Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dr. E
I think that if short passes to TE were 85% effective, we would see a lot more short passing to TE and the end to the days of seeing 30 screens a game or 40 sweeps. But one thing is for sure, if short passing to TE was possible, then we wouldn't be talking about INT being to frequent.

Luckily they are only 90% effective.

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
Biggest 2 problems with GLB.....
#1 pushing away your loyal GLBers with arrogant replies and comments...
#2 colluding with the wrong people that only wanted to destroy the game and giving up on your pinnacle version of the game GLB Classic.

You done goofed up big time....tho it's not to late to back peddle

Which version was the pinnacle version?

Originally posted by bhall43
Luckily they are only 90% effective.

Hmm. I took a quick look at all our games after preseason, including the scrimmages vs. WL teams for the Innsmouth SB Big Defense, with zero game planning, teams completed 54 of 122. That's a long way from 90%. Had I gone through and looked at completions for just a yard or two, the "success" rate would probably be less, and no doubt minus screens even lower. So, looks like you are wrong.

Your qb probably needs more confidence.

INT dots do what they are supposed too, and give up many contested balls as well and 80 yard TDs. Rarely do they return it for a TD so just consider it a punt

Originally posted by snakes22
INT dots do what they are supposed too

Intercept the ball and fall down?

Originally posted by snakes22
INT dots do what they are supposed too, and give up many contested balls as well and 80 yard TDs. Rarely do they return it for a TD so just consider it a punt
I miss the days of long pass TDs. And that was without Catch Fake or Juke on routes.

Originally posted by Dr. E
I think that if short passes to TE were 85% effective, we would see a lot more short passing to TE and the end to the days of seeing 30 screens a game or 40 sweeps. But one thing is for sure, if short passing to TE was possible, then we wouldn't be talking about INT being to frequent.

you still cannot cover the 90 degree pass routes, no matter what... its just a matter of whether or not your qb throws the ball like a tard or not

Originally posted by Dr. E
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2594238&pbp_id=2932784
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2594238&pbp_id=2932784
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2594768&pbp_id=3805858
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2594768&pbp_id=3806244
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2594768&pbp_id=3806555


3rd, 4th and 5th one all prove gbororats point, with a decent throw to the TE those are probably all completions. 1st and 2nd ones are simply the QB locking onto someone that is double covered. It's also widely accepted that the out routes aren't as good as the ins.

There are no true routes %90 effective.. For some period of time maybe but like Miami with wildcat it gets figured out. If there are %90 effective routes its the ones where a beast build dictates it with play calling. It's math so math beast on a route will do it