Warrior General Games

The Gamblers needed their 70 players to run the ball 60 times against an opponent with 50 that they outlevel for the most part.

I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, but I absolutely believe the above statement to be true.

Originally posted by joemiken
If it happens, I'll eat my shoe.

Then if I find out that PP purposely let them score, I'll throw said shoe at him instead. lol
I'm calling the gaming commission over this one! lol

Is this the first time the USA Pro Champ has failed to make the playoffs the following year? (i'm excluding boston, they chose not to compete)

Originally posted by remus7x
Is this the first time the USA Pro Champ has failed to make the playoffs the following year? (i'm excluding boston, they chose not to compete)

An offense with a balanced back and a scheme and OL built around being able to pass the ball in season 8 = fail.

We also lost two games to LVFE and OTR where the difference was a fumbled KR for a TD.

Put em together and you've got a big Bort shaped boot headed straight up yer ass.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
That's fine, it's my money, it will be fun to watch and see how long it holds up for!

Damn, even though your own team got donkey punched by OTR, I gotta give you full marks for this bet.


on another note, kudos to San Diego betters, they covered!

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
The Gamblers needed their 70 players to run the ball 60 times against an opponent with 50 that they outlevel for the most part.

I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, but I absolutely believe the above statement to be true.

wah! wah! wah!

Originally posted by CG
Originally posted by remus7x

Is this the first time the USA Pro Champ has failed to make the playoffs the following year? (i'm excluding boston, they chose not to compete)

An offense with a balanced back and a scheme and OL built around being able to pass the ball in season 8 = fail.


not completely....we (BSB) fit that description.

we're 9-6, and 3 of those losses were winable games.

Originally posted by islander1
I gotta give you full marks for this bet.


Yeah I didnt see how they could possibly cover the spread, I thought it was as automatic as automatic gets for a bet.

Originally posted by Okole
Originally posted by CG

Originally posted by remus7x


Is this the first time the USA Pro Champ has failed to make the playoffs the following year? (i'm excluding boston, they chose not to compete)

An offense with a balanced back and a scheme and OL built around being able to pass the ball in season 8 = fail.


not completely....we (BSB) fit that description.

we're 9-6, and 3 of those losses were winable games.

Shrug, our GMs and players were all the same as last year. You tell me what happened, I'd really like to know

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by islander1

I gotta give you full marks for this bet.


Yeah I didnt see how they could possibly cover the spread, I thought it was as automatic as automatic gets for a bet.

The Groundpounders had 3 gutted teams in a row, and must have hung about 1400 points on all 3. Even the SF Fire, under tricon ownership currently with about the same population player wise as Kentucky (at a glance) lost to us by about 400

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
The Gamblers needed their 70 players to run the ball 60 times against an opponent with 50 that they outlevel for the most part.

I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, but I absolutely believe the above statement to be true.

Never seen anyone complain about the number of people on our roster before. Oh well.

As for running the ball 60 times. Yea, we did, but 30 of those runs came after we were up by 8 in the 3rd quarter. It's my typical get ahead, control the clock, wear out the other team game plan. Before that we had run 32 times, passed 15 times, including passing on 1st down 5 times (if we were truly exploiting the run, we'd have just run every time on 1st down). We would have passed more too if we were in passing situations so I don't think a 2:1 ratio is that bad.

Perhaps instead of blaming the loss on stuff like that, you should look at why your team only had 57 yards of offense in the 2nd half. You basically let the Gamblers control the clock and wear your defense down with your offensive failures.

It would have been much easier, btw, to say good game and move on. When my team struggled last year (8-8) and the beginning of this year (0-4), you didn't see me coming on bitching about things. I figured out what was wrong and adapted.

Good game.

Originally posted by Tijuana Glove
thanks for the write-up. ouch! 18 point spread. i don't think there will be 58 points scored in our game.

Touche mon ami

Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx
The Gamblers needed their 70 players to run the ball 60 times against an opponent with 50 that they outlevel for the most part.

I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, but I absolutely believe the above statement to be true.

Tbh, attacking someone for having too much depth isn't a real thing... Hell, I'd have more depth except I can only imagine that 50 players is as effective as 70 plays (hence why I don't have 70)...

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Originally posted by Hukton Vioxx

The Gamblers needed their 70 players to run the ball 60 times against an opponent with 50 that they outlevel for the most part.

I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, but I absolutely believe the above statement to be true.

Tbh, attacking someone for having too much depth isn't a real thing... Hell, I'd have more depth except I can only imagine that 50 players is as effective as 70 plays (hence why I don't have 70)...



I'm not attacking them. I'm saying it isn't 'fair'. There is a reason the NFL has roster limits and a salary cap. It fosters good competition.

Originally posted by thehazyone


Never seen anyone complain about the number of people on our roster before. Oh well.

Damn, you do have a LOT of players LOL, yikes! But I do agree with the argument against that. I could get 70 players too, and the players here would accept that, they have never been about needing a set minimum play counts, but to me the more depth you have, yes the better chance to win and crush your opponents, but the less fun it is, and the more diluted your team identity is imo.