The Boards WWE Draft spectacular!

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-07-2008 9:53pm

michael.etc... wrote: »

That all sounds sensible and fair to me. Well done on laying that out for us. A couple of questions though, which might be me being stupid...

Do we post questions about each others rosters in this thread? And does this occur before, or during when we've sent you the final tally of points? We might need a deadline for posting the roster etc.. then another for any discussion that follows, then another again for the lists to be Pm'd.
I'm just thinking, it might make sense to have a completed roster discussion thread? we could all make one post there, with our complete roster, and arguments, but then if anyone has any queries, they go here?
Okay, confusing myself now..

We'd use the picks thread to summarise our roster and explain our picks. This discussion thread would then be for discussing the rosters.

We'd set a deadline so that asking questions about rosters would occur before people decide their top 5.

So for example it would be something like "you have until Friday to make a summary of your roster in the picks thread. In the meantime discussion will take place in the discussion thread."

Then when the deadline on Friday passes each person sends their top 5 rosters and I'll tally the votes and reveal the winner of the challenge.

I hope that makes sense.

michael.etc... · 13-07-2008 9:55pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

We'd use the picks thread to summarise our roster and explain our picks. This discussion thread would then be for discussing the rosters.

We'd set a deadline so that asking questions about rosters would occur before people decide their top 5.

So for example it would be something like "you have until Friday to make a summary of your roster in the picks thread. In the meantime discussion will take place in the discussion thread."

Then when the deadline on Friday passes each person sends their top 5 rosters and I'll tally the votes and reveal the winner of the challenge.

I hope that makes sense.

That makes sense to me, cheers. And it keeps the picks thread nice and tidy too.

gimmick · 13-07-2008 10:08pm

Latest pick made. I know it will have put a few people out and am genuine shocked he was still available.

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-07-2008 10:11pm

Bam Bam was a major target of mine. I was surprised he lasted this far and was feeling confident I'd get him down the line. Not to be!

michael.etc... · 13-07-2008 10:14pm

^^ not necessarily.. i had him as one of my two top choices for my next pick. Hopefully the other stays there....

Great pick Gimmick. One of the best big-men of all time, for sure.

Bounty Hunter · 13-07-2008 10:37pm

cant remember (and this is too big a thread to go searching through) did we class an ECW champion as not eligable to be in a tag team or did we say that its the equivilent to a mid-card title.

Fozzy · 13-07-2008 10:40pm

I was very close to picking Bam Bam, at his peak he was so much better than practically everyone else

I was about to give you Sergeant Slaughter though

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-07-2008 10:54pm

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

cant remember (and this is too big a thread to go searching through) did we class an ECW champion as not eligable to be in a tag team or did we say that its the equivilent to a mid-card title.

We said that the modern-day ECW Title would be classed as a world title and thus holders of that belt would not be eligible for tag team picks.

Danger_Dave · 13-07-2008 11:22pm

Fozzy wrote: »

I was about to give you Sergeant Slaughter though

You were not the only one thinking that ! . Ive made mine so ... next !

Fozzy · 14-07-2008 12:17am

Hmm...that's got to be the most surprising pick that I've seen so far. Especially with a lot of the talent that's still on offer

14-07-2008 2:14am

Sorry iv ebeen missing from the thread for a while... Quick thought on the end of the game:

In my opinion, for the summaries etc. at the end:

Whatever order people are in in the last round, should be the order we have to make our roster summary, card, etc. as whoever is first in the last round will have complete his roster first. That person could then have 12 hours or so to make his summary, etc.

So lets say round 20 line up is:

1) Fozzy
2) KKV
3) MNG

etc.

When fozz makes his pick (and completes the roster) it wont really matter to him who i pick, because he cant have them anyway (of course he may be interested to see who i pick, but it wont make any difference to him).

So when fozzy makes his last pick, i have 24 hours to pick, and he has 12 hours to do his summary, etc.

When i pick, i have then got 12 hours to make my summary and MNG has 24 hours to make his pick..

Or would that just be making things worse?

Thought it might work because the late entries in the last round can then tear apart Fozzy's roster and leave him blindly defending his picks whilst the earlier numbers can focus on making picks, and by the time the later numbers in the final round are making their picks, the earlier numbers will be able to argue amongst each other about who has a better roster.

No?

Mr.Nice Guy · 14-07-2008 2:34am

I'm not sure an order at the end is really necessary. I think if we just have a 3-5 day limit for people to post their summary it would be enough.

14-07-2008 2:44am

Fair enough. I just thought i'd throw that idea out there to see it get stamped on and watch my dreams crumble and fade before my very eyes.

michael.etc... · 14-07-2008 9:03pm

I just threw my 5th pick out there guys... may the game continue..

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-07-2008 1:49am

I was wondering if anyone would go the old school route and nab Pedro. :cool:

jayhaitch2 · 15-07-2008 10:11am

I've made my pick now...will do up a peice later.

I'm a bit worried. I have a list written up at home and my pick isn't even on it I don't think. Hopefully i didn't forget someone I'm going to regret

orestes · 15-07-2008 2:33pm

Damn, I had Raven in mind for the next round, never occured to me that he tagged with Tazz, forgot all about that

gimmick · 15-07-2008 3:15pm

This has been a painfully slow round. Easily the slowest yet I'd say?

Fozzy · 15-07-2008 3:23pm

gimmick wrote: »

This has been a painfully slow round. Easily the slowest yet I'd say?

I think it's like this nearly every weekend so far. The fast rounds always start on a weekday

michael.etc... · 15-07-2008 3:25pm

Pedro and Shamrock were both close to the top of my list too. great picks. I debated long and hard between ol' ken and Paul Orndorff.

Tazz and Raven as a tag team though? I would have thought that was a big stretch. Raven was introduced in the WWE in the angle Tazz had with Jerry lawler wasn't he? But surely, they tagged for a couple of weeks at most? And didn't Jericho come to the aid of Lawler and JR and effectively end the angle, while Raven went into feuds with the likes of Blackman? They certainly were never regarded as a team.

Fozzy · 15-07-2008 3:36pm

michael.etc... wrote: »

Tazz and Raven as a tag team though? I would have thought that was a big stretch. Raven was introduced in the WWE in the angle Tazz had with Jerry lawler wasn't he? But surely, they tagged for a couple of weeks at most? And didn't Jericho come to the aid of Lawler and JR and effectively end the angle, while Raven went into feuds with the likes of Blackman? They certainly were never regarded as a team.

I couldn't remember but a quick look through the tv reports of that time shows that they teamed together six times on tv between September (when Raven debuted) and November (when they split). I'm not sure if that counts or not

EDIT: Although, if Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase Jr split up this week then Tazz and Raven would be more of a team than them

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-07-2008 3:42pm

I personally wouldn't regard Tazz and Raven as an established tag team but if Bounty Hunter genuinely views them as such then I guess we should allow it.

Bounty Hunter · 15-07-2008 3:45pm

If you really want me to change it I will. I did remember them as a tag team that I would have expected to see for atleast a 2month period, though that was several years ago and my main focus wasnt on themat the time, I dont mind tbh. Although its less dubious than the AJ pick IMO

Fozzy · 15-07-2008 3:49pm

One of the first questions that I asked about this was whether dark matches count and I was told that as long as they wrestled a WWE match at some point then they're in. I took that to mean any match on a WWE show. So AJ's definitely included in that. I haven't taken advantage of it yet though...

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-07-2008 3:54pm

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

If you really want me to change it I will. I did remember them as a tag team that I would have expected to see for atleast a 2month period, though that was several years ago and my main focus wasnt on themat the time, I dont mind tbh. Although its less dubious than the AJ pick IMO

Would there have been an expectation at the time to see the two men in tag team competition? I can't remember.

At the end of the day this is a grey area as we've acknowledged and people involved hopefully will respect the challenge and try not to exploit loopholes and whatnot. If you honestly view them as a legitimate tag team pick then I'd be fine with you having it.

Bounty Hunter · 15-07-2008 3:55pm

Fozzy wrote: »

One of the first questions that I asked about this was whether dark matches count and I was told that as long as they wrestled a WWE match at some point then they're in. I took that to mean any match on a WWE show. So AJ's definitely included in that. I haven't taken advantage of it yet though...

fair enough so, didnt really wanna look back through the 900+ posts looking for a reason AJ was included but knew there must have been a reason, still wondering though with people like that as ive a few in my head who maybe only wrestled a match or two, do you get their WWE peak or just their peak, cos I obviously wont bother picking them just to have Jobbers, even though every roster needs a jobber or two.

edit

MNG wrote:

ould there have been an expectation at the time to see the two men in tag team competition? I can't remember.

At the end of the day this is a grey area as we've acknowledged and people involved hopefully will respect the challenge and try not to exploit loopholes and whatnot. If you honestly view them as a legitimate tag team pick then I'd be fine with you having it

cheers i guess cos i did although as i said dunno wether they were established enough for others and am willing to change it if neccesary.

Fozzy · 15-07-2008 4:02pm

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

do you get their WWE peak or just their peak, cos I obviously wont bother picking them just to have Jobbers, even though every roster needs a jobber or two.

I was wondering about this. It was said a few pages back that their peak could be outside of WWE, but it seemed a little strange to me anyway. The reason is that we're free to use our rosters however we choose. That means pushing whoever we want at the top. While a guy like AJ was mostly a jobber in WWE, he still had the same ability as he did in TNA soon after that. So if you choose to push a WWE jobber to the top, they're still going to have as much talent as they would have anyway, right?

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-07-2008 4:13pm

Fozzy wrote: »

I was wondering about this. It was said a few pages back that their peak could be outside of WWE, but it seemed a little strange to me anyway. The reason is that we're free to use our rosters however we choose. That means pushing whoever we want at the top. While a guy like AJ was mostly a jobber in WWE, he still had the same ability as he did in TNA soon after that. So if you choose to push a WWE jobber to the top, they're still going to have as much talent as they would have anyway, right?

A wrestler's peak to me though would mean not just the point they were at their best in the ring, but also the point when they were most over.

Someone like Dusty Rhodes for example wouldn't have peaked with the polka dots in WWE, yet is presently regarded as a legend by WWE presumably because of his peak outside the company.

I think therefore to limit a wrestler's peak to within WWE would be too restrictive since the WWE Hall of Fame isn't even that restrictive.

Fozzy · 15-07-2008 4:18pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

A wrestler's peak to me though would mean not just the point they were at their best in the ring, but also the point when they were most over.

Someone like Dusty Rhodes for example wouldn't have peaked with the polka dots in WWE, yet is presently regarded as a legend by WWE presumably because of his peak outside the company.

I think therefore to limit a wrestler's peak to within WWE would be too restrictive since the WWE Hall of Fame isn't even that restrictive.

But even if you just had Dusty in the polka dots, since we have control you could decide to get him out of the polka dots and push him as he was in the NWA, couldn't we?

I suppose there's no need to get too caught up in it though as we're not working it that way now

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-07-2008 4:27pm

Fozzy wrote: »

But even if you just had Dusty in the polka dots, since we have control you could decide to get him out of the polka dots and push him as he was in the NWA, couldn't we?

I suppose there's no need to get too caught up in it though as we're not working it that way now

Yes I suppose you could with Dusty alright. Maybe it is something that could do with tweaking but I don't think it's going to make any difference in determining the outright winner.

Have you decided on your next pick Fozzy?

The Boards WWE Draft spectacular!

Comments