compare them to competitors :D

a 5 levels superiority attack/defence couldn't be enough to win with a squad who has a 2 levels superiority with equal offensive flow and more of 2 levels at rebound