|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 18:04:06 GMT -5
What year should we start?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 26, 2009 18:06:49 GMT -5
what would we do after 09?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 26, 2009 18:07:16 GMT -5
wed have the next few recruiting classes but we'd quickly run into either fake players or retro again
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 18:07:28 GMT -5
09 - real till 14 or so. Then fake players created by GMs.
|
|
Mops
Junior Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,267
|
Post by Mops on Nov 26, 2009 18:08:14 GMT -5
I'd say one of the following
90, 95, 2000, or 2006.
I like 95 because you can still see teams go for the win while teams try and tank for the big 96 class. 2000 gives us a chance to go for the LBJ,Wade, Melo draft and we are also still pretty close to current years where most people are familiar.
I am not really in favor of drafts before the 90s
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 18:09:26 GMT -5
I like 85 or 90 at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by DB on Nov 26, 2009 18:10:07 GMT -5
85 for me. gives us plenty of time
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 26, 2009 18:10:26 GMT -5
I'd like to put that off for as long as possible so any of 90, 85, 80 are better IMO
I'd prefer 80 or 85 though. A lot more young stars would be coming up that way we would get to see for an entire career. I think breaking up some draft classes like 84 would be smart though
|
|
Mops
Junior Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,267
|
Post by Mops on Nov 26, 2009 18:10:45 GMT -5
I like 85 or 90 at this point. 85 would give us Magic, Bird, and that crew too....damn |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 26, 2009 18:11:07 GMT -5
I'd say one of the following 90, 95, 2000, or 2006. I like 95 because you can still see teams go for the win while teams try and tank for the big 96 class. 2000 gives us a chance to go for the LBJ,Wade, Melo draft and we are also still pretty close to current years where most people are familiar. I am not really in favor of drafts before the 90s you don't count |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 18:11:49 GMT -5
Jordan be nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by dJ on Nov 26, 2009 18:11:54 GMT -5
start in 80... but add some players from the past? I know some people hate this idea but it would be good, especially for the creation draft... so that everyone can start out with at least one high quality player.
|
|
Mops
Junior Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,267
|
Post by Mops on Nov 26, 2009 18:12:14 GMT -5
I'd like to put that off for as long as possible so any of 90, 85, 80 are better IMO I'd prefer 80 or 85 though. A lot more young stars would be coming up that way we would get to see for an entire career. I think breaking up some draft classes like 84 would be smart though see I like breaking up classes and such too but at the same time I think its sweet to see when so many guys come in at once. At the same time you gotta off balance it by having drafts that just totally suck |
|
Mops
Junior Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,267
|
Post by Mops on Nov 26, 2009 18:12:38 GMT -5
I'd say one of the following 90, 95, 2000, or 2006. I like 95 because you can still see teams go for the win while teams try and tank for the big 96 class. 2000 gives us a chance to go for the LBJ,Wade, Melo draft and we are also still pretty close to current years where most people are familiar. I am not really in favor of drafts before the 90s you don't count why is that |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 26, 2009 18:14:12 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to be mean. I didn't think he was getting a team... |
|
