Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Eamz~Cult~
Not even sure why I'm even here or why I read the past few pages on this, but I have to comment here. Blaming the "terrible" code for that completion is a joke. Your CB has too much speed (for that play - overall can be debated) without enough agility/vision to cover that route.

I'm not going to get into an argument that your CBs are better than LH's because they are both obviously better than mine, but blaming the sim on that play is a joke.

Lol clueless

Originally posted by jdbolick

Actually because he again posted without having a clue what he was talking about, and again looked ridiculous as a result.

So you have a bunch of dots in WL then?

He never said that he did

Originally posted by bhall43
He never said that he did
But by not saying I didn't, I LIED OMG!!!

Originally posted by bhall43
He never said that he did

He wants to act like he does. Maybe he should actually get some dots there before he starts acting like he knows more about this game than anybody else.

Originally posted by jdbolick

But by not saying I didn't, I LIED OMG!!!

I see you've still failed to respond to my previous posts. Here, I'll quote them for you so you can give it another try.


Originally posted by Longhornfan1024


Island in the Sky--FS
La Plaga--.295
Larry McGrew--LB (lol!)
Locked Down--.298
Vinnie--LB
YMXI--16 PDs and 2 INTs on 63 targets - .285
YMXII-- Hard Hitter
Paper--SS
A-Team--Combo CB
Stinky--LB

So you included two safeties and three LBs in your argument about my CB's builds. lol.

Now let's look at the CBs you conveniently failed to include.

Sweet Pants--12 PDs on 57 targets - .210
Ken Houston--8 PD and 1 INT on 52 targets - .173

So not only did you fail to include INTs and decide to include LBs, Safeties, and CBs that are built and used completely differently by the DC, but you chose not to include the two CBs who have a significantly lower ratio.

Like I said, lies.

I'd also like to point out that you had to turn your hard hitter into a blitzer because the build sucks so bad in coverage.


Originally posted by jdbolick

That hard hitter had 25 PDs on 80 targets last season for a ratio of .3125, substantially better than either of yours.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
And btw last season my pro hard hitter had a .555 ratio. But keep up the lies.

To recap for your simple mind:


Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
He was also one of the top CB's in completion allowed %, one of the top in deflections + INTs, had the most forced turnovers, and had the second least number of missed tackles. But let's ignore all those facts because they won't help you in your arguments. I mean, missed tackles, turnovers, and completions allowed don't have any bearing on how good of a build a CB has. Keep trying to distort the truth.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
He wants to act like he does. Maybe he should actually get some dots there before he starts acting like he knows more about this game than anybody else.
I've had tons of dots there, and I've coordinated multiple WL teams. By posting stuff like this you make yourself look even more ridiculous than usual.

Originally posted by
I see you've still failed to respond to my previous posts. Here, I'll quote them for you so you can give it another try.
I didn't intentionally exclude anyone, I just went down the list of Hood defenders sorted by deflections until I got bored and stopped. xcoach's CBs being worse than yours doesn't change the fact that yours were worse than most of the other defenders on the team in deflection to target ratio. Again, this all goes back to you being so damaged mentally and emotionally that you maniacally reject anything that challenges your carefully crafted delusions about being the greatest at something. You pitched a hissy fit when people called into question your legal knowledge, and you have gone way off the deep end here when multiple people pointed out that you're not nearly as good at building CBs as you want to pretend you are.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I didn't intentionally exclude anyone, I just went down the list of Hood defenders sorted by deflections until I got bored and stopped. xcoach's CBs being worse than yours doesn't change the fact that yours were worse than most of the other defenders on the team in deflection to target ratio. Again, this all goes back to you being so damaged mentally and emotionally that you maniacally reject anything that challenges your carefully crafted delusions about being the greatest at something. You pitched a hissy fit when people called into question your legal knowledge, and you have gone way off the deep end here when multiple people pointed out that you're not nearly as good at building CBs as you want to pretend you are.



You still can't come up with a valid, substantive response to my post. Here, I'll make it even easier on you:

1. Why should an LB or Safety's deflection ratio relative to a CB's deflection ratio be treated as a measurement of that CB's build quality?
2. If the reason PD ratio should be used over completion ratio to determine a CB's build quality is that it is "something your CB does," why shouldn't INTs be included in that evaluation?
3. Why shouldn't missed tackles, forced turnovers, and completion percentage also be used as measurements of a CB's build quality?
4. How is .3125 higher than .555?
5. How is a .166 ratio in pro league playoffs anything other than god awful?

1. Because you don't get a bonus or penalty to deflections from playing zone or man. Deflection to target ratio is a simple way of looking at what a defender did when a pass came his way.

2. I already answered this twice, but you ignore anything that challenges your carefully crafted delusions. PDs are something the defender actually did. Completions allowed are affected by a QB throwing a bad pass or Bort's flawed lead code, etc. You want to ignore PDs because they make your dots look bad, even though they're what actually measure a defender's impact on a pass.

3. Turnovers and tackling certainly are relevant to a coverage defender's performance. You make yourself look like a ranting fool, though, when you insist that talking about deflection to target ratio means I'm somehow lying. Not addressing every single thing doesn't mean someone is OMG LYING!!!

4. Talking about what your guys did this season, genius. You said: "I'd also like to point out that you had to turn your hard hitter into a blitzer because the build sucks so bad in coverage." I showed that it wasn't true at all. And by the way, you haven't apologized for OMG LYING!!! about that.

5. Nice job ignoring the regular season for a two game sample, but sure, I'd like that to be better than it has been in the playoffs thus far.

Now why don't you try explaining why your CBs were 6th and 7th on your own team in regular season deflections? Why don't you also try explaining why your CBs have below average player values by WL standards?

Originally posted by jdbolick
Now why don't you try explaining why your CBs were 6th and 7th on your own team in regular season deflections? Why don't you also try explaining why your CBs have below average player values by WL standards?

1. YMXI had more INTs. Factor those in and he actually had numbers comparable to the top CBs on the team. YMXII is used in a completely different manner than the other CBs.

2. Not everyone is an idiot and thinks that making a good CB requires pushing 2-3 attributes super-high at the expense of the rest of the build.

Originally posted by jdbolick


Oh look, jd can't respond, so he resorts to a face palm. I think I've seen this somewhere before.

Seriously, this is why everyone on GLB thinks you're a clown. People laugh at you LHF, but thankfully that won't matter as long as you keep living inside your own delusions where you're the greatest CB builder who ever logged on to this site.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Seriously, this is why everyone on GLB thinks you're a clown. People laugh at you LHF, but thankfully that won't matter as long as you keep living inside your own delusions where you're the greatest CB builder who ever logged on to this site.

And you're back to insulting me because you can't respond to my argument.