Pre season competition alliance

[Lil' Lavery]

It's up to you guys to determine what I mean.

For week one:
1. Alexander Ovechkin
2. Mike Green
3. Sean Avery (Donald Brashear or Claude Lemieux also work) with a good human player.

Alternate alliance:
1. Pavel Datsyuk (Henrik Zetterberg if unavailable)
2. Zach Parise
3. Mark Streit

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

It's up to you guys to determine what I mean.

For week one:
1. Alexander Ovechkin
2. Mike Green
3. Sean Avery (Donald Brashear or Claude Lemieux also work) with a good human player.

Alternate alliance:
1. Pavel Datsyuk (Henrik Zetterberg if unavailable)
2. Zach Parise
3. Mark Streit

As much as I love this..lol..

I would have to say it depends on the robots at the regional. If there are alot of shooters that arent preforming than, i beleive that its gonna be a dumpers win.

Personally, 2 Dumpers and a really good shooter. I doubt you will ever see 3 shooters unles, 217,1114, 148 hook up at Nationals. heheh

[Akash Rastogi]

Shooter tracking with camera, mass dumper, and tilt/pneumatic dumper

103, 25, and 11

[flyingcrayons]

many people have been saying that a basketball player would be a good HP... imho, i think that is a terrible choice... if you think about it, a basketbll player always takes a shot at a stationary rim. Even when passing, their teammates aren't moving that much... i think that a quarterback would be the best choice. They are paid to throw balls to recievers who are pn the run. they can throw deep, throw short, and throw it into tight spaces... they can anticipate where the target is going to be, not where it is, and that is why they would make a better HP than a bball player...

summary: McNabb, Brady, Manning (either) > Paul, Bryant, Lebron at being a human player

sorry for the rant, i was on a roll...

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by flyingcrayons

many people have been saying that a basketball player would be a good HP... imho, i think that is a terrible choice... if you think about it, a basketbll player always takes a shot at a stationary rim. Even when passing, their teammates aren't moving that much... i think that a quarterback would be the best choice. They are paid to throw balls to recievers who are pn the run. they can throw deep, throw short, and throw it into tight spaces... they can anticipate where the target is going to be, not where it is, and that is why they would make a better HP than a bball player...

summary: McNabb, Brady, Manning (either) > Paul, Bryant, Lebron at being a human player

sorry for the rant, i was on a roll...

Sorry man gotta disagree here. Even though basketball players shoot at a stationary goal, they put arcs on their shots. On our team we have the varsity football player and a varsity basketball player. The football dude tends to through the ball different and it doesn't work so well. While a trained basketball player can throw the ball with one hand or two hands. Also our basketball player makes a ration of 3:1 compared to the football dude. Also its not very hard adjusting to a slow moving goal.

[Bob Steele]

if you are looking for the most similarity in throwing I would suggest you talk to some soccer players. The two hand overhead throw, accomplished by someone who knows how to do it, is very accurate and powerful. It can be accomplished at a running target... or stationary...and you can use arc to get over players...

When I was in college one of my teammates could throw more than halfway across the field extremely accurately. It was like getting an extra corner kick when we got a throw in. He did it with a step and close technique..not a running start...

We scored a number of goals off of headers with his accurate and powerful throws...

Talk to your soccer players...

[Cory]

1114 and two bricks to pin their opponent into a corner (This is a winning week 1 combination, IMO)

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

1114 and two bricks to pin their opponent into a corner (This is a winning week 1 combination, IMO)

Somehow I think their week one opponents like 71, 111, and 217 might be able to best that.

[Diriye]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

It's up to you guys to determine what I mean.

For week one:
1. Alexander Ovechkin
2. Mike Green
3. Sean Avery (Donald Brashear or Claude Lemieux also work) with a good human player.

Alternate alliance:
1. Pavel Datsyuk (Henrik Zetterberg if unavailable)
2. Zach Parise
3. Mark Streit

Week one:
1. A robot that scores unlike anyone else. Dangerous from anywhere on the ice, er, regolith. Just pure domination. Takes care of whiners too.

2. Its main job is to stop other robots from scoring, but is a deadly scorer as well.

3. Makes teams explode with their lack of GP...just kidding.
Makes life miserable for the opponent's top scorer; goads them into making mistakes.

Alternate Alliance
1. Slick scoring machine, but plays a bit of D as well.
2. Complements the top bot by scoring a bunch as well. Has the ability to take over games.
3. Strong defensive bot with a howitzer for a shot (read: quick dumper).

Hmm, not too shabby for a Canuck.
Personally, the alternate alliance seems to be more formidable to me as there are two dangerous scorers on the ice, oops, regolith at the same time.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Diriye

Week one:
1. A robot that scores unlike anyone else. Dangerous from anywhere on the ice, er, regolith. Just pure domination. Takes care of whiners too.

2. Its main job is to stop other robots from scoring, but is a deadly scorer as well.

3. Makes teams explode with their lack of GP...just kidding.
Makes life miserable for the opponent's top scorer; goads them into making mistakes.

Alternate Alliance
1. Slick scoring machine, but plays a bit of D as well.
2. Complements the top bot by scoring a bunch as well. Has the ability to take over games.
3. Strong defensive bot with a howitzer for a shot (read: quick dumper).

Hmm, not too shabby for a Canuck.
Personally, the alternate alliance seems to be more formidable to me as there are two dangerous scorers on the ice, oops, regolith at the same time.

Close for most of them, but not quite right.