Warrior General Games

didn't take strength or agility high enough to begin with imo.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2108176

Originally posted by bug03
didn't take strength or agility high enough to begin with imo.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2108176

lolu http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1988867


But yeah, 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. Basically the thought process is that if you're not breaking blocks then nothing else really matters. Meanwhile linebackers and corners should probably be more balanced since they have to do a lot of things well.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2019353

thats right

Originally posted by jdbolick

lolu http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1988867


But yeah, 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. Basically the thought process is that if you're not breaking blocks then nothing else really matters. Meanwhile linebackers and corners should probably be more balanced since they have to do a lot of things well.


my dot is going to play rde...

So is mine. lolLTs

Originally posted by jdbolick

lolu http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1988867


But yeah, DE is one of those positions where it pays to be more extreme than well-rounded,



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.

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.
I think if you want to post builds or share advice then that would be great, but your snarky comments and trolling really aren't helpful to anyone.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I think if you want to post builds or share advice then that would be great, but your snarky comments and trolling really aren't helpful to anyone.


What i posted was indeed helpful advice.

And I have opened my DE builds at times in the position forums, where I also took the trouble to post a pretty long thread about how to build successful D-linemen.

But carry on

You didn't post any advice in this thread, you made a smartass comment because you have a grudge against me. I'm fine with that most of the time, but you should show some maturity and consideration by not engaging in that kind of behavior in this type of thread. Again, if you want to post specifics on what you suggest or why going directly to 83 might not be the best idea, feel free. Otherwise don't post.

Originally posted by jdbolick
You didn't post any advice in this thread, you made a smartass comment because you have a grudge against me. I'm fine with that most of the time, but you should show some maturity and consideration by not engaging in that kind of behavior in this type of thread. Again, if you want to post specifics on what you suggest or why going directly to 83 might not be the best idea, feel free. Otherwise don't post.



Here is my unabbreviated advice, since apparently the above was too subtle for your taste:

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.

There are many ways to build very successful DEs, and apparently he is unaware of at least some of them.

Does that suit your tastes any better? I don't have a particular grudge against you, I just try to keep the GLB community from narrowly thinking that the only way to build good dots is to be more extreme than everyone else with primary attributes.

I can't really help the fact that you go into pit-bull mode when I try to lead you to reason...I long ago gave up on that prospect.


I'd like to formally thank you for your permission to post in this thread btw. Much appreciated.

And checkmate

Originally posted by tautology
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).
Well actually we both had DEs in the WL seasons 13 through 15, and my guy had better stats than any of yours during that period: http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=772077 57 sacks in three seasons while playing LDE is not too shabby. You've only had one DE ever who put up those kind of numbers, and I'm fine if you want to say that Senggelinqin is better than Poopers (although Senggelinqin benefited from playing RDE), but of all the DEs you have ever built, you've only had one you could even argue was better than mine. So maybe you shouldn't pretend to be the god of knowledge when it comes to DEs.

Originally posted by
The conclusion that folks may want to draw is that they should take jdbolick's advice with a grain of salt when building DEs.
Sure, because it's not like I built one of the best DEs the World League has seen, or that I've had a long history of defensive success at that level.

Originally posted by
Does that suit your tastes any better? I don't have a particular grudge against you, I just try to keep the GLB community from narrowly thinking that the only way to build good dots is to be more extreme than everyone else with primary attributes.
I believe I made the point pretty clearly that LBs & CBs can benefit from being more well-rounded. That said, for all that you've run your mouth you still haven't actually mentioned what you would do differently. Do you not take the two majors out of str / spd / agi right to 83? I suspect that you actually do, you just felt like being a dick and insulting me in some guy's advice thread. Or if you don't, why don't you say where you usually stop. Is it 80? 77? Try actually contributing to the thread if you're going to post, because the only thing you've done so far is to insult me. If you want to insult me in GLB main, I'm fine with it, but show some respect for the OP by either offering actual advice in this thread or just don't post.

Paragraph 2 is a little short for a regulation bolicking.

You're on target with the rest though:

Originally posted by Pariah

v. bolicked, bolick·ing, bolick, bolicks

v.tr.

1. To shape a post into a into a large wall of text: posting a bolick or multiple bolicks.
2. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through a thread; obstruct: bolick a thread.
3. To shut out from view: a post bolicked another post.
4. To stop the passage of (a new point or opinion) in a thread: you've been bolicked beyotch.
5. To indicate how one is right in great detail: bolicking your side of the debate.


I'm fine with you not taking my advice, and you are welcome to post in this thread.

Calm down girls you're both pretty.