CAGLS: Madden 13 Gentlemen's League - We Finished! Thanks for Playing!

[quote name='jza1218']There's another aspect we need to consider. What if two teams work on a CPU trade at the same time? How do we determine who gets priority?[/QUOTE]

That's one of my problem with DVO's idea. One suggestion would be anyone can make a trade proposal at any time and if there are multiple proposals for the same player, a committee would choose which proposal is best for the present and future of the CPU team. I don't like the idea of having someone call dibs on a player and having to wait for them to use their 3 strikes, then move on to the next team in line.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']I am totally against a squatter putting a trade through. Honestly DVO I don't think anyone is going to agree with that one, you are the only person pushing that as a viable option.[/QUOTE]

i realize that but once everyone tries to put trade thru without one there only going to see its impossible to do without one. that why the trade needs to actually be fair have vaild reasoning of why it shouldnt just help ur team but theres and the future of bringing in a new actual owner. would u give up ur top 3 players for one good player becuz thats wut the computer will want from u and then the computer teams will just stay all messed up with cap space and depth and positions and all types of crazy its only going to be worse for thoughs teams in year 3 if we do fix it now
 
[quote name='Blade3D']I am totally against a squatter putting a trade through. Honestly DVO I don't think anyone is going to agree with that one, you are the only person pushing that as a viable option.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I dont like the idea of a squatter in there at all.


[quote name='Konfusion']That's one of my problem with DVO's idea. One suggestion would be anyone can make a trade proposal at any time and if there are multiple proposals for the same player, a committee would choose which proposal is best for the present and future of the CPU team. I don't like the idea of having someone call dibs on a player and having to wait for them to use their 3 strikes, then move on to the next team in line.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this too. Any proposals submitted within say, a 24 hour range, can be compared against the best interests of the CPU team, since we are looking to fill these teams afterall.
 
[quote name='Konfusion']That's one of my problem with DVO's idea. One suggestion would be anyone can make a trade proposal at any time and if there are multiple proposals for the same player, a committee would choose which proposal is best for the present and future of the CPU team. I don't like the idea of having someone call dibs on a player and having to wait for them to use their 3 strikes, then move on to the next team in line.[/QUOTE]

See I don't like giving so much control to the committee. I would rather it rotate through the teams in order of who sent their proposal in. Team 1 gets accepted the CPU rejects, Team 2 gets their chance and CPU accepts. I think this would work best as it would give priority to the person who submitted first, and would give an opportunity for others. If you are unsure what the CPU would do make a franchise and make test trades to have the best possible chance of the trade getting accepted.
 
My two cents: Not a fan of CPU trades if the idea is to eventually fill them. If we get to a point where that's not viable and we want to involve them in trades, then maybe this gets reaccessed then. There are only 4 teams open, not sure why they are all of a sudden hot trading partners when there's so many other user teams in the league.

IF we were to move forward with cpu to user trades, I don't agree on any sort of 'dibs' via first PM. Any real NFL team would take a look at and accept the best offer, so perhaps that is something the committee can vote on. I guess they would be voting on which trade to vote on, which is kind of silly, but you get where Im going with this I hope.
 
[quote name='Konfusion']That's one of my problem with DVO's idea. One suggestion would be anyone can make a trade proposal at any time and if there are multiple proposals for the same player, a committee would choose which proposal is best for the present and future of the CPU team. I don't like the idea of having someone call dibs on a player and having to wait for them to use their 3 strikes, then move on to the next team in line.[/QUOTE]

that puts alot more pressure on the committee and alot of frustration for people as well. plus then the committee will have to go over 10 different things for one player and figure out which one is more fair and that will take so much longer for them to do and then to have to explain why this trade is better than every other trade. if i was on the committee that wouldnt sound fun
 
Actually with all that this involves I am just going to go with the stance that I am against CPU trades. How is that for flip-flopping!
 
[quote name='ubernes']My two cents: Not a fan of CPU trades if the idea is to eventually fill them. If we get to a point where that's not viable and we want to involve them in trades, then maybe this gets reaccessed then. There are only 4 teams open, not sure why they are all of a sudden hot trading partners when there's so many other user teams in the league.

IF we were to move forward with cpu to user trades, I don't agree on any sort of 'dibs' via first PM. Any real NFL team would take a look at and accept the best offer, so perhaps that is something the committee can vote on. I guess they would be voting on which trade to vote on, which is kind of silly, but you get where Im going with this I hope.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this fully.
 
all i know is if we dont have a squatter cpu wont trade the big names for anything even for a big deal. so if thats the case then there might as well not be cpu trades at all becuz all will be rejected. they offer pocket change for ur players on the block but expect gold for theres when u offer them trades

my vote is if we dont use squatter then we dont do cpu trades
 
[quote name='DVO21']that puts alot more pressure on the committee and alot of frustration for people as well. plus then the committee will have to go over 10 different things for one player and figure out which one is more fair and that will take so much longer for them to do and then to have to explain why this trade is better than every other trade. if i was on the committee that wouldnt sound fun[/QUOTE]

I don't mind it actually.
 
[quote name='ubernes']My two cents: Not a fan of CPU trades if the idea is to eventually fill them. If we get to a point where that's not viable and we want to involve them in trades, then maybe this gets reaccessed then. There are only 4 teams open, not sure why they are all of a sudden hot trading partners when there's so many other user teams in the league.

IF we were to move forward with cpu to user trades, I don't agree on any sort of 'dibs' via first PM. Any real NFL team would take a look at and accept the best offer, so perhaps that is something the committee can vote on. I guess they would be voting on which trade to vote on, which is kind of silly, but you get where Im going with this I hope.[/QUOTE]

and if this is wut we do vote on wut trade the committe likes the most wut if half the committee is trying to get the one player. also if we are going to be voting like that i would want to resend my trade for T Rich becuz i would be willing to offer more. but wut if someone wants to offer 2 picks and 2 players how will that be done without a squatter?
 
[quote name='DVO21']all i know is if we dont have a squatter cpu wont trade the big names for anything even for a big deal. so if thats the case then there might as well not be cpu trades at all becuz all will be rejected. they offer pocket change for ur players on the block but expect gold for theres when u offer them trades

my vote is if we dont use squatter then we dont do cpu trades[/QUOTE]

I think the whole point is to keep people from stripping all the stars from a team.
 
i realize that blade but im not gonig to give up 3 top players for 1 top player and even then the computer would still say no so then i start stripping my team and its no longer worth it. i think the trades should be as fair as they should be as if we were trading with each other not give them everything we got then our team is good in one spot and suck in another one
 
[quote name='DVO21']all i know is if we dont have a squatter cpu wont trade the big names for anything even for a big deal. so if thats the case then there might as well not be cpu trades at all becuz all will be rejected. they offer pocket change for ur players on the block but expect gold for theres when u offer them trades

my vote is if we dont use squatter then we dont do cpu trades[/QUOTE]

I kind of agree with this, but only if the committee is really paying attention, not only to the fairness of the trade, but needs of the CPU team, salary cap hits that will be taken, salary cap space that will be cleared, remaining contract years, etc. We don't want to put a CPU team in a worse salary cap situation just so a current owner can pick up a new player.

That being said, I still don't like the idea of waiting in a line to make an offer to a team. That's just not how it works in the NFL. If offer X is better than offer Y, offer X will be taken.
 
if they dont take tom brady gronk and wes welker for a RB thats an 85 overall wut makes u think we can strip these teams is my point wut makes u think we can even make trades with these teams without a squatter. in would be impossible without stripping ur own team pretty much and thats if and a very high if they even say yes to it.
thats why i find it important to have a squatter so trade can actually go thru. im not saying trade scrap for gold u should get there best players make fair trades that make sense give reasoning for ur trade. how does ur trade help that team become better how does that trade make someone come into the league and feel like they can still win with this team.
 
i offered BJGE and 2nd round and 3rd round for T rich my reasoning was they need a starting a good running back still and BGJE is good and powerfull and they need WRs so i figure extra pick they get draft WRs for tom brady to throw to.

if i could have offered them
WR Mathews catch 87 cit 85 spec 83 route running 71 release 81 speed86 accel 84 (not fast but great hands) i traded a 2nd rounder for this guy
RB BGJE overall 87 power back 99 carry not fast though
2nd rounder
but i couldnt make that offer till now becuz of the rule on trading players u jsut got but i can now offer that trade

my reasoning is the team has no decent targets for brady so mathews would be a good start for them
2nd round possibly get another WR or something else they need
BJGE comes in as a starter as a power back that wont fumble

and i dont think browns are getting a bad deal in that at all and it makes sense for them to want targets for brady when they have no WRs at all that can catch and have the best passer in the game but i also know the computer wont take it becuz they wouldnt take brady gronk and welker for that one guy so this trade is impossible if the cpu gets its own vote. but how many of u would take this if u had tom brady and no WRs at to throw to with hands. wuts the point of them having brady if they cant use him
 
they told him a trade was pending and i told n8 i would talk to him about it and see wut his thoughts were couple steps ahead of u :)
 
I think one of the main reasons for allowing CPU trades should be making them more desirable to potential owners. I don't think I am alone when i say that Richardson is more desirable than BJGE and some picks that might not amount to anything. I would not want that as a potential owner. Also, just because a trade seems fair, doesn't mean an owner would want it. I have a number of players that I just don't want to trade, even if I got a fair offer for them.
 
BJGE is in there so he not left without a decent rb like i said i would have offered him a good WR and a 2nd round pick as well
why have brady when u cant use him with any decent wrs
 
Vikings defeat Packers 49-7

So far the Vikings defense has yet to give up a point (Green Bay's TD came off a kickoff return) and are off to a tremendous 2-0 start. The shocker in this game was Christian Ponder's perfect passer rating, after going 9-9 with 163 yards and 3 TDs. The workhorse tailback Adrian Peterson had 176 yards and 4 TDs on 30 carries and tacked on another 76 yards and touchdown in the receiving game. Unfortunately for Green Bay, their offense could not hold on to the football, as rookie Demetrius Bynes coughed up the ball twice and young QB Russell Wilson threw 5 INTs. Minnesota will be looking to continue their winning ways against New Orleans next week.

gg Steggy... it's tough to do much when you're getting Madden-ed hardcore like that. Looking forward to a tighter game next time we play.

Vikings:
C. Ponder - 9-9, 163 yds, 3 TDs, 158.3 QBR
A. Peterson - 30 carries, 176 yds, 4 TDs, 3 rec, 76 yds, TD
D. Walker - 3 rec, 36 yds, TD
M. Raymond - 6 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 INTs
B. Burton - 4 tackles, 1 INT

Packers:
R. Wilson - 6-18, 101 yds, 5 INTs and one incredible 24 yard run
D. Bynes - 5 carries, 29 yds, 2 fumbles
N. Collins - 11(!) tackles
 
below is a new updated rule list that i have edited inside the quote from the original

[quote name='DVO21']my personal thought on ruless trading with the computer would be
Rule 1 committee votes on it and squatter puts it thru
Rule 2 trade must be fair and have a vaild for why u want the trade, how it helps the cpu team, how it helps bring in people to want to use the team in the future.
Rule 3 three strikes and ur out if no one else is interested.
Rule 4 if 2 or more teams are targeting the same player which ever team first sends in there completed trade offer first via the pm box has first rights to the trade but only gets 2 tries to instead of three to convince the committee of there trade. that way they get the input from the committee and get one shot to fix it and if they fail then they are on the bottom of the list.
Rule 5 committee must give the person a vaild reason of why they think the person that wants the trade why it was denied and a actual opinion on how to make the trade possibly work. [/QUOTE]

in the end its on the committee or for N8 to pick wuts gonig to happen here this my opinion of a good idea or atleast somewhere to start off from with the process. but if in the end everyones vote matters then im not for computer trades unless there is a squatter becuase it is impossible with out one. but the above rule atleast takes something from everyones opinion and gives everyone something that they somewhat like even with some things they dont like but others do then it makes it somewhat even to everyones likes/dislikes and trust me there are rules up that i have changed since first drafting this that i added that i dont quite like either so trust me its not all in favor of my likes either but i wanted to write something thats fair for everyone not just me i dont really care much for rule 4 myself i would rather get my 3 strikes and be out but i also dont think it would be fair for the committee to put out there input to others and the person who put it in first doesnt atleast get a second shot. its just trading with really people they go back to the drawing board at least once even if others are interested becuz they feel like a dick if they back out for another deal since the first write up of the trade didnt work. i think its important that we treat the computer like its still an actual person in this league. we do it with play style as in dont run up the score and try to get as much xp as possible. make trades with them like an actual person give them things that actually help there team not screw them over and in return get things that help ur team get better as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']I personally hate the idea of CPU trades especially with us trying to fill spots[/QUOTE]


the more I think about it the less I like it too. Honestly, why cant some be content to work with what they have instead of making a new blockbuster trade every 2 weeks?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I personally hate the idea of CPU trades especially with us trying to fill spots[/QUOTE]

Ahem... Any chance we can knock out our game tonight? :)
 
[quote name='DVO21']all i know is if we dont have a squatter cpu wont trade the big names for anything even for a big deal. so if thats the case then there might as well not be cpu trades at all becuz all will be rejected. they offer pocket change for ur players on the block but expect gold for theres when u offer them trades

my vote is if we dont use squatter then we dont do cpu trades[/QUOTE]

If this is the case, then I would say "oh well". Maybe that's the realization that some people need to have. The CPU is unwilling to put these trades through on their own accord because for the most part, these deals are unrealistic to begin with. It's been noted several times that many of these trades are deals that would never happen in real life. So, if the CPU is unwilling to do the deal, then that should just be your answer. Squatting teams to force trades through just seems incredibly unnecessary in my opinion.

And as others have mentioned, because of that and other issues, trading with the CPU at all starts to become unnecessary. Honestly, I'd be fine without it all together. I don't feel like being "limited" to only being allowed to trade with other human owners really hurts anybody that bad. And outside of any moves the CPU makes on its own (which honestly, are hardly ever that substantial), it puts a freeze on the CPU teams so that if someone comes along wanting them, they're not completely ravaged by then.

Having said all that, it looks like the majority is against CPU trades at this point and would rather err on the side of caution, as opposed to everybody combing through CPU rosters to see who they can swipe. It just doesn't seem like a road we should go down.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Not home right now uber sorry. Babysitting my sisters twins (and don't be all Giggity Giggity about it you guys :p).[/QUOTE]

Uh.

:whistle2:s
 
My friends think my sister is hot. Whenever I say I'm babysitting her twins(their minds go to tits for some reason, I think I need new friends) they for me a hard time about it. I'm used to explaining it lol. The post was in response to uberness wanting to play tonight. I think that explains it enough kaster :)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']My friends think my sister is hot. Whenever I say I'm babysitting her twins(their minds go to tits) they for me a hard time about it. I'm used to explaining it lol. The post was in response to uberness wanting to play tonight. I think that explains it enough kaster :)[/QUOTE]

And suddenly it all makes sense :D
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']My friends think my sister is hot. Whenever I say I'm babysitting her twins(their minds go to tits for some reason, I think I need new friends) they for me a hard time about it. I'm used to explaining it lol. The post was in response to uberness wanting to play tonight. I think that explains it enough kaster :)[/QUOTE]

Pics of sis?
 
[quote name='DVO21']LOL bengals/browns trade Denied[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But you can still shop BJGE to 27 other teams. There's just 4 teams that are off limits. It's not that bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bengals are looking to trade for RB that and 1st picks 2nd round picks

hit me up with offers


WR AJ Green
WR Mathews
screw it ALL WRs are on the block pick and choose who u wants guys u know wut im looking for

on the block
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I guess I need to sound off on CPU trades. I'm personally against it. Bit for one thing....

I had a trade approved with the Colts pre-CPU before the draft. He never accepted the trade after it was approved by the comittee. The team then went CPU during the preseason. I believe that trade should still be processed as it was agreed on before the owner decided to leave suddenly. I refused a lot of good trade offers from other teams because I thought this trade was going through, but still haven't heard anything about it. I assume its because I'm not exactly a squeaky gear.

TL;DR Against CPU trades unless trade was approved before one team went CPU.
 
Um...doc, are we still confused on the procedure for closing out a game? 24-7 game. Opponent kicks a field goal to make it 24-10. Then he kicks the ball deep with 1:20 left...and you throw on 1st down? How many times do we need to go over this, people?
 
Not confused at all. I apologize as this wasn't like our game dude. He stacked the box I saw it and took it for a gain of about 15-20 if I recall, stayed in bounds then the clock ran out. Sorry if it offended of course. Didn't mean to hurt feelings or anything. Wasn't being trying to be out of line but again if I crossed the Line I appogize as a man. Straight up.
 
[quote name='DVO21']bengals are looking to trade for RB that and 1st picks 2nd round picks

hit me up with offers


WR AJ Green
WR Mathews
screw it ALL WRs are on the block pick and choose who u wants guys u know wut im looking for

on the block[/QUOTE]

Why you dealing them for a RB? You made all those moves to get Luck to have someone to throw to those guys.

This is the same thing I talked to Doc about moving all these RBs around. If you aren't happy with Foster there isn't many RBs that you will be happy with.
 
[quote name='Docb9110']Not confused at all. I apologize as this wasn't like our game dude. He stacked the box I saw it and took it for a gain of about 15-20 if I recall, stayed in bounds then the clock ran out. Sorry if it offended of course. Didn't mean to hurt feelings or anything. Wasn't being trying to be out of line but again if I crossed the Line I appogize as a man. Straight up.[/QUOTE]

I still don't think that warrants throwing on 1st down with 1:20 left in the game, after your opponent has shown that he's backing off (kicking field goal...not going for onside kick). I realize you didn't take it for a TD or anything...but I'm sorry. This is mostly the same thing. You're somehow lacking a recognition that your opponent is accepting his loss.

And for that matter the "he knows I'm going to run the ball" excuse is pretty lame. In my game with DVO, he knew I was running the ball in the 4th quarter. And I was still able to score on a 14 yard TD run with Danny Woodhead with 2:01 remaining in the game. I even got the ball back after an INT, and with about 1:30 left, and DVO having 2 timeouts, I ran it once to see if he was going to use his timeouts (even in a 28-0 game, I know DVO doesn't give up easily). When he didn't, I took it as a sign that he just wanted the game to end and kneeled the ball.

With 1:20 left in the game, there's no reason to not at least run on 1st down and see if your opponent bothers using his timeouts. If he uses his timeouts, then you have grounds for picking up another 1st down. But like I said, if he opted for a FG instead of going for the TD and then kicked it deep instead of going for an onside kick, I doubt he's planning on mounting a comeback. It's not the end of the world and it doesn't change the outcome of the game, but it's overly aggressive play, and it kinda makes you look like a dick.
 
[quote name='Docb9110']Not confused at all. I apologize as this wasn't like our game dude. He stacked the box I saw it and took it for a gain of about 15-20 if I recall, stayed in bounds then the clock ran out. Sorry if it offended of course. Didn't mean to hurt feelings or anything. Wasn't being trying to be out of line but again if I crossed the Line I appogize as a man. Straight up.[/QUOTE]

I didn't "stack the box." I just called the basic defense the game suggested because I expected you to run the clock out and end the game. Based on the FG and deep kickoff I made it clear I wasn't going for the win and just wanted to finish out the game.
 
maybe we will get a browns owner that likes to pass and will make a deal with me since the browns have tom brady
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']I still don't think that warrants throwing on 1st down with 1:20 left in the game, after your opponent has shown that he's backing off (kicking field goal...not going for onside kick). I realize you didn't take it for a TD or anything...but I'm sorry. This is mostly the same thing. You're somehow lacking a recognition that your opponent is accepting his loss.

And for that matter the "he knows I'm going to run the ball" excuse is pretty lame. In my game with DVO, he knew I was running the ball in the 4th quarter. And I was still able to score on a 14 yard TD run with Danny Woodhead with 2:01 remaining in the game. I even got the ball back after an INT, and with about 1:30 left, and DVO having 2 timeouts, I ran it once to see if he was going to use his timeouts (even in a 28-0 game, I know DVO doesn't give up easily). When he didn't, I took it as a sign that he just wanted the game to end and kneeled the ball.

With 1:20 left in the game, there's no reason to not at least run on 1st down and see if your opponent bothers using his timeouts. If he uses his timeouts, then you have grounds for picking up another 1st down. But like I said, if he opted for a FG instead of going for the TD and then kicked it deep instead of going for an onside kick, I doubt he's planning on mounting a comeback. It's not the end of the world and it doesn't change the outcome of the game, but it's overly aggressive play, and it kinda makes you look like a dick.[/QUOTE]

I sent him a pm with a straight forward apology. Apologies to the league as well. No excuses anymore.
 
[quote name='Docb9110']I sent him a pm with a straight forward apology. Apologies to the league as well. No excuses anymore.[/QUOTE]

It's ok. Like I said, it didn't change the outcome of the game. And I know the Jags owner, and I know he's not butthurt over it or anything. It's just one of those things that when you see it, you think "Wow...he thought that was necessary?" which can sometimes feel like rubbing it in. And if we're going to be rubbing it in, I'd at least like to be invited...and I'd also like dinner first, lol ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top