Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

pistolpetejr wrote:I honestly voted that we change it too. Having said that, we do need to be careful with future players entering the league because the later we get, the more we have to sort players who really could and did play PG. We need a concrete rule in place to ensure these are all handled fairly (eg. Bballref is king).

LeBron is a good example here. Bballref has him listed as SF, PF, PG and SG. Are we going to say he can’t play PG because then he’s OP? Should we do that and nerf him? If we do, is it fair? What’s to say he meets his potential anyway?

I dont think this be an issue b/c more players will get PG eligibility as a result of this change. Plus currently, if I wanted to lock a player from the position, we could have them enter the league as a PF thus preventing them from playing down. The issue comes in when players who are not PG builds can play at PG (backup) and be much stronger than the other players and create a mismatch

I voted yes but also am not really sure it's enough of an issue to care that much either way lol

sheesh, we have some boring people.... it's backup PG for goodness sake.

Bump

Would like to see more feedback regarding this

I think the proposed rule change makes sense and would be a beneficial change.

For those opposed, what has been the most egregious use of this? It’s 12 minutes a game overall. I think it allows for more versatility with GMs to play with DCs and potentially find a leg up by being good at DC alterations

lukeyrid13 wrote:For those opposed, what has been the most egregious use of this?

When starters get injured and the "backup" is playing starter minutes manipulating the software to be better than they should be. Look at how close the standings were this season, one or two games makes a difference.

lukeyrid13 wrote:It’s 12 minutes a game overall. I think it allows for more versatility with GMs to play with DCs and potentially find a leg up by being good at DC alterations

By playing a player out of position. This is why we stopped bigs from playing down b/c the software cant recognize an unnatural PG playing the position. PG builds are different from other positions (same goes for each position) so playing players down a position creates an advantage.

By removing that crutch, its create more value for PGs and finding good/decent backups will become a skill for all GMs who want to succeed

Also, it's 12 minutes per game... minimum usually, if you go with it all year you tend to get a 5-10 games where a guy gets hurt short term in game and you get a few games in that sim with a non-PG playing 35 minutes. I'm for the change, since the only reason to put a non-PG at backup PG is usually to exploit the flaws in the game that make non-PGs wildly overperform when put there.

I don't really see a good argument against the change, especially if the draft starts having maybe one or two SGs a year who are build to not break the PG spot and play as combos and have eligibilty. We did that some in DASL 1.0 I think/.

I would only be for a change if some current non-PGs were to be given backup PG eligibility

vincent1469 wrote:I would only be for a change if some current non-PGs were to be given backup PG eligibility

I agree with this. As well as future non-PGs.

I am one of the main culprits of this. SJax needs his PG reps

vincent1469 wrote:I would only be for a change if some current non-PGs were to be given backup PG eligibility

Who?

We already voted, why more discussion? No one will change their mind in this.

bellsduck wrote:We already voted, why more discussion? No one will change their mind in this.

I want to hear why people are against it and also some people didnt vote

Giving existing guys PG eligibility totally defeats the purpose lol