Originally posted by StrinG
So what exactly makes a team "better"? And how are we to measure who is "better"?
Well this is not exactly the best thread to get into a long discussion on THAT topic as it is way off topic of the original post. If you want to pick my brain, feel free to do it via PM if you really want to know what my opinions are, but in here, there's too much opportunity for people like CV to try and make a mockery out of my words and turn it into a flame fest and I'm not really interested in that. So I will give you a few basic premises of how I choose to look at the game, and will be willing to continue to discuss the matter further if there is an interest to do so, but if it turns out to be a flame-fest then you will have to just PM me from their on.
So, TO ME, a "better" team is the team that can go into a sim with "courage" by playing the game with a fair and equitable armament, meaning 71 players to 45, to me is a bunk contest. Yes I understand the point that other teams do it too, and that I could do it as well, and it's only to my team's winning detriment to not play that way as well, there's no disputing that teams like that are playing by the so-called "rules" but to me that's a rule that a "better" team is not going to take advantage of. I believe it is of elite "sportsmanship" to try and get the job done with a more realistic roster size that makes sense and is practical for actually utilizing the players in a proportion that rewards them for their time and money spent on the game. And that doesn't mean 53 men is the exact roster size, cause that is only for a REAL NFL team, and this is a totally different game.
Also, TO ME, a "better" team is one that can win by restricting an unrealistic level of running plays. And yes, again, i understand the argument that others make about wanting to be a run-first team, but in real football you can adapt to that differently than you can here, and in real football there is not the scope or magnitude of a "snowball effect" that spills over to the other sides of the ball to the degree that it does in GLB. And I understand the argument that others are going to do it and exploit it against you if you don't, but again TO ME, winning despite those that are cheap enough to do it is what is worth more for respect, and again that's just MY OPINION, so spare me for shouting how that is stupid because those that disagree about that have made themselves abundantly clear on that issue. And it's especially less impressive if you are choosing a high run rate while also enjoying the depth advantage.
I believe that OUR teams' roster size is the perfect number for OUR team. I too could have had a 70 man roster this offseason and got away without players wanting to leave, but TO ME that's not fulfilling to win like that and I would feel ZERO pleasure and ZERO pride if we won a trophy by having that kind of a roster size or that kind of a rushing ratio. Going to a LOT MORE than 45 players to me is a manufactured cheap advantage, and likewise playing with a LOT LESS would be just absolute suicide.
