Warrior General Games

I explained why I didn't go beyond #5. I saw mostly CPU dots listed so it would have been a very poor example.

By your logic, we should evaluate the state of the sim based on the D-leagues.

And you're the one that keeps moving the proverbial goal post.

Originally posted by Dub J
I explained why I didn't go beyond #5. I saw mostly CPU dots listed so it would have been a very poor example.

By your logic, we should evaluate the state of the sim based on the D-leagues.



I have no idea how you even got into the reg pro's. I mentioned that we could look through them to find A blitzing LB with a crazy number of sacks, and we can. They all suck for competition and shouldn't be used in any statistical analysis, I hope we can agree on that.

Is your opinion that we should be trying to move the sim in a direction where more players should be getting 30+ sacks in WL?

Originally posted by threadkiller
I have no idea how you even got into the reg pro's.

Originally posted by threadkiller
If any of that happened in a top to bottom competitive league like WL there would be an outcry. I don't think it has. We could probably comb the reg pro leagues and find a blitzing lb with 90 sacks.




I think we're finished here.

Do you really not understand what I was saying in that quote? I can expand on it if I wasn't clear, but it reads pretty obvious to me. More so if you look back at the original post and read your post that I quoted in response.

Again, what is that sack total you're looking for to be considered "useful"?

I understand that you want to hand pick 2 LBs out of 30,000 while I want to look at the 30,000.

When you have QBs with over 8k yards and over 160 TDs in Pro but one LB with 30 something sacks and a few others with 20 to 25ish there is definitely a problem.

Originally posted by threadkiller
Again, what is that sack total you're looking for to be considered "useful"?

Minimum of 100.

Find me the QB that averages 500 yards and 10 tds against top Pro competition.

Originally posted by threadkiller
Find me the QB that averages 500 yards and 10 tds against top Pro competition.

Go look for yourself. I'm tired of this cat and mouse shit where you say "prove it", I take the time to research and list stats, then you shift the conversation and say "prove it", I take the time to research.... Hell, you just left an open ended demand anyway. I'm sure you will adjust your definition of "top Pro competition" to shit all over whatever I post. I really am wasting my time here but I have nothing better to do at the moment.

Go take a look for yourself. I honestly can't believe you're one of these people that think LB stats are fine. As I've stated many times, either have a wide open game or have realism. Don't have the game wide open for some dots and totally hold others to realism or worse.

Say all these 160+, 8-9 thousand yard QBs are putting up all those numbers again "weak" teams in the Pros. How do you explain the fact LBs aren't getting much (if any) blitzes against those same "weak" opponents?

Originally posted by Dub J

Say all these 160+, 8-9 thousand yard QBs are putting up all those numbers again "weak" teams in the Pros.

They are.


Originally posted by Dub J

How do you explain the fact LBs aren't getting much (if any) blitzes against those same "weak" opponents?


There are easier ways right now for a D.C. to make a sack (and/or better ways to defend an offense). I have never in this thread argued against that.

My opinion would be make it a little harder for a cb to get a sack and build a better LT (and increase the penalty for a defender having very low str vs a blocker).

Originally posted by threadkiller
They are.

No, they're really not.



Originally posted by threadkiller
There are easier ways right now for a D.C. to make a sack (and/or better ways to defend an offense). I have never in this thread argued against that.

My opinion would be make it a little harder for a cb to get a sack and build a better LT (and increase the penalty for a defender having very low str vs a blocker).


So you want to nerf CBs? Let's see...LBs can't cover worth a shit, are the worst choice possible (outside of DT) to blitz so the answer is to bring CBs down near LB's level?

We're building coverage LBs now that look like CB2s to me.

Originally posted by Dub J
No, they're really not.


Show me a couple games.

Originally posted by Dub J
So you want to nerf CBs? Let's see...LBs can't cover worth a shit, are the worst choice possible (outside of DT) to blitz so the answer is to bring CBs down near LB's level?



Maybe a little. But I'm not sure if that's something the O.C. should be accounting for and can stop with blocking scheme to be perfectly honest.

I've already explained to you that I'm not showing you anything else. I'm tired of showing you/proving a point just so you can steer the subject somewhere else and start the same shit over again.

It doesn't take even looking at games to understand that a number of QBs finishing up the season with 150+ TDs vs. 1 LB finishing up the season with 36 sacks clearly indicates there is an imbalance. It's simple math.

I glanced over the Nat Pro leagues Dub. Those QBs all had several ridiculous games that were completely slanting their #'s. What I saw looked pretty well balanced against what I consider good competition.

The math isn't simple, and maybe that's your problem in this discussion?