mrfortune3:  So, let me ask:  is the real point about production?  Or about his STR rating?  Or combination of these items?  I would just like to understand the full thought process.
10/4/2013 7:03 AM
I'd start QB  # 1 and I myself run a not so shabby Air Colorado attack that's brought me to 3 straight national championship games passing 98% of the time.
10/6/2013 12:08 AM
#2 AINEC.

When I evaluate QB's it's...Tech>>>GI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Str/Ath.

Now throw in he's a Fresh who will get better....
10/7/2013 12:55 PM
Posted by damauler12 on 10/7/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
#2 AINEC.

When I evaluate QB's it's...Tech>>>GI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Str/Ath.

Now throw in he's a Fresh who will get better....
I'm assuming AINEC means "and it's not even close."  Lol...sorry, don't know that lingo.

So I'm curious Damauler, how is it not close?  I ran some numbers on excel just for fun and I cannot come up with a formula where it's not close using your evaluation criteria.  Even if you did Tech only there's only a 4 point difference.  That's not close?  Even an avg of just Tech and GI is 71.5 each.   Below are some formula's I put together to illustrate that it is close unless you disregard Str or Athl but you clearly rank Str and Athl close to equal.

  Athl Str GI Tech Avg Tech / GI Weighting Damauler Formula Tech/GI/Athl/No Str My Formula Tech / GI Only
QB 1 71 71 68 75 71.25 71.4 71.95 72.1 71.35 71.5
QB 2 82 52 64 79 69.25 70.6 71.2 75.1 68.65 71.5
                     
Tech / GI Heavey weighting: (Tech *.04)+(GI*.4)+(Ath*.1)*(Str*.1)    
Damauler Formula: (Tech*.5)+(GI*.35)+(Str*.1)+(Athl*.05)      
Tech/GI/Athl/No Str: (Tech*.5)+(GI*.3)+(Athl*.2)        
                     
Escobar 60 46 88 88 70.5 81 82.4 82.4 76.8 88
Cunningham 62 63 80 91 74 80.9 82.9 81.9 78.65 85.5

  So who are you starting at Texas?  Escobar or Cunningham?
10/7/2013 5:09 PM
Yes...that's what it means.

It's not close, because you have a choice between two players with very similar cores...and one is a Sr. and one a Fr. Since in the "short term", I'd expect these two players to perform about the same...going w/ the younger player is easily the right answer due to how much he will benefit from the growth etc.

Also...I redshirt every QB I recruit, so in your case I wouldn't even be thinking of which one to start. I'd start the Sr. and get 4 years of the Fr.* next.

Your formula's aren't quite correct for me...but I will keep those a secret! As for Escobar & Cunningham...they are the 2 BEST QB's I have ever recruited. I'm totally bummed that I got them 1 year apart instead of 4. That being said...Escobar gets the nod...but it's reallllllllly close.
10/7/2013 6:29 PM
Posted by damauler12 on 10/7/2013 6:29:00 PM (view original):
Yes...that's what it means.

It's not close, because you have a choice between two players with very similar cores...and one is a Sr. and one a Fr. Since in the "short term", I'd expect these two players to perform about the same...going w/ the younger player is easily the right answer due to how much he will benefit from the growth etc.

Also...I redshirt every QB I recruit, so in your case I wouldn't even be thinking of which one to start. I'd start the Sr. and get 4 years of the Fr.* next.

Your formula's aren't quite correct for me...but I will keep those a secret! As for Escobar & Cunningham...they are the 2 BEST QB's I have ever recruited. I'm totally bummed that I got them 1 year apart instead of 4. That being said...Escobar gets the nod...but it's reallllllllly close.
If they're so close then it's not "not even close"...lol. 

But, using your logic, wouldn't it be better to RS the Fr QB and start the SR?  That way you'd get a little more growth from the FR and get to use the "slighly" better QB this season?
10/7/2013 7:08 PM
Posted by bullfrog333 on 10/7/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by damauler12 on 10/7/2013 6:29:00 PM (view original):
Yes...that's what it means.

It's not close, because you have a choice between two players with very similar cores...and one is a Sr. and one a Fr. Since in the "short term", I'd expect these two players to perform about the same...going w/ the younger player is easily the right answer due to how much he will benefit from the growth etc.

Also...I redshirt every QB I recruit, so in your case I wouldn't even be thinking of which one to start. I'd start the Sr. and get 4 years of the Fr.* next.

Your formula's aren't quite correct for me...but I will keep those a secret! As for Escobar & Cunningham...they are the 2 BEST QB's I have ever recruited. I'm totally bummed that I got them 1 year apart instead of 4. That being said...Escobar gets the nod...but it's reallllllllly close.
If they're so close then it's not "not even close"...lol. 

But, using your logic, wouldn't it be better to RS the Fr QB and start the SR?  That way you'd get a little more growth from the FR and get to use the "slighly" better QB this season?
If only I answered that question in the post you quoted...
10/8/2013 12:12 AM
LOL....I think you edited that!
10/8/2013 12:38 AM
Posted by bullfrog333 on 10/8/2013 12:38:00 AM (view original):
LOL....I think you edited that!
I'm so good, that I can actually edit other peoples posts!!!

(Crap...this won't help my cause for those who think I work for WIS...better edit it!)

10/8/2013 12:29 PM
A different view: (in my opinion) SR leadership has been more of a factor for the last year in GD so, my answer would depend on the overall talent of the team. If the total team talent was in position to win or compete for a CC or NC now??? I would go with the SR QB. If I was in a rebuilding year, I would go with FR QB or RS FR QB if he was eligible.

10/11/2013 4:31 PM
◂ Prev 12

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.