Warrior General Games

Originally posted by whatje
except they don't. but ok.

i know the builds of a few WL CBs, and i dont see them getting burnt near as often as you make it sound like it happens.

Originally posted by Worker 3
i know the builds of a few WL CBs, and i dont see them getting burnt near as often as you make it sound like it happens.

I believe u do. But I know I've seen more and I've had them, too. You're just not correct here.

I'm not trying to suggest you get burned 100% of the time...but getting burned 5-10 times a game is pretty bad and that's a given with the scenarios you're suggesting.

no where near 5-10 times a game. have to remember that these speedsters are more like snails half way through the 2nd quarter. they get burnt maybe 2-5 times, and only one of those is probably going for a TD.

also have to remember that because speedsters get so tired and slow after the first half, it makes it infinite times easier to cover them which means more problems than its worth for the 7-14 points the offense gets out of it, imo.

most of the advice you give in these forums is good, but right now you are completely wrong and off-base.

i guess we are going to just have to agree to disagree then, because, frankly, from my perspective i could say the same about you right now

Originally posted by Worker 3
i guess we are going to just have to agree to disagree then, because, frankly, from my perspective i could say the same about you right now

this isn't a perspective thing, its a right and wrong. you're not particularly well informed on this

again, i can say the same about you. and it is a perspective thing. we are talking about a sim where we dont know how all the variables tie into each other... we may have an idea, but we dont have an equation that we can turn to where we can say 'oh youre wrong because the math says so'... we both have experience, and we both apparently have different experiences which shape the advice we give and how we perceive this situation, and thats a perspective thing.

1) you don't have experience
2) what you stipulated wasn't based on or related to any 'equation'. you raised a hypothetical scenario and tried to suggest that a cornerback with 120 speed would stick with a 140+ speed receiver in today's sim, and from that you deduced that a CB with 140 speed would keep up with a WR with 160+ speed. The basis of your argument was wrong and this isn't disputable. It's not "opinion" nor is it subjective.

Anyway, build whatever you like -- i'm not that interested or concerned with the successes or failures of your CBs. However, I do think its important for people reading these threads to get accurate information rather than the musings of someone who doesn't have a solid grasp of CB/WR interaction at the top levels of the game.

Regardless of what scenarios you may imagine, CBs with 120 speed will not (and consistently do not) keep up with faster WRs. CBs with 130 don't always, but they tend to do a better job and make up for it by generally getting more interceptions and tackles after the catch. I don't know what 160 speed WRs will look like, but I don't imagine that dots with 20-30 less speed will adequately be able to cover them very consistently.

That said, you're probably not ONLY building CBs to cover the fastest guys, so its a trade off.

1.) just because i havent had a dot in WL doesnt mean i dont have experience. there is more than a single way to gain experience. as ive said, i have seen quite a few WL CB builds, and have watched some tape, and they dont get burned to the point where i would say they need an additional 10 speed to keep up. and fwiw, did have a dot that would have been in WL with the hedgehogs ha di boosted him his entire career. he played in USPL and didnt allow a single TD (while also being the lowest lvl starter in the league no less) that season.... id say USPL is just about as close as you get to WL without actually being there. that and SAPL.

2.) it is disputable and is opinion... im a psych major. please dont make me go all socratic method on you ive seen 120 speed CBs keep up with 140 speed WRs just fine, and so you cant say that im wrong because i have proof... nor can i say that youre wrong because you likely have proof as well. and so because neither of us can both me wrong and right at the same time, it becomes opinion and not fact. they are postulates at best.

Originally posted by Worker 3
id say USPL is just about as close as you get to WL without actually being there. that and SAPL.



Originally posted by
2.) it is disputable and is opinion... im a psych major. please dont make me go all socratic method on you ive seen 120 speed CBs keep up with 140 speed WRs just fine, and so you cant say that im wrong because i have proof... nor can i say that youre wrong because you likely have proof as well. and so because neither of us can both me wrong and right at the same time, it becomes opinion and not fact. they are postulates at best.


don't tell me you're a psych major than butcher philosophy please

anyway, like i said, believe what you will. there's a method that works not horribly and one that has huge flaws in it that gets exploited consistently. the method i'm touting is the former. the method you are suggesting is the later.

there's some serious logical fallacies in your argumentation. if you go back and read the posts, they're relatively evident. particularly the last 2.

Originally posted by whatje

don't tell me you're a psych major than butcher philosophy please

I'm just going to jump in real quickly.

First: than =/= then.

Second: psychology =/= philosophy.

grammar police got me. however, knowledge of what psychology and philosophy entail is probably key to understanding that sentence

edit: given that i had used then rather than than.

thanks!

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024


Second: psychology =/= philosophy.
are they exactly the same? no... but they but they are very closely related. im also a philosophy minor and constantly making connections between the two.


Originally posted by whatje
anyway, like i said, believe what you will. there's a method that works not horribly and one that has huge flaws in it that gets exploited consistently. the method i'm touting is the former. the method you are suggesting is the later.

there's some serious logical fallacies in your argumentation. if you go back and read the posts, they're relatively evident. particularly the last 2.
again, i can say the same to you... and i dont see any contradiction tbqh. in the first post, i brought up an equation, and you said that what i stipulated wasnt related to an equation... thats exactly the point. since there is no concrete yes or no here (ie math and equations), we are forced to use other things. is there an equation behind it? yes, but since we dont know pretty much anything about it, we cant use it, and since math is the base of truth and the one thing people can agree on (see descarte), we are forced to use things that are debatable and are not necessarily facts -- hence perspective and postulates.

as for how your build that deals with just speed WRs can be exploited... well lets just say he deals with just speed WRs. there are also possession WRs and power WRs, and HBs running pitches you need to worry about. so while a 130 or 140 speed WR maybe get burned a few times a game (wouldnt consider that being exploited horribly), your CB may be getting exploited in other areas of the game. so while a 130-140 speed CB MAY be exploited, a higher speed CB MAY also be exploited, but just in a different way. as for how much they can be exploited, thats the part that is up for debate. my perspective and past experiences and opinion (weltanschauung if you want to get all technical) say that a 120 speed CB will not be a huge liability when matched up against a 140 speed WR, and that a higher speed CB will be a liability in the outside running game, and that they will be a liability against other types of WRs when archetypes round out. your weltanschauung is obviously quite different on this matter. but, because we have both experienced what we have experienced and perceived what we have as as how we have perceived it, we cant just simply say 'oh youre wrong because i think differently', or 'because of this' because the other person has their own experiences that are likely just as valid as yours and prove something completely contradictory to what you just said.


as for you, agswin, jumping. put it all in jumping.