Warrior General Games

I think it might be a good time to get this off early, there are lots of suggestions, what could have been better, suggestions for nominations, or different setup of votes.

Try to put this all here, so we get an overview and can discuss it.

What I'd like to see is that everyone gets to nominate their top 3 for each position, that way deserving players will get recognition even if they do not finish at the top. Nominations get 5-3-1 points assigned, and in case of a tie the number of 1st place votes is the tie breaker, hopefully helping to avoid those at the top as well.

I'll be happy to do the vote counting for next season, either for Alpha or overall, would take some load of Mike so he can concentrate on his power rankings.

I think to enourage votes from teams, when your team submits it's votes, they should get +2 votes for each player.

Just think about it, how much would it suck if your player missed out by one vote since you voted for someone else, whilst that player's team didn't vote for anyone.

Also, so we can get more people involved, why not have 2 people from each team vote? Either a GM or just a player, dont matter. But just so there are more votes.

i think you need to set up the criteria for what you're judging. I keep harping on it but it looks like people are checking stats for CB's like tackles and thinking more = better. There's much more to it than that. Tackles mean you're giving up yardage (minus tackles from running plays). PD's are much more important. CB's should have at least a 2:1 ratio of tackles to PD. It is also situational. The 3rd string CB might have more tackles/PD than the first string because the first string had better coverage (and the QB frequently will throw to the slot to take advantage of the 3rd CB).

WR is the same way really. Do you look at yards per catch? Again the slot WR could have more overall yards but does that make them much better than a guy who averages 20 yards per catch? Take YAC into account too.

Basically I'm just thinking that it should be a little more in depth.

Originally posted by Falhawk
i think you need to set up the criteria for what you're judging. I keep harping on it but it looks like people are checking stats for CB's like tackles and thinking more = better. There's much more to it than that. Tackles mean you're giving up yardage (minus tackles from running plays). PD's are much more important. CB's should have at least a 2:1 ratio of tackles to PD. It is also situational. The 3rd string CB might have more tackles/PD than the first string because the first string had better coverage (and the QB frequently will throw to the slot to take advantage of the 3rd CB).

WR is the same way really. Do you look at yards per catch? Again the slot WR could have more overall yards but does that make them much better than a guy who averages 20 yards per catch? Take YAC into account too.

Basically I'm just thinking that it should be a little more in depth.

This is just more of why I think teams should nominate a certain amount of their own players, and give a good background of each player as to why they were nominated.

Some players may not rack up stats, but still seem to come out with the critical plays of the game. Some players are just CLUTCH, and they don't get that recognition on the leaderboards.

Who deserves the award? The runningback who just ran for 8 TDs against the worst team in the league, or the runningback who just ran for 2 TDs against the best rush defense in the league? The leaderboards won't tell you.

Cornerbacks may not get very many tackles if they consistently shut down their side of the field and force the QB to throw the other direction. What about the cornerback that seems to rack up tackle after tackle on the runningback? The leaderboards don't show you who's being tackled.

What about the defensive tackle who seems to draw more double teams than anyone? I guess the pass rusher who takes advantage of that would get the stat.

Bottom line is, nobody is going to go through and watch every play of every game from every team, and the leaderboards are very misleading.

But for the most part, every game is watched by the members of the teams that played. If the team could NOMINATE a limited number of guys off their team, and provide some background and maybe a highlight reel of those nominees, then we could all vote based on who has the best highlight reels, and who seems to make the BETTER plays. That sounds like more fun than reading leaderboards.

Originally posted by Falhawk
i think you need to set up the criteria for what you're judging. I keep harping on it but it looks like people are checking stats for CB's like tackles and thinking more = better. There's much more to it than that. Tackles mean you're giving up yardage (minus tackles from running plays). PD's are much more important. CB's should have at least a 2:1 ratio of tackles to PD. It is also situational. The 3rd string CB might have more tackles/PD than the first string because the first string had better coverage (and the QB frequently will throw to the slot to take advantage of the 3rd CB).

WR is the same way really. Do you look at yards per catch? Again the slot WR could have more overall yards but does that make them much better than a guy who averages 20 yards per catch? Take YAC into account too.

Basically I'm just thinking that it should be a little more in depth.

I agree and disagree. In alpha we had a 3rd string WR win, which I don't think should be because on my team the 3rd guy gets a ton of catches also but that is because he is covered by LB, Safety or nickel back. I don't think a 3rd string player should be an all-star, he is not even a starter on his team yet he is starting on the all-star team , crazy.

In regards to your CB comment, you should give alpha credit because my teams CB Raekwon jackson was the 4th leading tackler in the whole WEPL and he was not an all-star. While I think that was completely rediculous that he was snubbed it means that people were listening to PART of your argument, while they did disregard the high amount of tackles, I don't think people looked at what type of plays his tackles were on. We lost our DE so for the first half of the season we were playing with very low level ends so obviously teams rushed to the outside on us leaving it up to our CB to make the tackle which he did!

So like I said I agree in that it should be more in depth, maybe we should start sooner so that we can discuss it further. Have a Alpha defense thread, zeta defense and so on. We are all pretty active and willing to politic for our players, when I was voting it was tough, took alot of time because I had nothing to go off, no conversations anywhere about who felt deserving.

I agree about teams nominating a few and giving background info on the player (perhaps link some good games etc).

The thing about CB tackles is that it is pretty easy to see pass plays versus running play tackles. My buddy was telling my about this awesome CB in their conference who had something like 110 tackles at the end of the season. I went and looked at some of the guys games. One game he had 11 tackles....but he gave up 126 yards. That's a bad game.

Originally posted by Falhawk
I agree about teams nominating a few and giving background info on the player (perhaps link some good games etc).

The thing about CB tackles is that it is pretty easy to see pass plays versus running play tackles. My buddy was telling my about this awesome CB in their conference who had something like 110 tackles at the end of the season. I went and looked at some of the guys games. One game he had 11 tackles....but he gave up 126 yards. That's a bad game.

trust me when Raekwon has 11 tackles he gives up 20 yards.


Edit: in Raekwon Jackson's 12 tackle game against the scoregasums he only gave up roughly 47.5 yards

I would definitely be more inclined to vote if it meant I got to watch all kinds of highlight reels or check out the "press kits" for each nominee.

Same goes with politics.

How about this then?

We create a thread for each position, and anyone who wants to get nominated can help their chances by posting a little bio at the start of the season, and edit it after every game to add stats, highlights and explain things like this:

"10 Tackles (5 on HB), 3 PDs, gave up only 20 passing yards"

Then at the end of the season, its easier to check on the tougher decisions for us, and while I dont expect every player will decide to do this, most who are interested in the All Stars probably will?

Originally posted by larkis
I think to enourage votes from teams, when your team submits it's votes, they should get +2 votes for each player.

Just think about it, how much would it suck if your player missed out by one vote since you voted for someone else, whilst that player's team didn't vote for anyone.

And if a good player misses out because his owner doesnt vote?

The good player just needs to encourage his team to vote

Coach: I cant be bothered to vote.

Player: Please vote so I have a chance to win

Coach: OK but I aint spending more than 5 mins on it.

Result, BS votes recieved.

It is almost there but you need to look big picture/worst case scenario.

Well ideally, the best way would be to get at least 16 people from Alpha and 16 from Zeta.

Two people look at each game and place there votes based on how good they felt the player played, out of 10. The two people compare there votes, debate it and submit it.

Well that would be the fairest way, but then we would have biased voting and uneven voting as well.