Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Galkuris
Originally posted by kr0n

my whine meter in tingling, for some reason

i don't know why

seeing as MM and WW had the same run to pass in the first half =/

Thing is ours was just dumb luck that more passes didn't get called (25% on first down, way more on second).

We had 15% passes on first down, actually. More in less risky scenarios. I honestly expected us to throw about 15 times.

Originally posted by islander1
Originally posted by Galkuris

Originally posted by kr0n


my whine meter in tingling, for some reason

i don't know why

seeing as MM and WW had the same run to pass in the first half =/

Thing is ours was just dumb luck that more passes didn't get called (25% on first down, way more on second).

We had 15% passes on first down, actually. More in less risky scenarios. I honestly expected us to throw about 15 times.

Dang sim is so used to SI Slam it just automatically calls it . I haven't watched yet but so far it looks like I should have had the balls to do something different (the HB that did well wasn't in on many, if any SI slams)

Originally posted by joemiken
I know I'm just an outside observer here, but I'd rather see you guys just keep doing as you have been. Changing things up now is a bit of a slap in the face to the teams you've beat along the way to get there.

But that's just me. You guys can do whatever you want. You're the ones who are playing in the game.

QFT. Isn't this how most teams got this far in the first place

Why change now? Slam it home!

well, Dryden and Halifax played basic AI, 50/50 run/pass and inside/outside running

that sounds fun =/

I am going to decline this Hazy.

if we face MeM, we'll see the slambowl we all expect, if the gamblers face them, then i'd love to see hazy pull somethin else out of his ass to pull out a win

Originally posted by PP
I have no dog in this fight, but I wouldn't even consider thinking about an agreement like that, unless it also included QB runs. If not, it's a fool's trade.

PS....That's not a rip on Hazy or the way he played us in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that it would be absolutely stupid for ***O*** to agree to that without having that tossed in as well. I was WAY more concerned about that being run against us than I ever was the SI slam.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that - removing the inside run out of the Strong I makes the QB Rollouts easy to defend.

Originally posted by The Duff Man
I am going to decline this Hazy.

That's unfortunate. I was hoping we could do something "real" - my team only ran the Strong I Slam 25 out of 71 plays today because I was trying to at least keep it moderately realistic. I can assure you that won't be the case this Friday and that kind of sucks.

Oh well at least no one can say I didn't try.

I don't blame Duff for making this decision. It was a nice proposistion and as much as I'd like to see a good game of old fashioned dotball, the remaining teams should just do whatever it takes to win at this point. If it is a Strong I Slam fest then let it be and may the better at it win. Unfortunately the game is what it is and I (like so many others) am just looking forward to a better sim in season 9.

Originally posted by thehazyone
Originally posted by PP

I have no dog in this fight, but I wouldn't even consider thinking about an agreement like that, unless it also included QB runs. If not, it's a fool's trade.

PS....That's not a rip on Hazy or the way he played us in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that it would be absolutely stupid for ***O*** to agree to that without having that tossed in as well. I was WAY more concerned about that being run against us than I ever was the SI slam.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that - removing the inside run out of the Strong I makes the QB Rollouts easy to defend.

Just removing the SI slam doesn't take away the inside run game. We ran very effectively inside out of the weak I, I and single back in the vast majority of our games. I agree that QB rollouts are VERY easy to defend, but you have to give up a big part of your inside run D to do it. Facing you forces a bitch of a dilemma...Do you take away the QB runs, which are scary as hell, but give up the inside or do you hope like hell that you use them sparingly and play a far more standard D? That's why I wrote what I did. If I was ***O*** I'd have never have gone for that deal. IMO, it just hands you the game, if you want/are willing to take it. All you'd have to do is run heavy and split it 50/50 between QB roll and the other inside runs. If there's a way to effectively defend both, I've got no clue what it is. The best D against your O is to keep your O off the field.

I sure hope none of this is coming off disrespectfully. I tip the hat I'm not wearing to you on how you played us. I was nervous as hell that you'd put in an O like you had against NAV and was thankful that you beat us straight up, instead.

Originally posted by thehazyone

Oh well at least no one can say I didn't try.

True, but anyone can say the timing of your "try" sucks royally.

Originally posted by PP
Originally posted by thehazyone

Originally posted by PP


I have no dog in this fight, but I wouldn't even consider thinking about an agreement like that, unless it also included QB runs. If not, it's a fool's trade.

PS....That's not a rip on Hazy or the way he played us in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that it would be absolutely stupid for ***O*** to agree to that without having that tossed in as well. I was WAY more concerned about that being run against us than I ever was the SI slam.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that - removing the inside run out of the Strong I makes the QB Rollouts easy to defend.

Just removing the SI slam doesn't take away the inside run game. We ran very effectively inside out of the weak I, I and single back in the vast majority of our games. I agree that QB rollouts are VERY easy to defend, but you have to give up a big part of your inside run D to do it. Facing you forces a bitch of a dilemma...Do you take away the QB runs, which are scary as hell, but give up the inside or do you hope like hell that you use them sparingly and play a far more standard D? That's why I wrote what I did. If I was ***O*** I'd have never have gone for that deal. IMO, it just hands you the game, if you want/are willing to take it. All you'd have to do is run heavy and split it 50/50 between QB roll and the other inside runs. If there's a way to effectively defend both, I've got no clue what it is. The best D against your O is to keep your O off the field.

I sure hope none of this is coming off disrespectfully. I tip the hat I'm not wearing to you on how you played us. I was nervous as hell that you'd put in an O like you had against NAV and was thankful that you beat us straight up, instead.



No disrespect PP. I know Copeland is a weapon that forces teams to make choices. The problem with going 50/50 though is that if you do stop the QB run it's usually for a loss, at least with the SI Slam, you're guaranteed a gain. It's why, with the exception of a couple of games, I've never spammed the Rollouts. I just like having it there to keep teams honest.

And TSE - you seriously need to quit trolling my responses. It's disrespectful. I tried for the Green Bay game as well. I tried for the last game of the regular season as well. It's not like it was the first time I've tried to get a non SI Slam game, and the Gamblers actually use the Strong I Slam the least of the 4 remaining teams... by a long shot.

I agree about the chance of stopping it for a loss, but the odds of it going for 15-20 is so much higher than the SI Slam, against a good D, IMO.

I'm pretty sure you understood, but the only reason I didn't agree to some sort of deal was because I didn't want the sim to end up running something more than it should and for there to be an issue that way (didn't realize you didn't want it ran at all, figured you were going for a % cap). As you can see from the numbers in our game (36 runs, 25 passes and, though I haven't done the breakdown, I did have 7 different run plays loaded up for that game), it wasn't because I didn't want to steer away for the SI slam. I just honestly felt bad that Duff felt somewhat cheated when we had a loose agreement and didn't want that repeated. For as much time as we waste here and how overly seriously we tend to take this game, it's just a stupid game, and not worth having ppl feeling like I screwed them over.

Originally posted by Doomsday
I don't blame Duff for making this decision. It was a nice proposistion and as much as I'd like to see a good game of old fashioned dotball, the remaining teams should just do whatever it takes to win at this point. If it is a Strong I Slam fest then let it be and may the better at it win. Unfortunately the game is what it is and I (like so many others) am just looking forward to a better sim in season 9.

Me either. Hazy I'd have done it if not for the QB running factor