size doesn't matter...lol yeah get your giggles out of the way.

In D2, I just signed an 82 SPD 68 ELU WR (Guess rated him #3 in his class) that happens to be 6'5" 245. Imagine if size actually mattered...dude would be like Gronkowski in D2.

It got me thinking...if they made sizes relevant factor in the game...would that be a pro or con?

I think it would add more intrigue and make the game more interesting. But then, I feel like they'd have to correlate size to things like STR to make it more realistic. For example, most 335 pound OL are stronger than 275 pound OL, etc.

since we we are discussing potential game changes with new ownership...where do you guys stand on this issue?

The player attributes already capture everything you're talking about. A 275 pounder can be stronger than a 325 pounder, or not.

What are you saying would change? Add an attribute for Player Mass or something? No offense but that kinda seems pointless.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/22/2017 10:54:00 AM (view original):
The player attributes already capture everything you're talking about. A 275 pounder can be stronger than a 325 pounder, or not.

What are you saying would change? Add an attribute for Player Mass or something? No offense but that kinda seems pointless.

275 pounders are just as effective as 330 pound OL with the same skills in this game. In real life, that's not true. Thats why D1 schools (in real life) won't recruit a OT that is 6'0" even if he's strong and had a great HS career.

Likewise a 6'5" WR = 5'8" WR with the same skills in GD. In real life, if you give coaches the option of a 6'5" WR vs. a 5'8" WR (and they have identical speed, elusiveness etc), they will pick the 6'5" guy every time. Same thing at every position (height at QB, weight on OL/DT, choosing between a 180 pound TE or a 250 pound TE etc etc etc. )

Im saying, what if they made size an actual factor in games.

A power RB on this game is just as effective at 165 pounds as one that is 245 pounds. Obviously that's not true in real life.

You don't get it. We all know the size data is cosmetic, but it'd be easy for WIS to just say the size data is already factored into the attributes. You can't disprove that it is, as much as you seem troubled by the notion a little guy can be stronger than a bigger guy. Real life players are like that sometimes.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/22/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):
You don't get it. We all know the size data is cosmetic, but it'd be easy for WIS to just say the size data is already factored into the attributes. You can't disprove that it is, as much as you seem troubled by the notion a little guy can be stronger than a bigger guy. Real life players are like that sometimes.

Dude player sizes are as random as their picture and everyone knows it. You can disagree and that's fine. You even admitted they are cosmetic. What if they weren't just cosmetic. What about that is so hard to understand.

Im saying "WHAT IF" player sizes were an important enough attribute that it factored significantly into recruiting decisions. That's all I'm saying. I feel it would add depth to the game.


as for me "not getting it"...right back at ya

I don't disagree with poppa. Take a 90 spd and 90 hds WR. He is 5'9" if these mattered at all in GD it could be the difference between him going to Ohio St. or Dayton in 1AA. But more likely it could mean he goes to Kentucky or Akron.

It wouldn't be so far fetched for the height and weights to matter. After all in 1.0 and 2.0 GPA meant nothing. We now know that at the very least a QB with a 3.5 GPA is going to out perform a guy with a 2.2 in formation IQ. It may have some bearing at other positions also but that is more of a mystery.

Posted by jibe717 on 9/22/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I don't disagree with poppa. Take a 90 spd and 90 hds WR. He is 5'9" if these mattered at all in GD it could be the difference between him going to Ohio St. or Dayton in 1AA. But more likely it could mean he goes to Kentucky or Akron.

It wouldn't be so far fetched for the height and weights to matter. After all in 1.0 and 2.0 GPA meant nothing. We now know that at the very least a QB with a 3.5 GPA is going to out perform a guy with a 2.2 in formation IQ. It may have some bearing at other positions also but that is more of a mystery.

Height / arm length / fundamental ability to reach the ball is logically already part of the Hands rating.

Perhaps he'd be a 97 hands if he were 6'3" and holding all else equal.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, and maybe I don't get it after all. I'm just not seeing what would change if this idea were adopted.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/22/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 9/22/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I don't disagree with poppa. Take a 90 spd and 90 hds WR. He is 5'9" if these mattered at all in GD it could be the difference between him going to Ohio St. or Dayton in 1AA. But more likely it could mean he goes to Kentucky or Akron.

It wouldn't be so far fetched for the height and weights to matter. After all in 1.0 and 2.0 GPA meant nothing. We now know that at the very least a QB with a 3.5 GPA is going to out perform a guy with a 2.2 in formation IQ. It may have some bearing at other positions also but that is more of a mystery.

Height / arm length / fundamental ability to reach the ball is logically already part of the Hands rating.

Really? How do you figure it is "logically" part of the game? I would say that it is all arbitrary and means jack squat. Just like GPA used to mean nothing, it was just fluff.