Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
Originally posted by rj414

If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

Kind of like the RB Ontario Smith on your team. He got a whole 190 snaps last season.

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
Originally posted by rj414

If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

sorry... when I'm paying 140+ every 45 (or 60!) days, I'm pretty much going to use my players however I like... And if I want to use them to provide my own team with great depth, I will.

As soon as I start receiving advertising and merchandising revenue as a team owner in GLB (real-life checks btw), I'm not treating my team like an NFL franchise... and I would advise against anybody else doing it differently.

Originally posted by PierreThomas
Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx

Originally posted by rj414


If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

Kind of like the RB Ontario Smith on your team. He got a whole 190 snaps last season.

He is also 10 levels lower than the starter...

Originally posted by jktooley
Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx

Originally posted by rj414


If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

sorry... when I'm paying 140+ every 45 (or 60!) days, I'm pretty much going to use my players however I like... And if I want to use them to provide my own team with great depth, I will.

As soon as I start receiving advertising and merchandising revenue as a team owner in GLB (real-life checks btw), I'm not treating my team like an NFL franchise... and I would advise against anybody else doing it differently.

Not really referring to an owner's players...that is just hard to avoid. I'm referring to the fact that a badass player can sign up to play STs simply because the agent wants to get a player on that team or already has a player on that team.

It just hurts the competition among players for starting spots and playing time when noone is going to get much no matter how good they are, and that competition is part of what makes a team. I sometimes wonder if a truly ruthless owner would actually have an advantage in GLB because his players would be really paying attention to their builds (rather than going cookie cutter) in order to get better than the guy in front of them.

We have the same dynamic on my team, so I'm not trying to be judgmental...just wondering if it wouldn't be more interesting if GLB was more competitive in that respect.

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
Originally posted by jktooley

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx


Originally posted by rj414



If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

sorry... when I'm paying 140+ every 45 (or 60!) days, I'm pretty much going to use my players however I like... And if I want to use them to provide my own team with great depth, I will.

As soon as I start receiving advertising and merchandising revenue as a team owner in GLB (real-life checks btw), I'm not treating my team like an NFL franchise... and I would advise against anybody else doing it differently.

Not really referring to an owner's players...that is just hard to avoid. I'm referring to the fact that a badass player can sign up to play STs simply because the agent wants to get a player on that team or already has a player on that team.

It just hurts the competition among players for starting spots and playing time when noone is going to get much no matter how good they are, and that competition is part of what makes a team. I sometimes wonder if a truly ruthless owner would actually have an advantage in GLB because his players would be really paying attention to their builds (rather than going cookie cutter) in order to get better than the guy in front of them.

We have the same dynamic on my team, so I'm not trying to be judgmental...just wondering if it wouldn't be more interesting if GLB was more competitive in that respect.

So you want more competition between players at each position but you don't want teams to have too much depth? Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by PierreThomas
Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx

Originally posted by jktooley


Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx



Originally posted by rj414




If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

sorry... when I'm paying 140+ every 45 (or 60!) days, I'm pretty much going to use my players however I like... And if I want to use them to provide my own team with great depth, I will.

As soon as I start receiving advertising and merchandising revenue as a team owner in GLB (real-life checks btw), I'm not treating my team like an NFL franchise... and I would advise against anybody else doing it differently.

Not really referring to an owner's players...that is just hard to avoid. I'm referring to the fact that a badass player can sign up to play STs simply because the agent wants to get a player on that team or already has a player on that team.

It just hurts the competition among players for starting spots and playing time when noone is going to get much no matter how good they are, and that competition is part of what makes a team. I sometimes wonder if a truly ruthless owner would actually have an advantage in GLB because his players would be really paying attention to their builds (rather than going cookie cutter) in order to get better than the guy in front of them.

We have the same dynamic on my team, so I'm not trying to be judgmental...just wondering if it wouldn't be more interesting if GLB was more competitive in that respect.

So you want more competition between players at each position but you don't want teams to have too much depth? Is that what you are saying?

I want the depth to not be players that could easily start for a team in the same league, with little or no motivation to move on to fulfill their own potential. It just seems like it would make the game more competitive because all those players competing would increase their effectiveness, and in turn increase the effectiveness of the teams.

I guess I am just one of those people who like parity a lot...more though I like there to be league rules in sports to make sure noone gets an advantage based on something that has little to do with the actual competition...like flex points. Of course, that argument has to be weighed against Bort's interest in making money, which obviously has a lot of influence here.

Part of the problem is that players stop 'catching up' after like level 28 or something...that should never stop.

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
Originally posted by PierreThomas

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx


Originally posted by jktooley



Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx




Originally posted by rj414





If the team rotates the player often enough, then why shouldn't the player want to play where he can win?

Not really getting into 'shoulds', but being the waterboy on a winning team is not the same as being even a mediocre player on a team that actually utilizes his abilities for something other than hydrating his teammates.

sorry... when I'm paying 140+ every 45 (or 60!) days, I'm pretty much going to use my players however I like... And if I want to use them to provide my own team with great depth, I will.

As soon as I start receiving advertising and merchandising revenue as a team owner in GLB (real-life checks btw), I'm not treating my team like an NFL franchise... and I would advise against anybody else doing it differently.

Not really referring to an owner's players...that is just hard to avoid. I'm referring to the fact that a badass player can sign up to play STs simply because the agent wants to get a player on that team or already has a player on that team.

It just hurts the competition among players for starting spots and playing time when noone is going to get much no matter how good they are, and that competition is part of what makes a team. I sometimes wonder if a truly ruthless owner would actually have an advantage in GLB because his players would be really paying attention to their builds (rather than going cookie cutter) in order to get better than the guy in front of them.

We have the same dynamic on my team, so I'm not trying to be judgmental...just wondering if it wouldn't be more interesting if GLB was more competitive in that respect.

So you want more competition between players at each position but you don't want teams to have too much depth? Is that what you are saying?

I want the depth to not be players that could easily start for a team in the same league, with little or no motivation to move on to fulfill their own potential. It just seems like it would make the game more competitive because all those players competing would increase their effectiveness, and in turn increase the effectiveness of the teams.

I guess I am just one of those people who like parity a lot...more though I like there to be league rules in sports to make sure noone gets an advantage based on something that has little to do with the actual competition...like flex points. Of course, that argument has to be weighed against Bort's interest in making money, which obviously has a lot of influence here.

Part of the problem is that players stop 'catching up' after like level 28 or something...that should never stop.




Actually player stop catching up in the low 20's because higher level players get increased VA points. From level 28-40 players actually give up ground which sucks for slow build teams.

What if a player is no longer going to be boosting and he can't get a good job on a winning team because teams that don't sign boosting only players don't win. His other two options are to sign in a low league that is well below the suggested level and he wont get fame or vet xp. His last option is to sign on a new team every season which many players don't care to do.

one more player to go....

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for slow build teams getting screwed, to be honest...my LB kicked ass in peewee last season...should be required.

The non-boosting players on my team have been in STs training for like 5 seasons now, so they are actually pretty good at it. One of them was one of the top tacklers on the team last season playing almost entirely STs...he did play a lot at CB5 in our regular season game last season against CCCC though...

And there are only three of them...

Personally I think if you can find selfless agents who want to win that also have good builds, you should load up. If I have to be ruthless as an owner, I want it to be towards the competition, not towards my own players. If I don't sign a single person that couldn't start for us, then I have no issues seeing everybody get equal playing time and we can focus on our goals as a team rather than as individuals.

Long enough for Las Vegas to get mad at us

Rhode Island signs Greg Alstott!! Harper returns to the East, his home for the first several seasons of GLB. East teams can expect a healthy dose of Alstott on the field and on the boards

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx


Not pointing a finger, but this attitude is going to hurt this game in the long run. Each player should be out for himself initially and every owner should expect that each player is out for himself regardless of who the agent is. Metagaming is the term for it I think...

No team should have players that could easily start on a team in the same league playing little more than special teams. It just doesn't make sense for those players, even though the agent might like it for whatever reason. Personally I find it difficult to pay money for a player who is barely going to play.



Way to take a quote 100% out of context and then warp it into something even more ridiculous that your original misinterpretation,

With 98/99 Energy settings, my guy will play 50% of the snaps at his correct position. Could he start somewhere? Sure, he probably could but why would any agent care about starting or not starting with 98/99 Energy settings available to every team? And I understand you are new to USA Pro but the owners/agents who have been here a while understand that BSB's GMs and agents sort of stick to a "no compete" policy whereby we don't put our players on other USA Pro West teams, which would limit his starting opportunities if that was something I was actually silly enough to care about....

Originally posted by cwrujosh
Rhode Island signs Greg Alstott!! Harper returns to the East, his home for the first several seasons of GLB. East teams can expect a healthy dose of Alstott on the field and on the boards

Congrats Nice Pick up