no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Lottery? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:06:52 (ID: 43482) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
Losing on purpose is always a terrible idea. Anyone who would submit to this strategy has lost all, and I mean ALL respect from me. The reason being, they are the ones who try to work the system instead of just playing the game. There is no honor in that, there is no glory, and there is only a possible marginal gain in it. You have my voice. I totally agree with you. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:20:13 (ID: 43483) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
That strategy is indeed terrible. You lose on purpose so you have the possibility of drafting slightly better players? I say possibility because the draft board isn't predictable at all, not even close, regardless of the league level. The best QB I perceived in 1.1 dragons last season was Blaze who was drafted by, I think Zaragoza, midway through the first round. That is just one example of many. Perhaps you valued Blaze differently than I did, another factor to consider. Blaze ?? !! Blaze wasn't even top 3 in QB's. sfniner08 wrote:
Losing on purpose is always a terrible idea. Anyone who would submit to this strategy has lost all, and I mean ALL respect from me. The reason being, they are the ones who try to work the system instead of just playing the game. There is no honor in that, there is no glory, and there is only a possible marginal gain in it. So .. do you class teams that have been in existence for a long time and are still in 2.x as "Losing on purpose" ? ..... have a look around at some of the 2.x leagues, you'd be amazed how many teams there are down there looking like they don't want to go to 1.1 ....it all comes back to incentives to promote to 1.1 and incentives to stay in 1.1 ... there are none. And check out some of the promotion/relegation games in 2.x and some of the play-off games in 2.x, there are plenty of teams that are not promoting intentionally ....either there is a problem or maybe I'm just imagining it. Last edited on 2012-06-04 19:21:26 by sh8888 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
cantalupe
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:25:15 (ID: 43484) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
That strategy is indeed terrible. You lose on purpose so you have the possibility of drafting slightly better players? I say possibility because the draft board isn't predictable at all, not even close, regardless of the league level. The best QB I perceived in 1.1 dragons last season was Blaze who was drafted by, I think Zaragoza, midway through the first round. That is just one example of many. Perhaps you valued Blaze differently than I did, another factor to consider. Blaze ?? !! Blaze wasn't even top 3 in QB's. Looks like we have a problem here. Post his stats, let the community decide 
To stay on topic. I don't know..if you're having a bad season it's reasonable to try and get good picks, NFL teams do it too. Now when it comes to relegating that's more of a problem for me, so what I'd do is financial incentives for 1.1. as a whole, not just the top teams. Tho that leaves losing games and staying in 1.1. problem, but you can't have everything  Last edited on 2012-06-04 19:25:36 by cantalupe |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
huskerbrave
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:40:33 (ID: 43487) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
That strategy is indeed terrible. You lose on purpose so you have the possibility of drafting slightly better players? I say possibility because the draft board isn't predictable at all, not even close, regardless of the league level. The best QB I perceived in 1.1 dragons last season was Blaze who was drafted by, I think Zaragoza, midway through the first round. That is just one example of many. Perhaps you valued Blaze differently than I did, another factor to consider. Blaze ?? !! Blaze wasn't even top 3 in QB's. I think he means 2 drafts ago, not last draft |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:40:51 (ID: 43488) Report Abuse |
|
cantalupe wrote:
so what I'd do is financial incentives for 1.1. as a whole, not just the top teams. Tho that leaves losing games and staying in 1.1. problem, but you can't have everything This Thread in the Suggestions forum was all about incentives to stay in 1.1 but the suggestions seemed to be both totally criticised and universally loathed. Therefore I came to one of two conclusions ....either there is no problem (I must be imagining it) ... or ... there is a problem but everybody is happy to accept it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-06-04 19:44:07 (ID: 43489) Report Abuse |
|
huskerbrave wrote:
sh8888 wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
That strategy is indeed terrible. You lose on purpose so you have the possibility of drafting slightly better players? I say possibility because the draft board isn't predictable at all, not even close, regardless of the league level. The best QB I perceived in 1.1 dragons last season was Blaze who was drafted by, I think Zaragoza, midway through the first round. That is just one example of many. Perhaps you valued Blaze differently than I did, another factor to consider. Blaze ?? !! Blaze wasn't even top 3 in QB's. I think he means 2 drafts ago, not last draft In the last 1.1 Dragons draft there was a QB called Blaže Nikolovski . I'm guessing he meant that guy. I'm not sure why he was called Blaze, because he certainly didn't set anything alight for me when I scouted him  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-06-04 20:02:03 (ID: 43496) Report Abuse |
|
I liked Blaze best because he had the same static skills (intell, talent, and tw) as the other top qb's. He was behind by about 11 sp from the top qb in terms of relevant skills. The thing is he was 2 years younger. He was 19 while the qb with top skills was 21. You can gain about 10 sp per season (that is my general rule of thumb). So although he was behind by 11 sp, by the time he reached the same age as the other qb he would have gained 20 and been ahead of that qb by 9 sp. The reason the other qb has higher sp was his physicals.
Blaze had the most potential out of the entire group. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-06-04 20:05:02 (ID: 43498) Report Abuse |
|
The choice to not win and stay in 2.X is a matter of character, and I question those that would choose to do so. Why play the game if you don't play to win.
I see no problem existing right now. They punish themselves already by losing. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-06-04 20:13:07 (ID: 43500) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
I liked Blaze best because he had the same static skills (intell, talent, and tw) as the other top qb's. He was behind by about 11 sp from the top qb in terms of relevant skills. The thing is he was 2 years younger. He was 19 while the qb with top skills was 21. You can gain about 10 sp per season (that is my general rule of thumb). So although he was behind by 11 sp, by the time he reached the same age as the other qb he would have gained 20 and been ahead of that qb by 9 sp. The reason the other qb has higher sp was his physicals. Blaze had the most potential out of the entire group. Potential ? That QB had strength of 35.7 If that was capped, I don't call that potential .... I call that a waste of a Draft Pick. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-06-04 20:23:25 (ID: 43503) Report Abuse |
|
If you make the assumption all draft players are capped then yes. I would say it was much more likely that the 21 year old at 42 strength was capped than blaze. Say he was capped at 42 and blaze had no caps. Which one would you choose then?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Lottery? | |
