thats what she said.
Originally posted by bhall43
ive seen longer
Link? I need to view my competition.
ive seen longer
Link? I need to view my competition.
Originally posted by jdbolick
Most of his stats came in games against bad teams, but kudos for trying to crow about that. It doesn't make you look comically obsessed at all, I promise.
2 tackles, 6 targets, 1 reception allowed, 5 PDs, 3 KLs, and 1 INT for YMXI in his game against a formerly 5-1 VDA team. Do those stats count?
Here's the update adjusted to take into account that KLs = PDs (thanks disa):
YMXI:
29 % target to reception allowed ratio, making a play (INT, PD, or KL) on 62% of targets, has 4 INTs, and 3 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 6-1 WL alpha team.
Social Assassin's CBs:
1. Golden: 56 % ratio, making a play on 37% of targets, 0 INTs, and 2 missed tackles as a CB2 on a 2-5 WL alpha team.
2. Cheeks: 60% ratio, making a play on 47% of targets, 0 INTs, and 1 missed tackle as a CB2 on a 2-5 WL alpha team.
Bolick's CBs:
1. Roark: 46% ratio, play on 31% of targets, 0 INTs, and 3 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 5-2 WL zeta team.
2. Third: 59% ratio, play on 40% of targets, 0 INTs, and 2 missed tackles as a CB3 on a 5-2 WL zeta team.
The next update won't likely be until sometime later next week. Stay tuned.
Most of his stats came in games against bad teams, but kudos for trying to crow about that. It doesn't make you look comically obsessed at all, I promise.
2 tackles, 6 targets, 1 reception allowed, 5 PDs, 3 KLs, and 1 INT for YMXI in his game against a formerly 5-1 VDA team. Do those stats count?
Here's the update adjusted to take into account that KLs = PDs (thanks disa):
YMXI:
29 % target to reception allowed ratio, making a play (INT, PD, or KL) on 62% of targets, has 4 INTs, and 3 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 6-1 WL alpha team.
Social Assassin's CBs:
1. Golden: 56 % ratio, making a play on 37% of targets, 0 INTs, and 2 missed tackles as a CB2 on a 2-5 WL alpha team.
2. Cheeks: 60% ratio, making a play on 47% of targets, 0 INTs, and 1 missed tackle as a CB2 on a 2-5 WL alpha team.
Bolick's CBs:
1. Roark: 46% ratio, play on 31% of targets, 0 INTs, and 3 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 5-2 WL zeta team.
2. Third: 59% ratio, play on 40% of targets, 0 INTs, and 2 missed tackles as a CB3 on a 5-2 WL zeta team.
The next update won't likely be until sometime later next week. Stay tuned.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Link? I need to view my competition.
Theres a build advice private forum thread in here at like 440 posts or something.
But most of the ones that last this long are generally deleted for the same reasons this one is bound to.
Link? I need to view my competition.
Theres a build advice private forum thread in here at like 440 posts or something.
But most of the ones that last this long are generally deleted for the same reasons this one is bound to.
Robbnva
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by ganosux
congratulations
longest thread in rate my player history
ive seen longer
what is the sub forum we are in bhall? note look at the bolded
Originally posted by ganosux
congratulations
longest thread in rate my player history
ive seen longer
what is the sub forum we are in bhall? note look at the bolded
End of season update:
YMXI:
35 % target to reception allowed ratio, making a play (INT, PD, or KL) on 49% of targets, has 4 INTs, and 5 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 3rd place WL alpha team.
Social Assassin's CBs:
1. Golden: 62 % ratio, making a play on 29% of targets, 0 INTs, and 5 missed tackles as a CB2 on a 12th place WL alpha team.
2. Cheeks: 55% ratio, making a play on 39% of targets, 0 INTs, and 5 missed tackle as a CB2 on a 12th place WL alpha team.
Bolick's CBs:
1. Roark: 47% ratio, play on 33% of targets, 0 INTs, and 6 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 4th place WL zeta team.
2. Third: 60% ratio, play on 35% of targets, 0 INTs, and 7 missed tackles as a CB3 on a 4th place zeta team.
So by all objective measurements, my man CB is far superior to both SA and jd's man CBs. He has a better target to reception allowed ratio, makes plays on more passes, has more INTs, and has the same or fewer missed tackles compared to the other CBs. He also is on the top ranked team of the three. I guess we can now put this debate to rest.
YMXI:
35 % target to reception allowed ratio, making a play (INT, PD, or KL) on 49% of targets, has 4 INTs, and 5 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 3rd place WL alpha team.
Social Assassin's CBs:
1. Golden: 62 % ratio, making a play on 29% of targets, 0 INTs, and 5 missed tackles as a CB2 on a 12th place WL alpha team.
2. Cheeks: 55% ratio, making a play on 39% of targets, 0 INTs, and 5 missed tackle as a CB2 on a 12th place WL alpha team.
Bolick's CBs:
1. Roark: 47% ratio, play on 33% of targets, 0 INTs, and 6 missed tackles as a CB1 on a 4th place WL zeta team.
2. Third: 60% ratio, play on 35% of targets, 0 INTs, and 7 missed tackles as a CB3 on a 4th place zeta team.
So by all objective measurements, my man CB is far superior to both SA and jd's man CBs. He has a better target to reception allowed ratio, makes plays on more passes, has more INTs, and has the same or fewer missed tackles compared to the other CBs. He also is on the top ranked team of the three. I guess we can now put this debate to rest.
Rulabula
offline
offline
So wait what happened to the rest of your CBs? Also you still in double coverage at the CB1 or did you move to CB2/CB3 like the rest of us
Originally posted by Social Assassin
So wait what happened to the rest of your CBs? Also you still in double coverage at the CB1 or did you move to CB2/CB3 like the rest of us
You mean my hard hitter CBs that play a completely different style in their defensive system, but still have better numbers than yours? One is 60/34/0 and the other is 56/39/4.
So wait what happened to the rest of your CBs? Also you still in double coverage at the CB1 or did you move to CB2/CB3 like the rest of us
You mean my hard hitter CBs that play a completely different style in their defensive system, but still have better numbers than yours? One is 60/34/0 and the other is 56/39/4.
jdbolick
offline
offline
It's a bad build. If you had any connection whatsoever with reality you'd be able to admit that and learn how to build a better one.
Originally posted by jdbolick
It's a bad build. If you had any connection whatsoever with reality you'd be able to admit that and learn how to build a better one.
lol. Now you've got nothing to resort to. I used your metrics and mine, and he's superior in all. Lower % allowed, more % plays, fewer missed tackles, led the league in INTs, on the team with a better ranking, and on the team with the fewest ppg given up on D. It's time for you to admit that it's a better build than your CBs.
It's a bad build. If you had any connection whatsoever with reality you'd be able to admit that and learn how to build a better one.
lol. Now you've got nothing to resort to. I used your metrics and mine, and he's superior in all. Lower % allowed, more % plays, fewer missed tackles, led the league in INTs, on the team with a better ranking, and on the team with the fewest ppg given up on D. It's time for you to admit that it's a better build than your CBs.
jdbolick
offline
offline
It's not, though. Your EL is crap not because you chose for it to be crap, but rather because you're actually bad at building dots. You don't understand how to train or cap efficiently.
Rulabula
offline
offline
His CB dots not always in double or triple coverage got rocked badly. The DC is also very good especially with the talent he had to use.
Edited by Social Assassin on Mar 27, 2012 14:39:51
Originally posted by jdbolick
It's not, though. Your EL is crap not because you chose for it to be crap, but rather because you're actually bad at building dots. You don't understand how to train or cap efficiently.
lol. EL means everything; performance and the actual builds don't matter. You really are sad.
Originally posted by Social Assassin
His CB dots not always in double or triple coverage got rocked badly. The DC is also very good especially with the talent he had to use.
Yes, Hood was able to have the best D in WL despite having terrible dots. That makes perfect sense. Your logic is amazing. Oh, and those terrible dots outperformed yours.
It's not, though. Your EL is crap not because you chose for it to be crap, but rather because you're actually bad at building dots. You don't understand how to train or cap efficiently.
lol. EL means everything; performance and the actual builds don't matter. You really are sad.
Originally posted by Social Assassin
His CB dots not always in double or triple coverage got rocked badly. The DC is also very good especially with the talent he had to use.
Yes, Hood was able to have the best D in WL despite having terrible dots. That makes perfect sense. Your logic is amazing. Oh, and those terrible dots outperformed yours.
Originally posted by jdbolick
It's not, though. Your EL is crap not because you chose for it to be crap, but rather because you're actually bad at building dots. You don't understand how to train or cap efficiently.
And just to show how retarded it is to judge a build purely on EL and not the build itself, here are the values for the combined points in all relevant attributes and SAs for each CB:
YMXI: 744.04
Roark: 715.44
Third: 681.44 (I had to check this twice it was so bad)
Your higher EL is almost entirely due to having higher base speed. Overall my builds have a higher pure-point total, which is more important for winning rolls. And this doesn't even take into account that YMXI is running 4 % AEQ whereas your CBs are only running 3. So despite only having 4 SA points to spend through CEQ versus 10-12 points EQ points that your CBs got to spend on SAs, my CB has many more points helping him to win rolls. Poor bolick can't build CBs anywhere near as good as mine.
It's not, though. Your EL is crap not because you chose for it to be crap, but rather because you're actually bad at building dots. You don't understand how to train or cap efficiently.
And just to show how retarded it is to judge a build purely on EL and not the build itself, here are the values for the combined points in all relevant attributes and SAs for each CB:
YMXI: 744.04
Roark: 715.44
Third: 681.44 (I had to check this twice it was so bad)
Your higher EL is almost entirely due to having higher base speed. Overall my builds have a higher pure-point total, which is more important for winning rolls. And this doesn't even take into account that YMXI is running 4 % AEQ whereas your CBs are only running 3. So despite only having 4 SA points to spend through CEQ versus 10-12 points EQ points that your CBs got to spend on SAs, my CB has many more points helping him to win rolls. Poor bolick can't build CBs anywhere near as good as mine.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
