Richmond is ahead of you because they have ripped off 12 straight and have beaten you. You have lost 2 of your last 6 including losing to them. Why is this confusing?
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > and then there were 5
TDiddy8701
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Richmond is ahead of you because they have ripped off 12 straight and have beaten you. You have lost 2 of your last 6 including losing to them. Why is this confusing?
then why isn't DA ahead of Richmond... they have less losses and hammered Richmond H2H
Richmond is ahead of you because they have ripped off 12 straight and have beaten you. You have lost 2 of your last 6 including losing to them. Why is this confusing?
then why isn't DA ahead of Richmond... they have less losses and hammered Richmond H2H
Galithor
offline
offline
DA took a pretty bad loss to Inner City relatively recently. None of Richmond's losses were bad, and it's been awhile since they happened.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by TDiddy8701
then why isn't DA ahead of Richmond... they have less losses and hammered Richmond H2H
ICK loss plus the latest opponents most likely. That late opponent draw is huge. Ashland might not have won rookie last season all because No Name drew the better opponent for the final ladder game.
then why isn't DA ahead of Richmond... they have less losses and hammered Richmond H2H
ICK loss plus the latest opponents most likely. That late opponent draw is huge. Ashland might not have won rookie last season all because No Name drew the better opponent for the final ladder game.
jfbueno
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galithor
DA took a pretty bad loss to Inner City relatively recently. None of Richmond's losses were bad, and it's been awhile since they happened.
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
DA took a pretty bad loss to Inner City relatively recently. None of Richmond's losses were bad, and it's been awhile since they happened.
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
TDiddy8701
offline
offline
Originally posted by jfbueno
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
both richmond and DA have got crushed in a game this season...
Actually Madison is the only top 5 team to not get beat easily in a game this season
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
both richmond and DA have got crushed in a game this season...
Actually Madison is the only top 5 team to not get beat easily in a game this season
USC_Trojans
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
So we can make Closing Speed useless too?
The reality is there shouldnt be an sa that lets a wlb or a fs get to a ball carrier on a strong sweep or pitch before he can get to the ls. Its basically first step on steriods right now. So if its a better version of an already existing sa then yes it needs adjustments.
So we can make Closing Speed useless too?
The reality is there shouldnt be an sa that lets a wlb or a fs get to a ball carrier on a strong sweep or pitch before he can get to the ls. Its basically first step on steriods right now. So if its a better version of an already existing sa then yes it needs adjustments.
Rob.
offline
offline
ELO doesn't care about a close loss or a blowout. A loss is a loss.
DA and Richmond have been neck and neck the past few games and the team with the tougher opponent jumps ahead. DA is in the worst vet league and that is really hurting us.
DA and Richmond have been neck and neck the past few games and the team with the tougher opponent jumps ahead. DA is in the worst vet league and that is really hurting us.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by USC_Trojans
The reality is there shouldnt be an sa that lets a wlb or a fs get to a ball carrier on a strong sweep or pitch before he can get to the ls. Its basically first step on steriods right now. So if its a better version of an already existing sa then yes it needs adjustments.
You make it an SA like you are claiming to want and it will never be taken. The entire reason to take the SA is to use high pursuit to reach the ball carrier ASAP. If the stipulations become after he gets beyond you its pretty much useless 90% of the time.
The reality is there shouldnt be an sa that lets a wlb or a fs get to a ball carrier on a strong sweep or pitch before he can get to the ls. Its basically first step on steriods right now. So if its a better version of an already existing sa then yes it needs adjustments.
You make it an SA like you are claiming to want and it will never be taken. The entire reason to take the SA is to use high pursuit to reach the ball carrier ASAP. If the stipulations become after he gets beyond you its pretty much useless 90% of the time.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Rob.
ELO doesn't care about a close loss or a blowout. A loss is a loss.
DA and Richmond have been neck and neck the past few games and the team with the tougher opponent jumps ahead. DA is in the worst vet league and that is really hurting us.
Exactly. Throw out anything as far as margin of victory because the ELO doesn't care. Makes things far more interesting.
ELO doesn't care about a close loss or a blowout. A loss is a loss.
DA and Richmond have been neck and neck the past few games and the team with the tougher opponent jumps ahead. DA is in the worst vet league and that is really hurting us.
Exactly. Throw out anything as far as margin of victory because the ELO doesn't care. Makes things far more interesting.
Danthesportsman
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
You make it an SA like you are claiming to want and it will never be taken. The entire reason to take the SA is to use high pursuit to reach the ball carrier ASAP. If the stipulations become after he gets beyond you its pretty much useless 90% of the time.
Exactly what I was thinking. If it only fires once the runner is already past you it becomes pretty worthless.
You make it an SA like you are claiming to want and it will never be taken. The entire reason to take the SA is to use high pursuit to reach the ball carrier ASAP. If the stipulations become after he gets beyond you its pretty much useless 90% of the time.
Exactly what I was thinking. If it only fires once the runner is already past you it becomes pretty worthless.
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by jfbueno
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
margin of victory is irrelevant. Opponents # of marbles is all that mattered.
I'd consider a 52-7 loss as "bad" regardless of opponent let alone it being to the team they just jumped ahead of
margin of victory is irrelevant. Opponents # of marbles is all that mattered.
peeti
offline
offline
I think even someone stupid like jfb knows that by now.
Guess he was referring to the phrase "bad loss" in general. The Elo system is the elo system, so it is what it is. But in terms of "our" ranks it is ok to say that those blowouts should be counted as "bad losses"
Guess he was referring to the phrase "bad loss" in general. The Elo system is the elo system, so it is what it is. But in terms of "our" ranks it is ok to say that those blowouts should be counted as "bad losses"
jfbueno
offline
offline
Originally posted by peeti
I think even someone stupid like jfb knows that by now.
Guess he was referring to the phrase "bad loss" in general. The Elo system is the elo system, so it is what it is. But in terms of "our" ranks it is ok to say that those blowouts should be counted as "bad losses"
Hey look the village idiot decided to chime in. Glad you got your 2 cents out of the way. And for the record yes, I know ELO doesn't care how you win or lose. Just in my eyes I consider a 52-7 loss as "bad".
I think even someone stupid like jfb knows that by now.
Guess he was referring to the phrase "bad loss" in general. The Elo system is the elo system, so it is what it is. But in terms of "our" ranks it is ok to say that those blowouts should be counted as "bad losses"
Hey look the village idiot decided to chime in. Glad you got your 2 cents out of the way. And for the record yes, I know ELO doesn't care how you win or lose. Just in my eyes I consider a 52-7 loss as "bad".
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
