Warrior General Games

Based on build level, depth, inactives and one QB teams (simply personal feeling that one QB systems will not work in the long run).

Scale is 1-10.

Cincinnati Cardinals: 10
Alberta Irukandji: 9.5
Edmonton Thunderchiefs: 8
Manitoba Maulers: 8
Arroz Con Pollo: 8
North Bay Drift: 8
Fhockey.com Demos: 7.5
Fort McMurray Mounted Police: 7.5
Vancouver Vikings: 7.5
Rancho Penasquitos Thunderbolts: 7
Moose Jaw Roughriders: 6
Canada Dragons: 6
Laval Crusaders: 6
Victoria Fish: 5.5
Manitoba Lions: 5
Saskatchewan Thrashers: 1

Simply my take, nothing personal to any team.

I think that the west is as tight as gnat's twat. So really any of these teams has a real shot at it. (except my buddy monster's Thrashers)

Cheers!

I like the predictions a little more here than Oscarr's.

Not because my team is ranked higher here (okay, it's a little fuzzier feeling). But it underscores the parity in the league. Look a the 7-8 range. That's where the fun is going to be. Those will be some serious games in there. I know we will be ready with game plans and I know that the Drift, Maulers, Vikes, Bolts, and Pollo are mad game planners.

Originally posted by crockrh
...and one QB teams (simply personal feeling that one QB systems will not work in the long run).

I'm curious, based on what? For 6 seasons now, teams have had QB's that have taken 100% of their snaps, and I don't see that changing in the least...

Well I think it makes teams too one dimentional and fragile in close games. It really puts a team's success on the back of one player, the QB.

So in a close game a late INT or couple sacks in the 3rd could cost that team drives in the 4th due to simple confidence.

From experience. I GM a 4th season team that the owner believes in a one QB system and I also GM a team that has won 40 straight games (good for sole 2nd place in all of GLB) that uses 2 QB system.

The second team mentioned is a 80/20 pass team that has two different QB builds that split time 60/40 roughly. The ability to change the flavor of the passing game just by substitution along with the reinforced confidence is, or I should say, has been crucial to the success of that team.

The first team has seen close games swing wildly late, one way or the other. More often than I would like, swinging to our detriment.

I will say that if you have a dedicated heavy, heavy running team I think one QB could be plausible. However, in my rankings teams got deducted a small amount of points for running just one.

I am a firm believer in the power of confidence particularly with QBs.

If you look at the majority of the most successful teams over the course of several seasons you will find 2 QBs.

Just my take.

Originally posted by crockrh
Well I think it makes teams too one dimentional and fragile in close games. It really puts a team's success on the back of one player, the QB.

So in a close game a late INT or couple sacks in the 3rd could cost that team drives in the 4th due to simple confidence.

From experience. I GM a 4th season team that the owner believes in a one QB system and I also GM a team that has won 40 straight games (good for sole 2nd place in all of GLB) that uses 2 QB system.

The second team mentioned is a 80/20 pass team that has two different QB builds that split time 60/40 roughly. The ability to change the flavor of the passing game just by substitution along with the reinforced confidence is, or I should say, has been crucial to the success of that team.

The first team has seen close games swing wildly late, one way or the other. More often than I would like, swinging to our detriment.

I will say that if you have a dedicated heavy, heavy running team I think one QB could be plausible. However, in my rankings teams got deducted a small amount of points for running just one.

I am a firm believer in the power of confidence particularly with QBs.

If you look at the majority of the most successful teams over the course of several seasons you will find 2 QBs.

Just my take.

Interesting perspective. I think the prevailing opinion is that one QB is the way to go because of the relatively low stamina hit and putting your best foot forward. I guess if the QB has good confidence and their morale is okay, it won't be an issue. But it is possible I suppose.

Preseason ranking on the forum is a 10. This is the best forum I have been associated with so far. I hope it stays that way!

I counted 14 of 32 teams in USA pro that had just one QB.

That said, I would dispute the 'prevailing opinion' is a one QB system. Granted this is one sample, but I assert that the majority of established teams run 2. Not a large majority, but a majority.

Originally posted by razor9
Interesting perspective. I think the prevailing opinion is that one QB is the way to go because of the relatively low stamina hit and putting your best foot forward. I guess if the QB has good confidence and their morale is okay, it won't be an issue. But it is possible I suppose.

Actually it has more to do with QB's diva-ish egos. Nobody is ok with being a backup or platooning, or almost nobody.

That said, a team in CPL platooned QB's for the past season and a half or so with mixed success, partially due to QB tensions. Both QB's were quite good, the "backup" was a former Pro Bowler from a perrenial power the first few seasons that imploded. To give you an idea of how well that went... the team no longer exists because of their declining power and interest in the game.

Some VERY good QB's have retired because they couldn't get a starting gig anywhere, and most all QB's won't accept a backup role, plain and simple. If they won't accept that role, how are teams supposed ot even have a backup?

The first few seasons on my other team in CPL, we platooned 2 QB's -- the better one got about 2/3 of the snaps, the other got about 1/3. It was a disaster. Neither of them could ever get into a groove. Our starting QB now has cold streaks every now and again, and if he weren't playing all the snaps it'd be much tougher for him to work his way out of it. Not to mention hwo it crippled the development of both, because of decreased snaps.

So with all of that in mind, I don't see the 1 QB system changing at all until Injuries are finally introduced.... at which time there will be a mad rush on them.

But yes, good preseason rankings. Nothing wrong with the rankings or content, just curious at the take on QB's...

I'll be interested to see how the Thunderchiefs have changed... and if there is any new spice in my chicken with rice.

Why is alberta 2nd?

Originally posted by bluemagus
I'll be interested to see how the Thunderchiefs have changed... and if there is any new spice in my chicken with rice.

God between you and Razor the puns will never cease. (not that I want them to mind you)

I have no doubt this will be the most interesting season I've played this game yet.

-Senor

Originally posted by SenorChicken
Originally posted by bluemagus

I'll be interested to see how the Thunderchiefs have changed... and if there is any new spice in my chicken with rice.

God between you and Razor the puns will never cease. (not that I want them to mind you)

I have no doubt this will be the most interesting season I've played this game yet.

-Senor

Look, I didn't call him or anything- we just happen to wear the same shirt to this thing...

But this season will be tough.

Originally posted by quzur
Why is alberta 2nd?

Really just came down to shallower depth at LB and CB.

Originally posted by SenorChicken
Originally posted by bluemagus

I'll be interested to see how the Thunderchiefs have changed... and if there is any new spice in my chicken with rice.

God between you and Razor the puns will never cease. (not that I want them to mind you)

I have no doubt this will be the most interesting season I've played this game yet.

-Senor

Interesting? Hell I am going to need medications for ulcers after DCing this season haha

I hope to prove these wrong