I just wish Bort would fix the drop point, then First Step wouldn't be such a liability in pass protection. In the old DPC when DEs could be split so wide and blast upfield with great speed at the snap, then maybe that drop point was necessary, but that hasn't been true for a long time. First Step simply shouldn't fire on the snap when pass blocking, just as it already doesn't for Gs & Cs, and OTs should have a target point only a little back from the line of scrimmage.
mandyross
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
And while it does anecdotally seem to be the case that LOTs with high FS and Speed give up most of their sacks when dropping back deep and allowing the DE to bullrush him back and/or cut inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are giving up MORE sacks than they otherwise would...though it is an open question.
Agree, this is the great unanswered question.
I tried to phrase this using simple academic language earlier, but got bolicked.
And while it does anecdotally seem to be the case that LOTs with high FS and Speed give up most of their sacks when dropping back deep and allowing the DE to bullrush him back and/or cut inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are giving up MORE sacks than they otherwise would...though it is an open question.
Agree, this is the great unanswered question.
I tried to phrase this using simple academic language earlier, but got bolicked.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Stop trolling the thread and go away. You haven't made a single post in this thread that in any way contributed to the discussion. All you've done has been to insult me and challenge my statements without actually providing anything at all to legitimately question their validity. It is a fact that First Step causes the OT to block closer to the QB than without it. That is proven and documented, so shut up and go away.
It would be nice if you'd stop this sort of behavior at some point jd. Acting like a forum bully isn't adding any value to the conversation. It's one thing to strut your stuff in private forums or team forums, but it's less amusing in GLB main and really doesn't come off well at all in this forum or other advice-oriented forums.
Stop trolling the thread and go away. You haven't made a single post in this thread that in any way contributed to the discussion. All you've done has been to insult me and challenge my statements without actually providing anything at all to legitimately question their validity. It is a fact that First Step causes the OT to block closer to the QB than without it. That is proven and documented, so shut up and go away.
It would be nice if you'd stop this sort of behavior at some point jd. Acting like a forum bully isn't adding any value to the conversation. It's one thing to strut your stuff in private forums or team forums, but it's less amusing in GLB main and really doesn't come off well at all in this forum or other advice-oriented forums.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
I just wish Bort would fix the drop point, then First Step wouldn't be such a liability in pass protection. In the old DPC when DEs could be split so wide and blast upfield with great speed at the snap, then maybe that drop point was necessary, but that hasn't been true for a long time. First Step simply shouldn't fire on the snap when pass blocking, just as it already doesn't for Gs & Cs, and OTs should have a target point only a little back from the line of scrimmage.
Seems like having a vision check to determine a more optimal drop-back point on a play by play basis might be a good way to code this? And my thought is that this *might* already be part of the code.
I just wish Bort would fix the drop point, then First Step wouldn't be such a liability in pass protection. In the old DPC when DEs could be split so wide and blast upfield with great speed at the snap, then maybe that drop point was necessary, but that hasn't been true for a long time. First Step simply shouldn't fire on the snap when pass blocking, just as it already doesn't for Gs & Cs, and OTs should have a target point only a little back from the line of scrimmage.
Seems like having a vision check to determine a more optimal drop-back point on a play by play basis might be a good way to code this? And my thought is that this *might* already be part of the code.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
It would be nice if you'd stop this sort of behavior at some point jd. Acting like a forum bully isn't adding any value to the conversation. It's one thing to strut your stuff in private forums or team forums, but it's less amusing in GLB main and really doesn't come off well at all in this forum or other advice-oriented forums.
Tautology, you have repeatedly followed me around the forums just to throw insults. Take this one, for example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4638761&page=1#42445087
Originally posted by tautology
The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do.
mandyross never once posted a single thing that contributed to this discussion. He never brought up any evidence to suggest that First Step didn't hurt pass protection, or even present a hypothetical. He just sought to criticize and undermine my statements with absurd comments about needing "statistical analysis" while accusing me of "self-delusion," all because he's still bitter about that time when he & Darkstrand made asses of themselves in GLB main. He's the one trolling this thread and adding nothing, which is why he should go away. Meanwhile you need to be less of a giant hypocrite.
It would be nice if you'd stop this sort of behavior at some point jd. Acting like a forum bully isn't adding any value to the conversation. It's one thing to strut your stuff in private forums or team forums, but it's less amusing in GLB main and really doesn't come off well at all in this forum or other advice-oriented forums.
Tautology, you have repeatedly followed me around the forums just to throw insults. Take this one, for example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4638761&page=1#42445087
Originally posted by tautology
The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do.
mandyross never once posted a single thing that contributed to this discussion. He never brought up any evidence to suggest that First Step didn't hurt pass protection, or even present a hypothetical. He just sought to criticize and undermine my statements with absurd comments about needing "statistical analysis" while accusing me of "self-delusion," all because he's still bitter about that time when he & Darkstrand made asses of themselves in GLB main. He's the one trolling this thread and adding nothing, which is why he should go away. Meanwhile you need to be less of a giant hypocrite.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
mandyross never once posted a single thing that contributed to this discussion. He never brought up any evidence to suggest that First Step didn't hurt pass protection, or even present a hypothetical. He just sought to criticize and undermine my statements with absurd comments about needing "statistical analysis" while accusing me of "self-delusion," all because he's still bitter about that time when he & Darkstrand made asses of themselves in GLB main. He's the one trolling this thread and adding nothing, which is why he should go away. Meanwhile you need to be less of a giant hypocrite.
He brought up the point about vision, which is a good one, and he asked the question of whether deeper dropbacks actually result in more sacks (rather then just appearing to cause more sacks), both of which are points worth considering.
And if my remark from many months ago " The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" really felt like a devastating personal attack, my apologies for that.
It does seem to be difficult to present a viewpoint contrary to yours in any context that you don't perceive as a personal attack on you.
mandyross never once posted a single thing that contributed to this discussion. He never brought up any evidence to suggest that First Step didn't hurt pass protection, or even present a hypothetical. He just sought to criticize and undermine my statements with absurd comments about needing "statistical analysis" while accusing me of "self-delusion," all because he's still bitter about that time when he & Darkstrand made asses of themselves in GLB main. He's the one trolling this thread and adding nothing, which is why he should go away. Meanwhile you need to be less of a giant hypocrite.
He brought up the point about vision, which is a good one, and he asked the question of whether deeper dropbacks actually result in more sacks (rather then just appearing to cause more sacks), both of which are points worth considering.
And if my remark from many months ago " The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" really felt like a devastating personal attack, my apologies for that.
It does seem to be difficult to present a viewpoint contrary to yours in any context that you don't perceive as a personal attack on you.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
He brought up the point about vision, which is a good one, and he asked the question of whether deeper dropbacks actually result in more sacks (rather then just appearing to cause more sacks), both of which are points worth considering.
Mentioning vision doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, but for the record, bhall can tell you that it has little value to blocking although it's nice for the blocking bars. OTs don't appear to drop and react based on vision at all. They always drop toward the same point set by Bort's code, speed & First Step just determine how often they get there before being engaged. Whether or not they come forward again after getting there again depends on the distance between that point and their assigned defender, not vision. Moreover, it's just common sense that reducing the distance between the block and the quarterback will increase the incidence of sacks if all other things are equal. It doesn't make a sack guaranteed or automatically make an OT worse than some other OT who doesn't have First Step, but no one ever argued otherwise, so again that comment added nothing to the discussion.
Originally posted by
And if my remark from many months ago " The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" really felt like a devastating personal attack, my apologies for that. It does seem to be difficult to present a viewpoint contrary to yours in any context that you don't perceive as a personal attack on you.
Ah, so this comes back to you never admitting that you do anything wrong. Saying "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" is clearly an insult, which I would be fine with if you weren't such a complete hypocrite by bitching about my tone. Furthermore, you had this gem in the next post:
"jdbolick suggests that DEs need to be extreme to be successful, to wit: "DE is one of those positions where it pays to be more extreme than well-rounded, so you should push your two primaries out of str / spd / agi straight to 83 before working on anything else." My specific advice is that the person suggesting this has not seen as much success from their team's DEs as another agent, myself in this case, who uses far less extreme builds (e.g. my starting LDE does not have an attribute higher than 116). The conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs. "
You're frequently a dick to people, tautology. Maybe criticizing me for it makes you feel like you're somehow better, but you engage in the same sort of behavior. The ironic thing is that I used to praise you around the forums before you kept insulting me to the point that I'd finally had enough. Before you lecture anyone else about the way they should conduct themselves, you need to start following that advice yourself. I don't report any of the many instances where people insult me because I'm a big boy and don't need a hall monitor around, but surely you can see how it's annoying to have someone insult you and then criticize you for being insulting.
He brought up the point about vision, which is a good one, and he asked the question of whether deeper dropbacks actually result in more sacks (rather then just appearing to cause more sacks), both of which are points worth considering.
Mentioning vision doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, but for the record, bhall can tell you that it has little value to blocking although it's nice for the blocking bars. OTs don't appear to drop and react based on vision at all. They always drop toward the same point set by Bort's code, speed & First Step just determine how often they get there before being engaged. Whether or not they come forward again after getting there again depends on the distance between that point and their assigned defender, not vision. Moreover, it's just common sense that reducing the distance between the block and the quarterback will increase the incidence of sacks if all other things are equal. It doesn't make a sack guaranteed or automatically make an OT worse than some other OT who doesn't have First Step, but no one ever argued otherwise, so again that comment added nothing to the discussion.
Originally posted by
And if my remark from many months ago " The team with the best 4 DE line-up in WL for the past 4 seasons thinks maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" really felt like a devastating personal attack, my apologies for that. It does seem to be difficult to present a viewpoint contrary to yours in any context that you don't perceive as a personal attack on you.
Ah, so this comes back to you never admitting that you do anything wrong. Saying "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" is clearly an insult, which I would be fine with if you weren't such a complete hypocrite by bitching about my tone. Furthermore, you had this gem in the next post:
"jdbolick suggests that DEs need to be extreme to be successful, to wit: "DE is one of those positions where it pays to be more extreme than well-rounded, so you should push your two primaries out of str / spd / agi straight to 83 before working on anything else." My specific advice is that the person suggesting this has not seen as much success from their team's DEs as another agent, myself in this case, who uses far less extreme builds (e.g. my starting LDE does not have an attribute higher than 116). The conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs. "
You're frequently a dick to people, tautology. Maybe criticizing me for it makes you feel like you're somehow better, but you engage in the same sort of behavior. The ironic thing is that I used to praise you around the forums before you kept insulting me to the point that I'd finally had enough. Before you lecture anyone else about the way they should conduct themselves, you need to start following that advice yourself. I don't report any of the many instances where people insult me because I'm a big boy and don't need a hall monitor around, but surely you can see how it's annoying to have someone insult you and then criticize you for being insulting.
tautology
offline
offline
lol...the gap between jdbolick-world and the way most folks perceive reality is a source of continual amazement to me.
For the record however, since you are bringing up quotes that are well out of date: Now that Bort has gifted us with an extra 75 or so SPs, taking primaries higher is much more viable and generally recommeded at DE as well as most positions.
(I wouldn't want folks reading this thread now to think otherwise).
And your DEs benefitted greatly from this, lucky you. If it makes you feel any better I think your DEs ended up being very formiddable thanks to the bonus SPs that allowed you to achieve meaningful secondary attribute levels.
For the record however, since you are bringing up quotes that are well out of date: Now that Bort has gifted us with an extra 75 or so SPs, taking primaries higher is much more viable and generally recommeded at DE as well as most positions.
(I wouldn't want folks reading this thread now to think otherwise).
And your DEs benefitted greatly from this, lucky you. If it makes you feel any better I think your DEs ended up being very formiddable thanks to the bonus SPs that allowed you to achieve meaningful secondary attribute levels.
Edited by tautology on Dec 23, 2011 12:15:43
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
lol...the gap between jdbolick-world and the way most folks perceive reality is a source of continual amazement to me.
Posting "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" is an insult, taut. So is posting "the conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs." I realize that you have to pretend otherwise because you never admit to doing anything wrong and have to restructure reality so that you're always the hero, but you can't change the fact that it is a personal attack. And again, I can deal with you personally attacking me. What bugs the shit out of me is when you insult me so frequently and then become an enormous hypocrite by criticizing me for using personal attacks. I'm a dick more frequently than you are, but you're still a dick too.
Originally posted by
For the record however, since you are bringing up quotes that are well out of date: Now that Bort has gifted us with an extra 75 or so SPs, taking primaries higher is much more viable and generally recommeded at DE as well as most positions.
(I wouldn't want folks reading this thread now to think otherwise).
Speaking of ignoring reality, I think we established in that thread that my DE Jules Poopers was far more successful than any DE you ever created before plateau extension, and even since then you could only argue that Senggelinqin was better. That's debatable too since Poopers was far better against the run (three straight WL seasons of 10+ TFLs) while only being a bit behind in sacks if you compare his plateau season against your three.
Basically, you need to decide if you want to talk shit to people like me about using personal attacks or use them yourself, but stop doing both. You also need to learn how to admit when you're wrong, since you still haven't done so any of the times I proved you were, like when you claimed that zones don't shift based on where the ball is snapped. So think it over, make a decision, and go with it.
lol...the gap between jdbolick-world and the way most folks perceive reality is a source of continual amazement to me.
Posting "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" is an insult, taut. So is posting "the conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs." I realize that you have to pretend otherwise because you never admit to doing anything wrong and have to restructure reality so that you're always the hero, but you can't change the fact that it is a personal attack. And again, I can deal with you personally attacking me. What bugs the shit out of me is when you insult me so frequently and then become an enormous hypocrite by criticizing me for using personal attacks. I'm a dick more frequently than you are, but you're still a dick too.
Originally posted by
For the record however, since you are bringing up quotes that are well out of date: Now that Bort has gifted us with an extra 75 or so SPs, taking primaries higher is much more viable and generally recommeded at DE as well as most positions.
(I wouldn't want folks reading this thread now to think otherwise).
Speaking of ignoring reality, I think we established in that thread that my DE Jules Poopers was far more successful than any DE you ever created before plateau extension, and even since then you could only argue that Senggelinqin was better. That's debatable too since Poopers was far better against the run (three straight WL seasons of 10+ TFLs) while only being a bit behind in sacks if you compare his plateau season against your three.
Basically, you need to decide if you want to talk shit to people like me about using personal attacks or use them yourself, but stop doing both. You also need to learn how to admit when you're wrong, since you still haven't done so any of the times I proved you were, like when you claimed that zones don't shift based on where the ball is snapped. So think it over, make a decision, and go with it.
Edited by jdbolick on Dec 23, 2011 13:49:38
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
So think it over, make a decision, and go with it
The decision I reached long ago is that it is pointless to argue with you over ANY given topic, because you are more invested in your pride than in reasonable discussion.
The general pattern is something like this:
jd: everybody knows [this] is the the truth
somebody: I don't agree, I think you are mistaken or overstating your point
jd: you are just mad because of [something that happened months or years ago] / that's a ridiculous thing to say / why don't you shut up and stop posting
somebody: either engage you in what has now become a personal war over honor in your eyes -or- roll eyes and laugh
Here are some hints:
1) Not every post is about you, most of them are about the game.
2) Someone disagreeing with you or refuting your position is not necessarily a personal attack.
3) Folks would actually take you more seriously if you figured out how to engage in discussions rather than trying to drown out other perspectives with walls of text and personal attacks.
I honestly have no idea whether you know these things and simply choose to behave in the way that you do, or if you really think that the world is for some reason obsessed with irritating you for reasons that are mysterious.
And while it only matters to me as a matter of intellectual curiousity, I do indeed wonder about it at times.
But I'll agree to your assessment of our relative personal merits if that facilitates a meeting of the minds on the issue...." I'm a dick more frequently than you are, but you're still a dick too" would make a pretty good signature line if the mods were a little less uptight
So think it over, make a decision, and go with it
The decision I reached long ago is that it is pointless to argue with you over ANY given topic, because you are more invested in your pride than in reasonable discussion.
The general pattern is something like this:
jd: everybody knows [this] is the the truth
somebody: I don't agree, I think you are mistaken or overstating your point
jd: you are just mad because of [something that happened months or years ago] / that's a ridiculous thing to say / why don't you shut up and stop posting
somebody: either engage you in what has now become a personal war over honor in your eyes -or- roll eyes and laugh
Here are some hints:
1) Not every post is about you, most of them are about the game.
2) Someone disagreeing with you or refuting your position is not necessarily a personal attack.
3) Folks would actually take you more seriously if you figured out how to engage in discussions rather than trying to drown out other perspectives with walls of text and personal attacks.
I honestly have no idea whether you know these things and simply choose to behave in the way that you do, or if you really think that the world is for some reason obsessed with irritating you for reasons that are mysterious.
And while it only matters to me as a matter of intellectual curiousity, I do indeed wonder about it at times.
But I'll agree to your assessment of our relative personal merits if that facilitates a meeting of the minds on the issue...." I'm a dick more frequently than you are, but you're still a dick too" would make a pretty good signature line if the mods were a little less uptight
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
The decision I reached long ago is that it is pointless to argue with you over ANY given topic, because you are more invested in your pride than in reasonable discussion.
Except that it's the complete opposite of the truth, but you need to pretend that I'm the bad guy to make you feel better about yourself. For instance, when you did prove me wrong about something then I thanked you for it. Meanwhile the many times I have proven you definitively wrong, you steadfastly refused to admit it. To this day you still won't just say "I was wrong when I said that the zones do not shift when the play is called from one or the other hash mark," even though you were given undeniable proof that you were wrong about that.
Meanwhile there was also a thread in GLB main where today I posted something about how I didn't think OL even took vision checks for LB blitzes, but someone randomly posted a link showing the red eye when only a MLB was blitzing in addition to four down linemen, and I quoted that link to point out that my guess was wrong. Taut, you're actually the one whose ego is so massive that you can't ever acknowledge mistakes and must always pretend that you know everything. I'm interested in actually knowing everything, which means acknowledging errors and quickly adopting new information when that presents itself.
Originally posted by
I honestly have no idea whether you know these things and simply choose to behave in the way that you do, or if you really think that the world is for some reason obsessed with irritating you for reasons that are mysterious. And while it only matters to me as a matter of intellectual curiousity, I do indeed wonder about it at times.
And this is just a flat out lie. You and fool have both gone out of your way to personally attack me in the forums multiple times. I get why, since I do rub some people the wrong way, but you're just lying when you pretend that you don't have a bias against me and act on that bias. You couldn't even admit that saying "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" and "the conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs" were insulting. They clearly are. Contrary to what you assert, I'm actually the one fully aware of what I am, both flaws and strengths, while you create this image in your mind where you're the divine offspring of Jesus and Mother Theresa who is never wrong and just stands up for the little guy.
The decision I reached long ago is that it is pointless to argue with you over ANY given topic, because you are more invested in your pride than in reasonable discussion.
Except that it's the complete opposite of the truth, but you need to pretend that I'm the bad guy to make you feel better about yourself. For instance, when you did prove me wrong about something then I thanked you for it. Meanwhile the many times I have proven you definitively wrong, you steadfastly refused to admit it. To this day you still won't just say "I was wrong when I said that the zones do not shift when the play is called from one or the other hash mark," even though you were given undeniable proof that you were wrong about that.
Meanwhile there was also a thread in GLB main where today I posted something about how I didn't think OL even took vision checks for LB blitzes, but someone randomly posted a link showing the red eye when only a MLB was blitzing in addition to four down linemen, and I quoted that link to point out that my guess was wrong. Taut, you're actually the one whose ego is so massive that you can't ever acknowledge mistakes and must always pretend that you know everything. I'm interested in actually knowing everything, which means acknowledging errors and quickly adopting new information when that presents itself.
Originally posted by
I honestly have no idea whether you know these things and simply choose to behave in the way that you do, or if you really think that the world is for some reason obsessed with irritating you for reasons that are mysterious. And while it only matters to me as a matter of intellectual curiousity, I do indeed wonder about it at times.
And this is just a flat out lie. You and fool have both gone out of your way to personally attack me in the forums multiple times. I get why, since I do rub some people the wrong way, but you're just lying when you pretend that you don't have a bias against me and act on that bias. You couldn't even admit that saying "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" and "the conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs" were insulting. They clearly are. Contrary to what you assert, I'm actually the one fully aware of what I am, both flaws and strengths, while you create this image in your mind where you're the divine offspring of Jesus and Mother Theresa who is never wrong and just stands up for the little guy.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
You couldn't even admit that saying "maybe you don't know as much about DEs as you think you do" and "the conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs" were insulting.
You may want to note that I apologized for hurting your feelings about 10 posts above this one.
Nobody disputes that you felt insulted.
But most folks can handle a mild disagreement couched in playfully combative language without jumping off a cliff, going on a rant, and then dredging the topic back up many months later to use as scathing evidence that I (and apparently my friends as well) are somehow stalking you through the forums with malicious intent.
But whatever rules of interpersonal exchange you live by seem to dictate that even the slightest sidelong glance at your wisdom is grounds for immediate and disproportionate response, including personal assault on the opponent's character, filibuster style tomes of text, and whatever other tools seem handy for the job.
This leaves others with the option of either learning whatever PC sort of language it is that you would prefer be used in your forum presence, or having to live with your fairly regular meltdowns spreading through random threads on other topics. And it does indeed get worse when I or others facilitate your behavior though argument, as it just means the thread turns into a macabre morass of bickering small-mindedness.
And that in turn fosters a forum environment where it is considered appropriate to lash out for whatever reason seems righteous at the moment rather than participating in some measure of communal cordiality.
There are many folks who find that environment distasteful and choose to not participate in these forums as a result. And I think that sucks, which is why I am bringing it up now.
Originally posted by jdbolick
I'm actually the one fully aware of what I am.
Good! I hope this is true
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
You may want to note that I apologized for hurting your feelings about 10 posts above this one.
Saying "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is another way to be insulting, especially since you know my feelings weren't hurt. I really don't mind being insulted, and can actually enjoy it if the insults are particularly good or clever ones (dpride has his moments), but I abhor the hypocrisy of those who condemn the use of personal attacks and then do exactly that. What offends me about you isn't that you use personal attacks, but that you're an enormous hypocrite about doing so.
And by the way, you still haven't posted: "I was wrong when I said that the zones do not shift when the play is called from one or the other hash mark."
You may want to note that I apologized for hurting your feelings about 10 posts above this one.
Saying "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is another way to be insulting, especially since you know my feelings weren't hurt. I really don't mind being insulted, and can actually enjoy it if the insults are particularly good or clever ones (dpride has his moments), but I abhor the hypocrisy of those who condemn the use of personal attacks and then do exactly that. What offends me about you isn't that you use personal attacks, but that you're an enormous hypocrite about doing so.And by the way, you still haven't posted: "I was wrong when I said that the zones do not shift when the play is called from one or the other hash mark."
Bladnach
offline
offline
So all in all i'd say that's a pretty solid lvl 67 OT. That's what i gathered from this thread
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
