hosh13 wrote: Yeah, it's just so good to train a stat for months when the fact is it's not doing a single thing. And there's no way to know either. Why don't we just label all the stats like - A,B.C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J. It would be so much fun trying to work out what they all do, if anything. So much fun!

That's just the point. How many seasons have you spent experimenting with the different skills at each position to know? It sounds as though you would prefer knowing all the formulas, so you could just build your dynasty...............while at the same time 3000 other teams do exactly the same..............so much fun, indeed

hosh13 wrote: So I guess a real life analogy is to wonder if sprint training can make a player better at ping pong?

That would be a silly analogy, because that would be like wondering in this game if punting will make a player better at quarterback. The point is, we all know each position uses 3-5 skills. Therefore, you have to guess, experiment and conclude which ones are valued for each position. Thereby making it more challenging for each individual manager to find out. Let's take quarterback. Of the possible 3-5 skills, there is obviously passing and vision. After that, does it take 3, 4 or 5 skills? That's up to each manager to figure out. Does it take positioning? footwork? agility? carrying? Obviously, it can't be all of them, but with so many possible variations and a decent amount of time to investigate, it allows for a myriad of quarterback builds across the game. I would suggest that this keeps the game more interesting than simply stating the perfect builds for each position and having every manager copycat it

hosh13 wrote: Nope, no copy catting at all. Over the course of a players career, only certain stats could get anywhere near 20 so it would be a matter of what sort of team a manager chose to build. Again, training a player at a certain stat for a season or more without knowing if it's actually doing anything, is dumb. We should know if a stat is significant, relevent or non applicable for every position. No doubt about it.

You just like to argue for no reason. It would be fairly simple to get players to 20 in 3 or 4 skills if it was made clear those were the only skills needed for each position. I have many players anywhere from 14 to 18 in what i think are the necessary skills and only holding them at those skills for salary reasons while I build my younger players to take over. It wouldn't be dumb if you took some time to test out the skills and see what works best. If they told everyone exactly what skills to build up for each position, you would get nothing but cookie cutters. That would completely undermine the management aspect of the game and lead to several thousand teams all trained the same. You're free to wish for that, but it will never happen and I'd quit if it did. The whole challenge would be gone. Now take a little time and go position by position and assign skills 1-5 in order of importance for each position. It's really not that hard. You can make assumptions like a quarterback will never need blocking, tackling, punting, kicking or catching. That should be pretty easy to take the rest and put them in order from 1-5. Repeat the process for the other positions and before long, you will be fine

SrednaD wrote: Gatr22 wrote: Now take a little time and go position by position and assign skills 1-5 in order of importance for each position. It's really not that hard. You can make assumptions like a quarterback will never need blocking, tackling, punting, kicking or catching. That should be pretty easy to take the rest and put them in order from 1-5. Repeat the process for the other positions and before long, you will be fine Or just install the greasemonkey script where good coaches have made great assumptions on which skills that should fit to a player position. But simple logic should get you 75% of the way...

Another good point and definitely should be checked out by new players. I used to use that, but after several seasons and some testing, I developed my own list of skills by position....based primarily on the fact that the admins stated each position uses 3-5 skills over and above fitness skills. The greasemonkey script shows more than 5 for most positions and even though they label them green, blue and yellow, it just made sense to develop my own and stop at 5 skills.

hosh13 wrote: Nope, no copy catting at all. Over the course of a players career, only certain stats could get anywhere near 20 so it would be a matter of what sort of team a manager chose to build. Again, training a player at a certain stat for a season or more without knowing if it's actually doing anything, is dumb. We should know if a stat is significant, relevent or non applicable for every position. No doubt about it.

No we shouldn't. Every one will train in the same way. Maybe in a different order but it would be like painting by numbers instead of your own design. Good enough analogy?