rookies!!!

[rEdHoBBeS]

i hate the generic randomly created rookies. they all look similar and they're not described well enough in the scoutin reports. also, there's no point in draftin ppl in 2nd round, cuz they all have a ratin of like 59 nd have very limited potential.

[DaManFromGapo]

yup..that definitely has to be improved in next years' edition of NBA live. The faces, numbers....

I disagree with you with regards to rookies drafted in the second round (well, some of them anyway) Sure they may have a very limited potential to develop but they can still be good for a season or two. A player may stink in terms of field goals and rebounding for example, but may have speed and quickness at 87 and steals at 80. I wouldn't say that this player is worthless. This is a good sub, especially if your team is loaded with scorers and stars. He dosen't need to score and if you run an offense that uses a lot of fastbreaks, he can run.

Don't expect to find a Mobley or a Willis Reed...just a Dean Oliver and Sean Lampley.

[alexboom]

you speak with the voice of the wisdom man.

but I still reckoin that would be great to find on the draft few players who reach 75 overall in only 2 years

[Andrew]

There should be some steals late in the first round and early in the second round. Perhaps a couple of late second rounds picks could become develop into good players, if it's a strong draft or if the CPU teams let a couple of players with potential slip by. If the CPU teams draft out of need rather than base their picks on overall ratings, the odds of better players being drafted lower will be a lot higher.

[Metsis]

The second round is a no-brainer in Live 2003. They obviously are using the rookie generator from Live 2001... And with the overall changes, well the 65 overall guy is as good as the fat white guy crashing the concession stands at the half time of a game.

They raised the overalls, but didn't seem to raise the rookie levels. The fact is that Live 2003 late first round picks are something from 70-75 and that's about as a bad a player as you fit on your team and there's no room for a guy with an overall of <70. The 70-75 are the backups if not even that.

Starters in Live 2003 are from 85-99 usually in most cases. Sometimes there is that oddity as a 78 center or something like that. And back ups are usually from 75-85 and thus the late pick of 72 overall isn't going to play much. Think of how fast will a second round 65 overall pick fly into the free agent bin. As fast as you can do it. And with usually very limited potential, well he ain't even gonna get better.

I still think that all rookies should get a little better with time and not just get stuck with an overall rating. So you could actually see that 70 overall rookie to get up to wondrous 75 and basically get to play a few games in his career no matter what his potential is. And it should be an oddity if a player is stagnant with progress and there should only be like one or two players that decline in skill after playing a couple of seasons.

I think the potentials limited and very limited should be read like "this guy will never start, but could some day be a decent back up". With average and good it should be like "a solid back up, maybe a starter one day". And excellent "this guy is all-star material". Currently it is like Excellent: good player will develop, Good: could develop, Average: going to hang his ground during the turmoils and with Limited, Very Limited: this guy ain't going anywhere and if he is, well its going to be down.

The rookies should be better overalled... How many quickness 50 guys you see in this draft? Or fieldgoals of 55? Or jumping 55? Not many... And how many guys do you see in the real draft that have all of these combined??? Cause that is what you get from the second round in Live 2003.

I'm having a ranting day today... Obviously.

[Icebane]

Yeah, the rookies are not too great within the game, but I still think the commentry should be broken into first and last names, so it will still say generated names;)

And with Second Round picks, there should be some really good potential, I mean, a player with Limited Potential may come up and be the next superstar ina few years, Look at Kobe, no one expected him to be like he is, or KG...

Will LeBron James be in 2004?? I havn't heard much about him, but the hype is that he is awesome... I seen him next to MJ, so I gather LeBron is about 6'7 or 8 and he can dunk... What else about him???

[Goodz]

I seen him next to MJ, so I gather LeBron is about 6'7 or 8 and he can dunk... What else about him???

wen you see this guys slam you'll pretty much be sayin VINCE who???? i watched the mcdonald's high school allstar game and the dunk contest was crazy... James alley ooped himself but he had enough hang time to pump his arms twice in mid air before catching the ball and slammin it in backwards.... when he jumps his hardest, the rim is almost at his neck... LEBRON IS CRRRAAZZYY MAN!!

[Metsis]

Why I think LeBron will succeed is the fact that he is not known for his huge dunks and shooting like most of the new players are told of. This guy dominates the post during draft night, but it's a whole new story when the season kicks off.

The fact is that about LeBron it is said that his most NBA ready skill is his passing and that is something that is quite intriguing... Usually the scoring and the athleticism are the most paraded attributes.

If he's a hell of an athlete and scorer and the best attribute is passing. So that is quite intresting.

In Live drafts I don't think that the player potentials should be directly linked to a projected draft position. There should be players with terrific upsides in the second round, you know the players that truly are a project that will need 5-7 years of time to mature into their potential.

I could live with a fact that you look at the number one player available (1st overall projection) and it would have potential as limited. It would only tell you that this guy is just that good that he don't have much more potential in him. He's realized his potential in college already and not in NBA. I would definately draft a player in the second round if his potential was good or even average just to see if he would ever become a good player. And if we can influence the off-season training, well that would make it even more fun. To nurture a young high school player to become a player you want him to be. And what's with the line that "needs to be locked in the weight room" if you cannot do that???

[killerht]

I hope that LeBron James won't succeed in the NBA so that all the people can see that they shouldn't give preps like that too much credit and so it'll bite Nike in the ass for signing him for such a redicilous contract. Nike is dumb, but that's not my problem.

As for rookies in Live, I wish that they would create the rookies a year before and make a projection and a mock draft so we know what the draft will hold. It's dumb to end the season, and go to the draft and see those guys for the first time and don't know shiznit about them. College, international team, and high school stats would be nice too.

Yeah, that's the whole nine yards.

[Andrew]

Will LeBron James be in 2004??

Anyone who is under contract at the roster cutoff date will be in NBA Live 2004. I can't see the Cavs taking too long to sign LeBron as soon as they are able, so he should be in NBA Live 2004.

[Swoosh]

Could he be on the cover ? I know there was a topic somewhere about this, but heck he already signed a 90$ deal so why wouldnt ea sign him, u can say they never take a rookie for the cover but everybody knows him and for everything theres gotta b a first time

[Ruff Ryder]

I'm pretty sure he wont be on the cover. He hasn't even played an NBA game so we don't know what he is going to do in the pros.

[Andrew]

He probably could be in the cover, but I doubt he will be. EA probably already has someone else lined up (who that may be is anyone's guess right now).