Processed: SLC/CAL trade

[JesterBlaze]

I've already stated that it was my mistake for not contacting him. However I don't think he'll renegotiate for an amount that'd fit him on my contract so I just lost out on a slim chance - bad non-attempt, but not franchise threatening.

Regarding him getting the best deal I don't think that can be proved or disproved. I think the field changes DRASTICALLY once the draft class is revealed and he'd have gotten offers at that time. I've told all my potential trading partners so far that I'll make no move until I see the draft class. Makes no sense to me to "rush" a trade a couple of days earlier - but I leave room for sense that I'm just not seeing.

Of course if someone offers me something obviously in my favor then I'll accept in a flash.

"If you can't spot the sucker then it's you!"

[JesterBlaze]

Well I'm a scientific guy myself, so let's go into the numbers to see how your theory plays out:

This immediately nullifies your argument. All you're doing is saying once again that you're a stat guy. This in no way tests HA's theory. It tests HA's past accomplishments via stat tracking, the very style that HA's theory goes against.

HA could be just as bad a GM as any that he received a player off of, and he could use said player just as bad - BUT still be right in his approach of going for attributes instead of past stats.

The game ultimately has to have some type of measurable player ratings - the only question is how closely they're matched by the attributes that we see - so the only answer to this debate is to "get in the guts" of FOF and see how Jim programmed it.

[Hell Atlantic]

Biggs: why are you only looking at QB rating??? it's like you so badly want to prove me wrong that you're clinging on this one stat. just stop. before California he was a guy who would get your 17, 18 tds a year; 15-18 INTs, 70ish QB rating, and 52-55% accruracy. first year in Cali he still gets his 55% accuracy, an explosion in td output, still keeps his INTs to 15 despite attempting the most passes in his career, and tied the lowest amount of sacks he's had. even still, he's been known to attempt 500+ passes, that's actually the norm for him if you can take your focus off the QB rating stat for one minute. you're basing your entire argument on one of the few times he threw less than normal. to be able to match your career high in QB rating, if you insist on locking in on that stat, while attempting 130 more passes is pretty fucking remarkable.

again, which Colella would you rather have - the preHeroes version or the one who had 25/19 td to int, 4k+ passing yards and 300+ completions? you'd probably say "pre Heroes Colella" cuz in 2008 he had 1% higher QB rating.

[Hell Atlantic]

Well I'm a scientific guy myself, so let's go into the numbers to see how your theory plays out:

This immediately nullifies your argument. All you're doing is saying once again that you're a stat guy. This in no way tests HA's theory. It tests HA's past accomplishments via stat tracking, the very style that HA's theory goes against.

HA could be just as bad a GM as any that he received a player off of, and he could use said player just as bad - BUT still be right in his approach of going for attributes instead of past stats.

The game ultimately has to have some type of measurable player ratings - the only question is how closely they're matched by the attributes that we see - so the only answer to this debate is to "get in the guts" of FOF and see how Jim programmed it.

exactly. to go back to Colella - i was looking at the same stats as everyone else. i asked myself if it was wise to aquire a guy who'll have as many ints as tds, only get 70% QB rating and clearly can't handle 500+ attempts. but then that's where Biggs and I differ. cuz i looked at the talent surrounding Colella and said "if i didn't have any real notable WR's, nor have an adequate RB to keep defenses honest, i, too, would put up numbers like that. i knew i would be active in this league and work to assemble a solid roster around Colella, giving him the tools he'd need to succeed. and succeed he has. his ratings were just too over the top to say he was the reason for being mediocre. after his first season with Cali you can't honestly say he's not one of the top 10 QBs in the league. overall ratings-wise he's probably top 5.

there are not many teams that can boast 2 70 rated WRs. Cali is one that can. i think we have a 3 year window now to make some serious noise, and i'm fine with that. in the age of free agency you can't really have a window longer than that anyway. after these two trades we've officially staked our place as one of the 2 best teams in the AC West. it's our time now, changing of the guard.

[JesterBlaze]

[i think we have a 3 year window now to make some serious noise, and i'm fine with that. in the age of free agency you can't really have a window longer than that anyway.

See "Norfolk".

[MrBigglesworth]

Biggs: why are you only looking at QB rating??? it's like you so badly want to prove me wrong that you're clinging on this one stat. just stop. before California he was a guy who would get your 17, 18 tds a year; 15-18 INTs, 70ish QB rating, and 52-55% accruracy.

Years	Comp%	Avg/C	Avg/A	TD:INT	Rating
2007/8	55.7	12.56	6.99	1.46	80
2009	55.4	12.63	7.00	1.67	81

Clearly he is a different player now. His yards per attempt are up 0.01. I don't know what I was thinking!

HA, I think you are seeing a major season from Colella that nobody else is seeing:

um, why isn't [ifl]Dennis Colella[/ifl] not a Breakout Player of the Year candidate? i certainlt think he also deserves to be mentioned at least as an Offensive Player of the Year as well.

LOL & LOL

MrB spelled it out pretty well as to why Colella is not a breakout candidate:

In 2008 Colella had a better completion percentage, better yards per throw, and similar TD/int rating last year (1.4 to 1.6). It's really only the amount of times he has thrown the ball that has given him the better stats, not any increase in efficiency.

And there are 17 (count 'em) quarterbacks with better QB ratings. Not even close, dude.

Colella went DOWN in:

Completion %
Avg yards per attempt
Passer rating

Those are some fundamental QB stats right there.


I've looked at Colella's stats over and over and over again and can't come up with anything better than:

Colella went from a pretty good QB on a non-playoff team to a pretty good QB on a non-playoff team. Gaston went from a quasi-starter on one of the worst teams in the league to setting the YAC season record and coming in second in receiving yards. Maybe I'm taking crazy pills, but Gaston seems more like he fits the bill for a breakout player than Colella.

[sovstar]

FWIW, Colella got ZERO (count'em) votes for Breakout Player of the Year.

[JesterBlaze]

FWIW, Colella got ZERO (count'em) votes for Breakout Player of the Year.

I'm impressed! That's more than I thought. :mrgreen:

[Hell Atlantic]

FWIW, Colella got ZERO (count'em) votes for Breakout Player of the Year.

that's because you decided to put your own guy in (Gaston Williams) and left out Colella.

for the guy in a hurry (ie, no time to read all the posts to see who was pimpin' who) i'm sure they just went by whomever was on that farce of a ballot you put together. out of sight, out of mind. no biggie, i've moved on.

this has been a great, eventful offseason for the Heroes. we've added impact players at 3 positions and Theobold is gonna be cheap compared to what we would've had to pay to land one of the available free agent OT's. all i need now is one more starting OT and then i'll just fill the rest of the roster with cheap plug-ins and rookies. that's how i normally do it in SP.

[sovstar]

That's because you decided to put your own guy in (Gaston Williams) and left out Colella.

Either that or they didn't want to vote for a guy whose efficiency declined.

Maybe next year we can have a Stagnant Player of the Year Award. You can even decide the candidates for it since you're already very good at it.

[Hell Atlantic]

That's because you decided to put your own guy in (Gaston Williams) and left out Colella.

Either that or they didn't want to vote for a guy whose efficiency declined.

Maybe next year we can have a Stagnant Player of the Year Award. You can even decide the candidates for it since you're already very good at it.

next year i'll be busy adding more awesome guys to my team. i'll let you do it, you seem to like not improving your roster and prefer to share your opinions about other people's moves.

[VitoStallion]

SLC ACCEPTS THESE TERMS AND REQUESTS EXECUTION OF THIS TRADE AGREEMENT

8)

[sovstar]

Why trade for guys when I could still help myself during free agency, which by the way has not started? To make a trade is to give something as well as get something. Hopefully none of the guys you've picked up will take ratings hits when free agency actually does start - that'd be a shame.

[VitoStallion]

SLC lost cap room this year: 19.1 million
SLC lost cap room next year: 19.5 million

Yeah, that would be the negative to the whole deal

Probably doesn't have any choice at this point (besides releasing guys for free), but I hope a lesson was learned.

Yeah, don't try to go for it all...and draft to fit your scheme. Blah Blah Blah

[JesterBlaze]

next year i'll be busy adding more awesome guys to my team.

Are we getting a $20M cap increase that I don't know of?