woops double post*
Last edited Jun 27, 2008 15:23:52
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Last edited Jun 27, 2008 15:23:18
titanicwin
offline
offline
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Of course I would check the specific game in the game log. That is exactly what I am talking about. Bias? Hardly. This evens the playing field a bit. Take "Sex Machine", who is on your team as an example. He had 45 pancakes in a single game against Ice, and only 17 total in all his other games. Now go look at a decent OG in your conference that hasn't played Ice yet. If they have around 30 pancakes and haven't played the stat-boosting team, they are probably a better OG than "Sex Machine".
Then again, it would help if I paid attention to the first post.
Voting apparently won't begin until all conference games are played, so checking the game log is less important as it would be if we were nominating or voting in the middle of the season.
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Of course I would check the specific game in the game log. That is exactly what I am talking about. Bias? Hardly. This evens the playing field a bit. Take "Sex Machine", who is on your team as an example. He had 45 pancakes in a single game against Ice, and only 17 total in all his other games. Now go look at a decent OG in your conference that hasn't played Ice yet. If they have around 30 pancakes and haven't played the stat-boosting team, they are probably a better OG than "Sex Machine".
Then again, it would help if I paid attention to the first post.
Voting apparently won't begin until all conference games are played, so checking the game log is less important as it would be if we were nominating or voting in the middle of the season.MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Of course I would check the specific game in the game log. That is exactly what I am talking about. Bias? Hardly. This evens the playing field a bit. Take "Sex Machine", who is on your team as an example. He had 45 pancakes in a single game against Ice, and only 17 total in all his other games. Now go look at a decent OG in your conference that hasn't played Ice yet. If they have around 30 pancakes and haven't played the stat-boosting team, they are probably a better OG than "Sex Machine".
Then again, it would help if I paid attention to the first post. Voting apparently won't begin until all conference games are played, so checking the game log is less important as it would be if we were nominating or voting in the middle of the season.
True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by iamtheking
People are just gonna vote based on highest stats aren't they? So then the pro bowl team will be the same as the league leaders.
Not necessarily. For instance, those who have played against the Ice have overly inflated stats compared to those in the Eastern conference or those in the West who haven't met them. A good player with a bit worse stats than the league leader (who had one good game against the Ice, and a few pretty decent games) would get my nod in such circumstances.
Personally, I'm going to vote for models of consistency, not the guy who gets 3 forced fumbles in one game and does nothing the other 7.
No see but your thinking is just as flawed. If you were to do what you say you would, then you would have to check that specific game against colorado that the stat leader had, otherwise you cant make assumptions.
example:
What if that stat leader didnt have great #'s in the game against Colorado and all his good stats came against other teams. I sense some kind of bais from you, jealous maybe? lol JK But your way of doing it would be just as flawed as looking at stats alone. You would have to do your homework to just dismiss people that played them
Of course I would check the specific game in the game log. That is exactly what I am talking about. Bias? Hardly. This evens the playing field a bit. Take "Sex Machine", who is on your team as an example. He had 45 pancakes in a single game against Ice, and only 17 total in all his other games. Now go look at a decent OG in your conference that hasn't played Ice yet. If they have around 30 pancakes and haven't played the stat-boosting team, they are probably a better OG than "Sex Machine".
Then again, it would help if I paid attention to the first post.
Voting apparently won't begin until all conference games are played, so checking the game log is less important as it would be if we were nominating or voting in the middle of the season.True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
titanicwin
offline
offline
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
I think we talked past each other on this one. My bad.
True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
I think we talked past each other on this one. My bad.
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
I think we talked past each other on this one. My bad.
No big deal
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
True I wasnt thinking ahead but as of now it wouldnt work. And as long as someone would do their due diligence I think its a good idea. But it seemed like you were saying you'd rule someone out over someone with a bit less jus cuz they havent played ice caught my attention.
I think we talked past each other on this one. My bad.
No big deal
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by sharkaweaka
Is this still happening?
Not sure, the current format and way of voting is going to be hard to make happen. Also, most owners/GMs arent TOO familiar with other teams players.
If there is to be voting, I think we should keep it to owners and GMs only, they will know the competition the best.
Is this still happening?
Not sure, the current format and way of voting is going to be hard to make happen. Also, most owners/GMs arent TOO familiar with other teams players.
If there is to be voting, I think we should keep it to owners and GMs only, they will know the competition the best.
Last edited Jul 4, 2008 18:02:44
im317
offline
offline
if this does happen i will be interested in voting, but i tend to forget this forum is here so send me a PM. also i hope that Big Z will be considered at CB.
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by im317
if this does happen i will be interested in voting, but i tend to forget this forum is here so send me a PM. also i hope that Big Z will be considered at CB.
IUm checking out BIg Z and looks like he really hasnt done much this season although voting for CBs will be tough because its not a position you can vote on solely based on stats.
11 games, 14 tackles, 3 INTs and 4 PD I dont think is gonna be enough to get him voted in. Noones gonna eb able to take the time to really watch a bunch of games just to vote every player in ya know. Its tough.
Like ym CB, you look and hes got a lot of tackles, youd think hes getting beat, but noone is gonna watch enough game film to see that more thna half fo his tackles are in run support ya kno
if this does happen i will be interested in voting, but i tend to forget this forum is here so send me a PM. also i hope that Big Z will be considered at CB.
IUm checking out BIg Z and looks like he really hasnt done much this season although voting for CBs will be tough because its not a position you can vote on solely based on stats.
11 games, 14 tackles, 3 INTs and 4 PD I dont think is gonna be enough to get him voted in. Noones gonna eb able to take the time to really watch a bunch of games just to vote every player in ya know. Its tough.
Like ym CB, you look and hes got a lot of tackles, youd think hes getting beat, but noone is gonna watch enough game film to see that more thna half fo his tackles are in run support ya kno
Last edited Jul 5, 2008 10:24:48
im317
offline
offline
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by im317
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
A CB might not have stats, but his WRs could be catching the ball and blowing right by em ya kno? Its tough to judge for sure, and being on a losing team will not help either because no mater how effective one can be he is still not in a position to help his team win games. Its a tough life for a CB.
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
A CB might not have stats, but his WRs could be catching the ball and blowing right by em ya kno? Its tough to judge for sure, and being on a losing team will not help either because no mater how effective one can be he is still not in a position to help his team win games. Its a tough life for a CB.
titanicwin
offline
offline
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by im317
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
When I scout an opposing team, I'm most impressed with interceptions / tackle, % of missed tackles, and % of PD / tackle (if missed tackles are very low). Exceedingly good CBs are those who have a higher number of PDs than tackles and yet post fairly numerous interceptions.
Of course, I still look at game film to determine the build, but that at least is a simple way of roughly finding out the best CBs in the league.
Examples:
Break Faces is very good. 38 tackles, 55 PDs, 2 interceptions. 3 missed tackles.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=111369
HSK 1998 is probably even better. 18 tackles, 33 passes defended, 2 interceptions. 0 missed tackles.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/full_player_stats.pl?player_id=232917&playoffs=0
My own CB is a bit overrated. 5 interceptions is nice, but he has 32 tackles to 21 PDs, indicating a good, but not pro-bowl caliber CB.
Originally posted by im317
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
When I scout an opposing team, I'm most impressed with interceptions / tackle, % of missed tackles, and % of PD / tackle (if missed tackles are very low). Exceedingly good CBs are those who have a higher number of PDs than tackles and yet post fairly numerous interceptions.
Of course, I still look at game film to determine the build, but that at least is a simple way of roughly finding out the best CBs in the league.
Examples:
Break Faces is very good. 38 tackles, 55 PDs, 2 interceptions. 3 missed tackles.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=111369
HSK 1998 is probably even better. 18 tackles, 33 passes defended, 2 interceptions. 0 missed tackles.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/full_player_stats.pl?player_id=232917&playoffs=0
My own CB is a bit overrated. 5 interceptions is nice, but he has 32 tackles to 21 PDs, indicating a good, but not pro-bowl caliber CB.
Last edited Jul 5, 2008 11:43:39
MattMan Firespot
offline
offline
Originally posted by Albert Harrison
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by im317
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
When I scout an opposing team, I'm most impressed with interceptions / tackle, % of missed tackles, and % of PD / tackle (if missed tackles are very low). Exceedingly good CBs are those who have a higher number of PDs than tackles and yet post fairly numerous interceptions.
I agree somewhat, but that formula would not take into account an amount of tackles ammassed form a CB with solid run support ability. Yes im being a homer but I surely am not the only CB with ALOT of tackles from helping the run or making a tackle on another players assignment.
Like I said, looking at stats alone is not an accurate way to diagnose a solid CB. Mine jsut had a game with 9 tackles, 6 of which are run support and 1 was a tackle on another players assignment, stats dont tell the whole story no matter how you look at them.
Example:
62 tackles, 6 INTs, 33 PDs....Atleast 60% of my tackles are in run support.
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
Originally posted by im317
well, a lack of stats for a CB is often an indication of how good they are, as they keep there receiver from getting open, meaning they aren't thrown at much.
Yes thats very true CBs stats are very misleading. But no matter what the stats are, its impossible to accurately diagnose a CB merely on stats alone.
When I scout an opposing team, I'm most impressed with interceptions / tackle, % of missed tackles, and % of PD / tackle (if missed tackles are very low). Exceedingly good CBs are those who have a higher number of PDs than tackles and yet post fairly numerous interceptions.
I agree somewhat, but that formula would not take into account an amount of tackles ammassed form a CB with solid run support ability. Yes im being a homer but I surely am not the only CB with ALOT of tackles from helping the run or making a tackle on another players assignment.
Like I said, looking at stats alone is not an accurate way to diagnose a solid CB. Mine jsut had a game with 9 tackles, 6 of which are run support and 1 was a tackle on another players assignment, stats dont tell the whole story no matter how you look at them.
Example:
62 tackles, 6 INTs, 33 PDs....Atleast 60% of my tackles are in run support.
titanicwin
offline
offline
Originally posted by MattMan Firespot
I agree somewhat, but that formula would not take into account an amount of tackles ammassed form a CB with solid run support ability. Yes im being a homer but I surely am not the only CB with ALOT of tackles from helping the run or making a tackle on another players assignment.
Like I said, looking at stats alone is not an accurate way to diagnose a solid CB. Mine jsut had a game with 9 tackles, 6 of which are run support and 1 was a tackle on another players assignment, stats dont tell the whole story no matter how you look at them.
Example:
62 tackles, 6 INTs, 33 PDs....Atleast 60% of my tackles are in run support.
60% tackles on run support? Yikes. That is an abberation and a definite flaw in my proposed formula, for those rare CBs that do most of their tackling in run support. I figured that mostly would happen on teams with lousy run defense, but apparently it is intentional with your very good team (especially since the AI doesn't process outside runs correctly).
I agree somewhat, but that formula would not take into account an amount of tackles ammassed form a CB with solid run support ability. Yes im being a homer but I surely am not the only CB with ALOT of tackles from helping the run or making a tackle on another players assignment.
Like I said, looking at stats alone is not an accurate way to diagnose a solid CB. Mine jsut had a game with 9 tackles, 6 of which are run support and 1 was a tackle on another players assignment, stats dont tell the whole story no matter how you look at them.
Example:
62 tackles, 6 INTs, 33 PDs....Atleast 60% of my tackles are in run support.
60% tackles on run support? Yikes. That is an abberation and a definite flaw in my proposed formula, for those rare CBs that do most of their tackling in run support. I figured that mostly would happen on teams with lousy run defense, but apparently it is intentional with your very good team (especially since the AI doesn't process outside runs correctly).
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
