Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Skanker irl

Can't help it if we have such an active team.

I think what is really sad is that the other 1/2 of the posts in this thread are from Malanewb

I think it's sad that, with all the people that play this game, there doesn't seem to be anyone that is capable of offering a good argument for why QBs should be built to run in this game, as it currently works.

Are you really that dense? Did you know that there are formations where that have both running plays for HBs and for QBs? Some even to opposite sides? Did you know that running backs get tired? Did you know that QBs have different Special Abilities? Have you ever done the AI for a team? There, I think I have asked as many questions as you have now

I think it is sad that I should have to point out things that should be painfully obvious to an "expert"

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Malachorn

Originally posted by Domer


Here's an answer...

If the Defense can't stop it, why go "two dimensional"? What's the point in that exactly?

Domer


Tea Baggins averaged more YPC than your QB in BOTH games.
Why run with the QB when it was less effective than running with your RB in BOTH games?

This, by the way, is the crux of my argument.
I've yet to see ANY evidence that running with a QB, as opposed to a RB that is 'supposed' to run, is a great idea (I actually think the way the sim currently works it almost begs it to be known that it CAN NOT be a good idea).

First off YPC is not the be all end all stat to prove efficiency or effectiveness.

You rush Falco because the design of the QB run plays allows you to take advantage of a defense. Is that hard to understand? Both the timing of the play and the angles created to pursue the ball carrier are different for QB runs and HB runs. You can exploit weaknesses with one run that you can't with another. Watch some of the Kai game... The rushing QB my have a less YPC #, but he hits some pretty crucial plays and makes some very good runs.

Domer

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Skanker irl

Originally posted by Malachorn



So... shouldn't that suggest they should be built to pass?


Falco. averages 11.6 YPC.

You know any QBs average above that Y/A?

That is the point of having him built to rush.

Terrible argument and the worst kind of logic, tbh.



Ah, to suggest that a QB could possibly run for more than he could throw for. Especially in a system with great run blockers at all positions.

Yes, horrible logic.

Originally posted by Skanker irl
Originally posted by Malachorn


So... shouldn't that suggest they should be built to pass?


Falco. averages 11.6 YPC.

You know any QBs average above that Y/A?

That is the point of having him built to rush.

tbh, it's only 2 games

is there another QB on the team?

I would think having a running QB AND a passing QB would be the ideal mix - make it very difficult for someone to game plan and exploit every weakness the defense has

Originally posted by Skanker irl
Are you really that dense? Did you know that there are formations where that have both running plays for HBs and for QBs?

Certainly. And I told you that one of the few arguments that you could try to make was that the running plays for a QB made it worth it.
I then stated that I've not seen ANY evidence to support that and certainly don't believe that allowing teams to not have to worry about half the playbook (all the passing plays) isn't going to help you run better.

Did you know that some teams have plays that work against running plays in a formation but don't work against passing ones in the same formation and vice versa? That makes it hard for you to reasonably argue that you are in fact "opening up the playbook" by limiting the kinds of plays that you run, eh?

Originally posted by Skanker irl
Did you know that running backs get tired?

I refuse to accept this as a worthwhile argument, as it suggests that have a finite number of RBs that you can send out there.

Originally posted by Skanker irl
Did you know that QBs have different Special Abilities?

I also stated that that is one possible argument that you could possibly make here... and then I also said that I'd find it absurd if you tried to argue that QBs are, in this game, more naturally skilled at running the ball then RBs.

Originally posted by Domer
First off YPC is not the be all end all stat to prove efficiency or effectiveness.

You rush Falco because the design of the QB run plays allows you to take advantage of a defense. Is that hard to understand? Both the timing of the play and the angles created to pursue the ball carrier are different for QB runs and HB runs. You can exploit weaknesses with one run that you can't with another. Watch some of the Kai game... The rushing QB my have a less YPC #, but he hits some pretty crucial plays and makes some very good runs.

Domer

I don't care enough to watch some Kai games, tbh.
I'd love for you to show me how a QB that typically runs for less yards, on average, than either of the RBs deserves to be running the ball.

I mean... on the average play, your QB runs for less yards than either RB.

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Skanker irl

Are you really that dense? Did you know that there are formations where that have both running plays for HBs and for QBs?

Certainly. And I told you that one of the few arguments that you could try to make was that the running plays for a QB made it worth it.
I then stated that I've not seen ANY evidence to support that and certainly don't believe that allowing teams to not have to worry about half the playbook (all the passing plays) isn't going to help you run better.

Did you know that some teams have plays that work against running plays in a formation but don't work against passing ones in the same formation and vice versa? That makes it hard for you to reasonably argue that you are in fact "opening up the playbook" by limiting the kinds of plays that you run, eh?

Originally posted by Skanker irl

Did you know that running backs get tired?

I refuse to accept this as a worthwhile argument, as it suggests that have a finite number of RBs that you can send out there.

Originally posted by Skanker irl

Did you know that QBs have different Special Abilities?

I also stated that that is one possible argument that you could possibly make here... and then I also said that I'd find it absurd if you tried to argue that QBs are, in this game, more naturally skilled at running the ball then RBs.




So I will do in less time, and less quotes, what you just did.

I see you have possible arguments, I disagree. Rushing QBs pwn.

My way is much more efficient IMO.

Originally posted by Ubasstards
Originally posted by IloveDefense


your avatar is gay. lol



Haha

Originally posted by reddogrw
tbh, it's only 2 games

is there another QB on the team?

I would think having a running QB AND a passing QB would be the ideal mix - make it very difficult for someone to game plan and exploit every weakness the defense has

If a QB showed to be more successful than a RB at running the ball then this would probably be true... but only if the game allowed for it to work that well. Without a QB1 and QB2 or something... probably not, tbh.

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by reddogrw

tbh, it's only 2 games

is there another QB on the team?

I would think having a running QB AND a passing QB would be the ideal mix - make it very difficult for someone to game plan and exploit every weakness the defense has

If a QB showed to be more successful than a RB at running the ball then this would probably be true... but only if the game allowed for it to work that well. Without a QB1 and QB2 or something... probably not, tbh.

Falco was at 8.3, Baggins was at 8.5...

8.5 > 8.3 along a number line, sure, what the football difference is negligible.

The previous game, Baggins was about 2.2 instead of .2 ypc greater. But Falco was at 20. Again, 22.2 > 20 but when the numbers are that high, does it really matter?

IMHO you could argue that the QB, in limited data here, has shown to be equally as successful at running the ball.

Mal why do you have that avatar?
srs question

Originally posted by BengalDuck
Falco was at 8.3, Baggins was at 8.5...

8.5 > 8.3 along a number line, sure, what the football difference is negligible.

The previous game, Baggins was about 2.2 instead of .2 ypc greater. But Falco was at 20. Again, 22.2 > 20 but when the numbers are that high, does it really matter?

IMHO you could argue that the QB, in limited data here, has shown to be equally as successful at running the ball.



Well, considering the level, THAT is actually fair.
However, I think that even if we were to concede that a QB can be EQUALLY adept at running the ball then it's hard to argue that the QB SHOULD be running the ball and sacrificing his ability to pass, as you could have RBs running the ball and you would not have to sacrifice the ability for the QB to be able to competently pass.