Warrior General Games

WR should not be considered a glamour position like HB and QB. For every Terrell Owens or Randy Moss, there are 100 guys playing and doing almost nothing every week.

Even beyond the fact that WRs are useless in GLB right now... WRs in real life are not as involved, as important, or as glamourous as QBs and HBs. QBs and HBs touch the ball very frequently. WRs are lucky if they catch more than 3 balls per game on average.

Personally, in terms of the involvement of the player, I would much rather have a defensive player than a WR, even if the flex cost were the same. The only player I have retired early was my WR, because the cost just wasn't worth it.

11/04 Update: WRs in High demand at 4.34 per team. Most teams want 5-6.
2/15 Update: WRs in High demand at 4.25 per team.

Originally posted by TrevJo
WR should not be considered a glamour position like HB and WR.

I don't know what to say

I disagree with the IRL comment, but agree with the title.

Originally posted by haole
I don't know what to say


Ugh, I had typos all over the place.

double plus good.

WR *SHOULD* be a glamour position, but in GLB they aren't. 200 flex makes them comparable to FB and TE which seems about right. Load the WR's up with str/blocking and pass to the HB....victories ensue.

believe on of the reasons for the increased cost was to keep the number of WRs in check, so you'd ave to mainly convince bort that:

1 - lowering the cost of WR would not lead to an over abundance of WR
2 - you could either make this retroactive and not hurt his flex pay out, or you could not make it retroactive and somehow avoid pissing off other WR
3 - show that a lowered cost is needed (aka shortage in wr, or boosting wr, team sign ups where WR are constantly the last spots to fill up etc)


I'm not against the idea, but real life comparisons and how they play etc is all a moot point. While calling them a "glamour position" might not be 100% accurate, it was done for a reason

200 for sure...i've always wanted them 200

Originally posted by Chysil
believe on of the reasons for the increased cost was to keep the number of WRs in check, so you'd ave to mainly convince bort that:

1 - lowering the cost of WR would not lead to an over abundance of WR

I agree that this was part of the reason for making them 300 originally. But if you look right now, WRs are in High demand, and QBs and RBs are in Average demand and Low demand, respectively. And really I think it's silly for 1.99 QBs per team to be considered Average demand rather than Low or Very Low.

Originally posted by Chysil
2 - you could either make this retroactive and not hurt his flex pay out, or you could not make it retroactive and somehow avoid pissing off other WR

Yep, that is a good point. I'm sure that some people would be pissed off. IMO that is the biggest problem with making a change. But I think it still should be done.

Originally posted by Chysil
3 - show that a lowered cost is needed (aka shortage in wr, or boosting wr, team sign ups where WR are constantly the last spots to fill up etc)

In my experience, for every team I've been involved with, getting decent WR depth is always one of the hardest parts in filling out a roster. I'm not sure what you think would be needed to "show" it, but I'm pretty sure most GMs in GLB would agree with this.

Originally posted by Chysil
I'm not against the idea, but real life comparisons and how they play etc is all a moot point. While calling them a "glamour position" might not be 100% accurate, it was done for a reason

The real life comparison may not be the right approach, but whatever model you envision for the GLB sim, it's really hard to imagine WRs being as involved as QBs and HBs.

Originally posted by TrevJo

The real life comparison may not be the right approach, but whatever model you envision for the GLB sim, it's really hard to imagine WRs being as involved as QBs and HBs.

My team has made only 14 passing attempts in the last 5 games and won them all by a point total of 569 to 33. Probably not a model of all teams, but being able to win in large fashion purely on the running game makes WRs worthless.

Yeah I always wanted WRs at 200 as well, not like they ever even get the ball in PeeWee and cap 13 teams.

+1 to ur tread nice post!

+1

inb4lock

good idea, but NGTH