BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think this is very constructive right now so please stop.
The 13th player is already in the roster. It's done. There is no point in arguing about it now.
I'm sure that if something were to happen that would cause a problem, RiP would be the first one to slap his forehead really hard.

So let's just find another topic, a much more constructive one, to chat about. I'm sure there are plenty of them to keep us busy for a very long time.

why not just have him added so more tactical options are available at an earlier date?

Taaadaaaa! Was that so hard?

I wasn't complaining, I wanted to know your reasoning, and your constantly pointing out that it wouldn't make a difference hardly counts as reasoning. At least with the above statement I can see where you're coming from.

Though I should point out that, although you consider it an "extremely unnecessary", he wasn't going to be used for that game so there really wasn't any reason to add him now other than that you plan to use him later. Why not add him when you are going to use him? I mean reasons other than refusing to bend to such an unnecessary precaution.

In fact, by this line of thinking wouldn't it make sense to only have 10 players on the roster for the whole season? There would be no point in having any more at any time unless an injury occured.

This is just intentionally obtuse.

but if you have any comments on the actual games (tactics, positions etc.) feel free to chime in.

Thank you for so graciously allowing me to participate in the forums.

Do you mean to say you couldn't care less? Saying you could care less suggests you do care.

Are you an English major or something? This is a really annoying habit of yours. Sometimes I think you add these little tidbits just to antagonize.

Piling on?

Maybe not piling on but extremely unnecessary and really not helpful to the NT or the community in general.

Is that more clear, my friendly English major? (man, I'm going to have to double spell-check everything that I type in the Canadian forums from now on)

I figured it was almost common sense that the 11th through 13th player were there for strategy reasons. Apparently not.

How can it be common sense to include a 13th player as a strategic move in the first game when you can only dress 12? Any strategic implication the 13th player has is in future games.

I went about explaining what each player was there for on the team

Which only means anything in this context as far as it explains why the 13th would be called eventually. Not what he was needed for at this point.

This is a really annoying habit of yours.

Habit? In the time I've been playing BB I have corrected a person on their grammar exactly twice. Two times is not a habit.

Mostly I add "these little tidbits" when a person does something like take on a superior tone but then makes up words or says the exact opposite of what he means. :)

Why do people automatically cry "English major" when someone prefers people to say what they mean? Anyways, don't worry about your spell check, just say what you mean instead of trying to sound smart or something.

Relax, it's a game. Arguing is fun for me. I do it for a living. If it isn't fun for you then leave the conversation because I am unlikely to stop because I find it tremendously amusing.

In this case, Guatemala posed no threat to us whatsoever, so yeah the 13th player was unnecessary, but this is my reasoning:

Suppose you were playing in the first game a team like Brazil or USA with managers who most likely scout their opponents intensely as is to be expected from an NT manager. Since this is the first game of the season, by oeuftete's reasoning there should only be 12 players in the roster. Now these 12 players include 2 SF players that are known to be inside players, couldn't the manager of the other team be able to guess that you would play an inside offensive tactic and prepare accordingly.

Now, if you add a 13th player that is known to be an outside SF, wouldn't that give you strategic flexibility, not only in your roster, but make it not so obvious that you were going for the inside tactic.

I believe that even if you don't use a player in the game, it doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a strategic purpose.

Just my 2 cents.
Martin

Suppose you were playing in the first game a team like Brazil or USA

We weren't.

I just wanted to thank everybody for the entertainment. It has definately lifted my spirits after a tough couple of days at work! I can't wait until next Monday when I get dumped on after a probable loss to Spain ;)