BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Canada > Canada's National Team

Canada's National Team

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
60836.119 in reply to 60836.118
Date: 6/15/2009 10:27:53 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
I made my case above. Players who aren't part of your first game strategy run the risk of becoming dead weight if their status changes (e.g. injury).

I think carrying 12 is defensible for the first game, for the sake of maintaining unpredictability in strategy, and depth in case of in-game foul trouble or injury. The cost in roster flexibility going forward is just not worth it to keep 13. Add the 13th player, etc. when you need to.

This Post:
00
60836.121 in reply to 60836.115
Date: 6/15/2009 3:11:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155

Is there an explanation for hamstringing the roster flexibility so early?


Just curious - why bring this up now, after the election is over? It is not the first time you've made this gripe. If it is really an issue (which it doesn't seem to be), see how other candidates would handle the situation. It would also give the NT coach a heads-up (I would never have thought about it if I was a new manager).

Talking about it repeatedly after the fact seems counter-productive, unless your goal is just to make the NT coach look bad.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
60836.122 in reply to 60836.121
Date: 6/15/2009 3:13:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737

Is there an explanation for hamstringing the roster flexibility so early?


Just curious - why bring this up now, after the election is over? It is not the first time you've made this gripe. If it is really an issue (which it doesn't seem to be), see how other candidates would handle the situation. It would also give the NT coach a heads-up (I would never have thought about it if I was a new manager).

Talking about it repeatedly after the fact seems counter-productive, unless your goal is just to make the NT coach look bad.


I guess I just think about it when I notice it. No-one has ever given me a satisfactory answer.

This Post:
00
60836.123 in reply to 60836.122
Date: 6/16/2009 9:58:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
Besides that, one would hope the conversation from last season could have stuck.

How could anyone think that saying essentially, "oh well, it probably won't matter anyways," is a good answer, especially after receiving the advice previously.

This Post:
00
60836.126 in reply to 60836.120
Date: 6/17/2009 1:47:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
the 13th player would be added within a couple weeks anyway


Does that sound familiar? That is essentially the basis of your entire position because everything else you said revolves around this statement. It also holds the same implications as "It won't matter anyway."

This Post:
00
60836.127 in reply to 60836.126
Date: 6/17/2009 1:55:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
@ Kingsblade,

I am not sure I agree with what you are implying.

If Rip adds the 13th player today, or in two weeks, it does matter. The addition of the player may be dictated based on form or injury to one of the original 12 players. Further, if Rip decides to go with a specific formation, it will leave him options upon who to choose.

Maybe the statement "It won't matter anyway" would be better said about the other 15 teams in the Naismith....since BC Torro will win repeat. Don't you agree??

This Post:
00
60836.128 in reply to 60836.127
Date: 6/17/2009 3:10:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
I am not sure I agree with what you are implying.

If Rip adds the 13th player today, or in two weeks, it does matter.


Go back and read the discussion again, because either you didn't read it or you don't understand what it means to disagree with someone.

Maybe the statement "It won't matter anyway" would be better said about the other 15 teams in the Naismith....since BC Torro will win repeat. Don't you agree??


Is there anyone who doesn't love a good non sequitur?

Advertisement