Unimportant attributes

[fivetwelvepony]

One thing I've been trying to improve at is player acquisition and in particular doing a better job of acquiring players suitable for the roles of my chosen tactic. One particular aspect of that has me scratching my head. The key attributes tell you the suitability of a player for a role, but how much weight should I put on the unimportant attributes? Some players seem very well suited for some roles, given how their attributes are distributed. But they may also be very good or very poor in other attributes that aren't key for the role. 

Take for instance a hypothetically perfect DLP-S, with 20's for first touch, passing, technique, anticipation, etc. But they have, say, 8 acceleration and tackling. Or alternatively he has 14's for the key attributes, but 20 finishing. How much should I penalize the poor tackling DLP or value the excellent finishing DLP?

Maybe this is a matter of tactical adjustments. For instance, if the DLP is important, find the perfect but flawed DLP and pair him with an excellent BWM. This approach comes with its own compromises, since the BWM gives up some offense that you could get with something like a mezzala. Any thoughts?

 

 

[HUNT3R]

You're going to love this answer - it depends.

I have a BWM with 11 tackling. He's good overall, but obviously not the best tackler. His other attributes (and player traits) give me the penetration and goal threat I need against weaker teams. He's paired with a DLP/S, so that role/player is fairly reserved as is. The penetration from the BWM helps a lot. I still have a 'proper' BWM with the tackling etc to suit, but he plays there in the tough matches.

So it depends on what you want from the player and what the player is? Do you need the tackling or finishing? Do you need the tackling or vision/passing? Do you need the strength or long shots? etc. It can vary from player to player but also from match to match.