|
Post by Jay Cutler on Feb 17, 2010 22:09:14 GMT -5
Marty has worked hard on this game so far. So if you're not going to give an effort to be active please resign now. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Nnamdi Asomugha on Feb 17, 2010 23:31:02 GMT -5
Kewl beans
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 18, 2010 2:51:32 GMT -5
There should be more activity. Don't understand why people wouldn't be more excited for a fball league.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cutler on Feb 18, 2010 3:23:21 GMT -5
There should be more activity. Don't understand why people wouldn't be more excited for a fball league. word, im pretty shocked at the lack of activity at the moment....Not a lot of guys are giving suggestions and so on...
|
|
|
Post by Joshua Freeman on Feb 18, 2010 9:38:48 GMT -5
the chiefs and browns quit too?
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Willis on Feb 18, 2010 11:30:42 GMT -5
The ratings have really killed excitement. No one gets it.
|
|
|
Post by Joshua Freeman on Feb 18, 2010 11:36:25 GMT -5
There are now two threads discussing ratings.
You guys are looking at a player's overall for no reason at all. There is no overall rating in FBB, there are individual categories in FBB. That is what people need to look at, if a QB is rated a 67 overall yet has 90 arm 90 intelligence and 90 accuracy that means he's a pretty darn good QB.
100 means you are in the top 10 at your position 50 means you are solid and 0 means you are pretty bad. There are some overrated guys in the game but because your player is rated 67 overall is actually pretty good.
I think people need to take the time and read the rules pages and take a look at the game's website to find out information.
|
|
|
Post by Joshua Freeman on Feb 18, 2010 11:42:13 GMT -5
The ratings have really killed excitement. No one gets it. Honestly, that hasn't been the complaint I've been hearing people who were confused I've tried explaining it to them and directed them to the threads explaining the ratings. The people who aren't active now, haven't been since the start.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Willis on Feb 18, 2010 11:45:31 GMT -5
k.
I for one am much less excited. Not only does it just not make sense that so many ratings completely fluctuated, but its also much more work to try and value players. I mean my team has like 5 guys rated over 80. Before it had like 10-12. SO the overall doesnt matter, that means I have to scroll up and down to look at things like run and pass blocking and strength for OL. Speed and Hands for WR's. Its just more difficult and therefore much easier for me not to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Joshua Freeman on Feb 18, 2010 11:50:01 GMT -5
Who says overall is irrelevant though?
Alex Smith is overall 47 which he should be as he in real life had one decent season and is a middle of the line QB. People rated near 50 are just that average.
Players rated closer to 100 are pretty damn good, so if you have someone rated 70 and above that means he's a better than average player.
Overall rating truly means that, overall rating throughout the league so when players come through the draft and/or retire ratings will fluctuate accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Willis on Feb 18, 2010 11:53:30 GMT -5
Who says overall is irrelevant though? Alex Smith is overall 47 which he should be as he in real life had one decent season and is a middle of the line QB. People rated near 50 are just that average. Players rated closer to 100 are pretty damn good, so if you have someone rated 70 and above that means he's a better than average player. Overall rating truly means that, overall rating throughout the league so when players come through the draft and/or retire ratings will fluctuate accordingly. You tell us not to look at overall. That implies its irrelevant. Whatever. IDC at this point.
|
|
zyme
Rookie
Arizona Cardinals
Posts: 50
|
Post by zyme on Feb 18, 2010 12:13:46 GMT -5
Looking at overall in not exactly irreverent, but it is misleading. You could have one player that is a 60 and be very useful, but he could be the 2nd best player at that position if the #1 was that much better.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Willis on Feb 18, 2010 12:16:39 GMT -5
Looking at overall in not exactly irreverent, but it is misleading. You could have one player that is a 60 and be very useful, but he could be the 2nd best player at that position if the #1 was that much better. I understand it, but to me the basis of the whole system leads it to be uninteresting.
|
|
|
Post by Joshua Freeman on Feb 18, 2010 12:20:10 GMT -5
I'm completely the opposite I love this ranking system.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Willis on Feb 18, 2010 12:39:42 GMT -5
I hope it works. I have very little faith when my 2 best players went from 90+ to 81.
|
|