Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Sov.
idk this is a pretty inaccurate way of trying to determine the best coaches

however, that being said, pretty sure BB may have the best ratio so apparently we are "the best" lol. im too lazy to do my own breakdown but feel free to do it yourselves

Think it just gets you to number 2

Originally posted by Jagat0r
Again this goes along the lines of if your not winning gold trophies then your team sucks, coaches know nothing and your players are built wrong. Its the same crap standard set in this forum on several other posts. Im with sov. at this point, hes the only undefeated ever so everyone else sucks including me.

guy with no gold trophies is outraged that someone thinks gold trophies are an indicator of game knowledge / game play.

noted.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Thanks....

humility noted.

As has been mentioned in other threads here I think, some people consider networking and 'being someone that people want to or are willing to work with' as being an important skill. So you don't do defense. That's ok. You covered up for that efficiency by being a guy who those DCs were willing to work with. In addition, they were willing to work with you because they knew you'd run a good/fun/competitive/whatever team (I assume).

That's why the owners analysis in my opinion is decent. It doesn't break down best oc/dc/whatever. But it does show complete package.

Also (this is not directed at you) - I'm laughing at the people saying "wins and losses shouldn't be an indicator of how good someone is at the game". Is this what our culture is coming to? Is this the GLB-YMCA?


If someone builds a great team and then builds a team that isn't successful. I'm sorry, the whole record matters. Otherwise someone could say "I really only tried in season 10 so let's throw everything else out". You got lightning in a bottle with one team then sucked ass with another? Bad news: that blemish affects you.

This was cool to look up.. As it stands - mine is 4 trophies to 447 games as an owner, which is 1:111...

Taking out the 2 seasons I was full CPU and away from the game where I had 1-29 and 0-30 seasons - it's still around 1:95.

My first run with D'Hara would of had me up there, i've taken time from that to do the NBN challenge and it's gone pretty well but no trophies, D'Hara 2.0 starts up next season tho

Can anyone beat FairForever's winning percentage?

274-42
86.7% Winning Percentage

Just curious if anyone has a better percentage. Minimum 100 wins.

And yes I know that the rest of this thread is only comparing owner records.

I also laid low for a long time before jumping in to ownership while others tested unknown waters as owners. The best owners will be well networked whether they OC, DC or do both typically (some fund whole teams solo but I prefer to have many agents on a team). Networking is important for many reasons as some may need a quality OC or DC or even both and you will also want quality agents on your team that you feel will last through veteran ball (this is not every owners intention and not all agents make it for the long haul). Additionally, owners that are organized and have a detailed plan laid out in advance (player initial builds at each position, roster salary, and player progression goals through tiers) are going to increase the likelihood of competing for the #1 ladder spot. There are many things that go in to creating a top tier team and most of it is done before the team is even owned if you are doing it right. Being knowledgable or knowing people who are knowledgable with builds is very helpful. Recruiting would be the next step after all of the groundwork is done and you know exactly what the team's offensive and defensive philosophies are and you have constructed a roster within the salary limitations with quality builds. Networking obviously is going to help with recruiting as well. I would not base everything off of records but I would consider records and especially trophies as a strong indicator. Some folks that have .500 records or even lower may be just as knowledgable as somebody batting 1.000. The difference is that the guy batting 1.000 will stand out as an obviously knowledgable or well networked guy. There are plenty of people who may not have dedicated as much time to the game a while back but after a few rough seasons they may have decided to dive in to the forums and engage in many conversations with known top tier guys and may be as knowledgable as anybody here. There are still some conceptual builds and things to be tried and the game does get adjusted every season as well which may help or hurt your team. Anybody that puts in the time can be solid though.

I compliment the idea behind the OP. If you're new to GLB2, it would be nice to know the better information sources.

I think your list is representative of everyone as long as you understand their strengths and weaknesses. Most of the people on your list should be listened to. The key is to understand their strengths/weaknesses/bias. People not on the list should generate more initial skepticism possibly, but can still have thoughtful comments, so they shouldn't be discarded.

What's best is to read everything and then test out what you tend to agree with. Then check if it does work as intended. If so, go back and look at the advocates and give them some mental props, if not look at who was critical and re-examine their arguments.

(People think I'm this Pass happy O guy, but I try not to be. I try not to have a bias in the Passsing vs Running argument. However, I clearly understand Passing better than Running. Could I have built a worse Run O than I have with SCO? I find it hard to believe. At this point, I'm just taking the entire experiment to Vet simply to show myself how God awful it is.)

So people have intent bias and they also have understanding bias. And probably a few more if I really thought about it.

The first key is to understand your own and then work with a few people who have the same goal as you, yet different biases as long as you understand what they are. Gaining multiple perspectives ramps up your learning curve.

Oh and IMHO Rob is the best DC in the game. I doubt that's really in dispute. I don't think there's a close second, though many others are very very good.

And DC is probably 80% of this game.

Originally posted by air raid

Galactic Empiree
0 gold trophies
201 games owned
0:201



It's all about to change...

Originally posted by air raid
guy with no gold trophies is outraged that someone thinks gold trophies are an indicator of game knowledge / game play.

noted.

Guy with no nothing evaluating anything. noted. Im not outraged I just think your standards are stupid. There have been many great coaches in the NFL and NCAA who never brought home the trophy or only brought 1 or 2 home in long careers. I dont have any gold trophies because I am still on my first run as an owner with a team that I didnt preplan, built through the marketplace and free agency, and thats been in a league with 2 of the best teams in the tier since rookie. Still we improve steadily every season, and Im pretty simply learning the game still myself. Have no doubt that not being called a good coach doesnt upset me, its just stupidity in any form that annoys me.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Anybody that puts in the time can be solid though.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Galactic Empire
0 gold trophies
201 games owned
0:201

Myth-busted
http://media.giphy.com/media/NDtizUq0aaG6k/giphy.gif

LOL.... would love to see my 'numbers'

Honestly youd have to go back and look at every team i actually competively coach and which were project teams (quiet a few). I gave up keeping track and carring cause i pick up at least 2-3 teams who run a lot of new agents and help the team do decently to encourage them to keep playing. So its really hard to actually sort through the teams that were big league teams.

Originally posted by Jagat0r
...

I hear ya.

What I'm saying: as a new player I am reading the opinions and beliefs of Gary Kubiak and Gus Bradley right along side the opinions and beliefs of Bill Bellicek and Pete Carrol.

You seem to be saying 'they are all probably very good to great coaches who have something to offer'.
I'm saying: Think I'd rather just know who is who so I can subscribe to Bill and Pete without wasting time or mind power on Gary or Gus who haven't won anything which makes their opinions suspect.

We can agree to disagree. That's ok.

I do personally find it compelling that many of the most prolific posters and many of the most prolific arguers and many of the people who go around stating definitively how the game works are pretty low on my thrown together list.

GE is a great coach and I thank him for letting me be a part of his legendary empire. When all the dust has settled, we will go from worst to first!