Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Narasimha
"if" you know so much about FB, then you would know every HB would love to have a decent FB infront of him.

Except the all-time leading NFL rusher Emmitt Smith. He gained all those yards with any help from any stupid fullbacks.

Well, except Moose.

But really, gotta go with chronic here cuz he knows all about football, and Moose had absolutely nothing to do with Emmitt getting any of those yards.

I'll be making a S* FB next season.

Originally posted by Xavori
Except the all-time leading NFL rusher Emmitt Smith. He gained all those yards with any help from any stupid fullbacks.

Well, except Moose.

But really, gotta go with chronic here cuz he knows all about football, and Moose had absolutely nothing to do with Emmitt getting any of those yards.

Please correct me if I am wrong but where did I state that fullbacks have no importance in terms of running the football?
I don't think that you, or anybody is understanding what I am asking.
As I've stated before, I know that fullbacks are important in the running game, yes. My question has been ARE THEY ON THE SAME LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE AS A WR?
My answer is no.
Since we are using NFL teams, can you honestly tell me you know who Matt Forte's FB is? Or Marshawn Lynch? Off of the top of your head?

One last question. If you answered yes to a fullback being on the same importance level as a WR, or CB, why is the highest paid FB $3.9 million? Hell, most of these guys aren't even making one million.

So once again, the argument that I was making was why am I being forced to choose between creating a WR or FB?

You keep using 'public knowledge level' to support your point. That is meaningless.

I don't know the names of the Bears/Seahawks Fullbacks because the announcers never say them during the games...that has very little to do with 'importance' - and a lot to do with announcers constantly trying to reinforce the star players during a broadcast as it is the faces of the franchise who carry the NFL.

Some FB's get a decent amount of air time - Vonte Leach was with the Texans for a few seasons (ravens now I think) - and he is one of the TOP fullbacks in the league - and he does indeed get a lot of mentions on the air.

In the NFL - yes - Calvin Johnson is WAY more valuable than Vonte Leach. In GLB however...depending on the way you run your team - you can force the ball to your superstar FB or you can force your superstar FB to be lead blocking on every play if you want - I am not aware of a way to FORCE the ball to your superstar WR every play...

Conclusion: Is a superstar WR always more valuable than a superstar FB? absolutely not. Sometimes - maybe. It depends on what you're doing with them.

Originally posted by TxSteve
You keep using 'public knowledge level' to support your point. That is meaningless.

I don't know the names of the Bears/Seahawks Fullbacks because the announcers never say them during the games...that has very little to do with 'importance' - and a lot to do with announcers constantly trying to reinforce the star players during a broadcast as it is the faces of the franchise who carry the NFL.

Some FB's get a decent amount of air time - Vonte Leach was with the Texans for a few seasons (ravens now I think) - and he is one of the TOP fullbacks in the league - and he does indeed get a lot of mentions on the air.

In the NFL - yes - Calvin Johnson is WAY more valuable than Vonte Leach. In GLB however...depending on the way you run your team - you can force the ball to your superstar FB or you can force your superstar FB to be lead blocking on every play if you want - I am not aware of a way to FORCE the ball to your superstar WR every play...

Conclusion: Is a superstar WR always more valuable than a superstar FB? absolutely not. Sometimes - maybe. It depends on what you're doing with them.

First post that actually made sense in answering my question, thanks.
In terms of GLB, do you not think they should be on the same tier as offensive linemen though?

I haven't thought much about it - but my first instinct is NO I do not think FB's are in line with o lineman.

O lineman: Block

Fullback: Block or Run the ball or catch the ball (depending on build and scheme)


Which one seems more versatile and important to you?

Originally posted by TxSteve
I haven't thought much about it - but my first instinct is NO I do not think FB's are in line with o lineman.

O lineman: Block

Fullback: Block or Run the ball or catch the ball (depending on build and scheme)


Which one seems more versatile and important to you?

which is why they are at the same price, they do the same thing WR's do.

Originally posted by TxSteve
I haven't thought much about it - but my first instinct is NO I do not think FB's are in line with o lineman.

O lineman: Block

Fullback: Block or Run the ball or catch the ball (depending on build and scheme)


Which one seems more versatile and important to you?

A FB might be more versatile, but if your O-line sucks your team will suck.
So for importance let's be serious. I would have to go with offensive linemen. Running out of the singleback has been very successful for some teams.

Originally posted by chronic23
A FB might be more versatile, but if your O-line sucks your team will suck.

your logic is awful.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
your logic is awful.

Maybe so, but o linemen are still more important

A SS FB is a much smaller salary cap hit than a SS WR. Probably a good SS KR/PR option tbqh.

Originally posted by chronic23
Maybe so, but o linemen are still more important

what the hell does that have to do with the price?

There is 1 maybe 2 FBs per team.... How many OL? Anywhere from 8 to 10.
How many roles can FBs have? Possibly 4.... How many can OL have? 1....

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
what the hell does that have to do with the price?

There is 1 maybe 2 FBs per team.... How many OL? Anywhere from 8 to 10.
How many roles can FBs have? Possibly 4.... How many can OL have? 1....


Aren't they priced accordingly?

Shouldn't having 8-10 OL tell you how important they are to a team? That's a little under 1/4 of your whole roster spots. I don't see how that statement was in your favor

Edit-it's cool though, we don't have to keep going back and forth. I guess I'm on the minority here.

Um, you need 8-10 OL because the rules of football require that you have at least 5 on the field at all times maybe? You aren't required to field a single FB.

The roster count has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the position. Obviously. It has to do with who is required to be on the field and backups for said starters because they get tired playing every down.

Originally posted by chronic23
Aren't they priced accordingly?

Shouldn't having 8-10 OL tell you how important they are to a team? That's a little under 1/4 of your whole roster spots. I don't see how that statement was in your favor

Edit-it's cool though, we don't have to keep going back and forth. I guess I'm on the minority here.

you're right, they should make OL 100FP, cause it's 100 on glb, and look how hard it is finding them over there, 50 is ok with me, what's the real reason you're bitching about this?