Dropped a fair amount of knowledge at FOFC today.

[jeffrey]

The only reason it isn't "QB-WR-WR" is because the latest patch emphasized QB bars that don't contribute nearly as much to overall rating. Thus, QBs that are rated 40 with high SR/AC, etc. are nearly as good as an 80-rated QB.

It's still the same old idea, though; duck-n-chuck with top-notch WRs.

The problem is, as Hammer has already pointed out, that you eventually run into a stout defense and it doesn't work any more. Hammer and I have had our differences, but his run-heavy teams are much harder to beat than his qb-WR-WR teams (qb in lowercase as a concession to your point about qbs being deemphasized now).

Also, we all have teams that have had great success, so yours doesn't convince me that any strategy you employ is golden because of it. Appeals to authority as a form of argument got debunked and tossed aside in the Enlightenment (circa 1650).

As for gaming the passing game and TC, the passing game bit is spot on I'm sure for that sort of system. You also imply, however, that it's the supreme system. I'm not so sure. The short game is greatly improved, and I think one could achieve similar results with a short game and receivers high in GD rather than BP (as Hammer already alluded to). I really can't say about the TC info, but if it isn't common knowledge, then I'm surprised.

All this isn't to say that this info isn't extremely helpful for those new to the game, but I think you are hyping it as a bit more than that.

[Kobeck]

appreciate the links and the work/research behind it.

I'm not taking sides but having Schwartz as QB has not resulted in the outcomes I would have expected. This year is looking a little better, but its still early. I remember collapsing a couple of seasons ago.

Back on topic. Thanks for sharing and I will keep it in mind even if I don't go all in with it.

[JesterBlaze]

Phantoms data for ya.

woops

[SkyDog]

The only reason it isn't "QB-WR-WR" is because the latest patch emphasized QB bars that don't contribute nearly as much to overall rating. Thus, QBs that are rated 40 with high SR/AC, etc. are nearly as good as an 80-rated QB.

It's still the same old idea, though; duck-n-chuck with top-notch WRs.

The problem is, as Hammer has already pointed out, that you eventually run into a stout defense and it doesn't work any more. Hammer and I have had our differences, but his run-heavy teams are much harder to beat than his qb-WR-WR teams (qb in lowercase as a concession to your point about qbs being deemphasized now).

Also, we all have teams that have had great success, so yours doesn't convince me that any strategy you employ is golden because of it. Appeals to authority as a form of argument got debunked and tossed aside in the Enlightenment (circa 1650).

As for gaming the passing game and TC, the passing game bit is spot on I'm sure for that sort of system. You also imply, however, that it's the supreme system. I'm not so sure. The short game is greatly improved, and I think one could achieve similar results with a short game and receivers high in GD rather than BP (as Hammer already alluded to). I really can't say about the TC info, but if it isn't common knowledge, then I'm surprised.

All this isn't to say that this info isn't extremely helpful for those new to the game, but I think you are hyping it as a bit more than that.

The system *is* run-heavy (at least while the game is close). That's what's different from many of the past pass-happy systems. The bonus to passing for running, plus all the other shenanigans, make it overpowered. I've had a few league rushing champions using the Run-N-Stun. (The 63-TD guy had a RB lead the league in rushing, as a matter of fact...)

As far as overhyping it, I'm getting bored. Of the four leagues I pay attention to, three are in the playoffs, and the fourth is coming to the close of the regular season this week. Three of those teams are #1 seeds, the fourth is a #2 and gets to play a team who lost their QB in the previous week. It's very likely all four are going to at least the Conference Championship, all using identical offensive and defensive game plans. I quit a fifth league because I'd gone to four straight bowls. I joined a new league and have lost interest rather quickly because I've found myself doing the same ol' same ol', and my team beginning the inevitable march to the same place as all the others. 63 TD passes by a 61/61 QB in his second year was the tipping point, but this has been a long time coming, to be sure. So any hype is because I want people to understand all the things I do and do them. That might force me to have to do something else. *shurg*

[Kozure]

Girls, girls. Why don't u settle this dispute like men. There is an opening in Arizona in the RNFL. Both of you vaginas will be in the same division.

[VitoStallion]

Girls, girls. Why don't u settle this dispute like men. There is an opening in Arizona in the RNFL. Both of you vaginas will be in the same division.

Either way SOME of this information was new to me so I enjoyed the post!

Thanks



...and it looks like those wide receivers I got are good for my offensive approach and that's good enough for me