Warrior General Games

By that I mean you use a 4-3 formation but you are really playing a 3-4.

You make the NT like a 3-4 NT. Then you either

A. Make the weak side DT like a 3-4 DE and shift him outside all the time and make the RDE like a 3-4 ROLB, and then the ROLB like a RILB and keep him inside.

or you make the weak side DT like an ILB (lightest weight possible, so Levon Kirkland) and drop him off the LOS every play.

What would be the aim of it? Does it actually trick blockers?

Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
What would be the aim of it? Does it actually trick blockers?

Having a 3-4 defense without having to choose between placing an inferior athlete on the field or dealing with an OOP penalty.

DTs are going to be much better overall builds than LBs because of the way ALGs work.

Think about what it would be like to slow build an ILB that got auto level gains of

.67 strength, agility, tackling and .2 speed, stamina, vision, and confidence



Edit: For instance I have a DT that if I changed equipment around he could have

124 speed
85 strength
83 agility
70 tackling
65 vision
55 confidence
55 stamina
35 jumping
9 shed block
10 first step (AEQ)

And he wasn't even built very well. You could actually do much better.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
By that I mean you use a 4-3 formation but you are really playing a 3-4.

You make the NT like a 3-4 NT. Then you either

A. Make the weak side DT like a 3-4 DE and shift him outside all the time and make the RDE like a 3-4 ROLB, and then the ROLB like a RILB and keep him inside.

or you make the weak side DT like an ILB (lightest weight possible, so Levon Kirkland) and drop him off the LOS every play.


It sounds plausible, and I have seen a few defensive sets that use this from time to time.

I haven't seen anyone really commit to this as a strategy however.

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by Rage Kinard

By that I mean you use a 4-3 formation but you are really playing a 3-4.

You make the NT like a 3-4 NT. Then you either

A. Make the weak side DT like a 3-4 DE and shift him outside all the time and make the RDE like a 3-4 ROLB, and then the ROLB like a RILB and keep him inside.

or you make the weak side DT like an ILB (lightest weight possible, so Levon Kirkland) and drop him off the LOS every play.


It sounds plausible, and I have seen a few defensive sets that use this from time to time.

I haven't seen anyone really commit to this as a strategy however.



I think it would be interesting. The thing is if you used the DT as an ILB, then you would probably want to give him zone specialist and ball hawk SAs.

If you used the DT as a DE and RDE as a WLB, then could probably still have the DE be your primary pass rusher. It would simply mirror a 3-4 with WLB walked up to the LOS.

The biggest problem with the DE as a 3-4 WLB is with positioning. You can't get the DT outside the LOT. The problem with using DT as an ILB is the limitation on zones you can send the DT to.

It would be interesting though simply because of how much higher a DTs attributes are going to be than a LBs.

and since all LB SAs are crap... sounds like a win to me.

EDIT: also makes me think about maybe kind of doing something similar with CBs and FSs... if you were to have an FS and build him to play like a CB, you have CD, SDC, SB, and SV all in the same tree, as well as a few tackling SAs (big hit may be good in zone, and wrap up would help in pro and world on pitch plays). and for a CB playing FS, you can get blitz (for what its worth...) for when you maybe want to blitz the FS (really a CB) (combine with fearsome VA?), sticky hands (if you want a good coverage safety), and you get SV one SA slot earlier. the only drawbacks i see are your FS (really a CB) not having wrap up tackle, and your CB (really a FS) not having sticky hands (not too big a deal), and some natural gains stuff being a bit different and some DPC positioning limitations (i dont think you can place the CB way back where FSs generally play?? not sure though as i currently dont have access to the DPC.) you could also of course do this with an SS playing where a CB should normally play and then just play the CB back deep where the SS would normally line up. This would result in a CB (really a SS) with CD, SB, SH, SV, and CS all in the same tree (sounds like a godly zone player... sadly no SDC though unless you get AEQ), with a few tackling SAs, and an SS (really a CB) with blitz (again... meh), and SDC (could be very useful in tagging receiving TEs)

Originally posted by Worker 3
and since all LB SAs are crap... sounds like a win to me.

EDIT: also makes me think about maybe kind of doing something similar with CBs and FSs... if you were to have an FS and build him to play like a CB, you have CD, SDC, SB, and SV all in the same tree, as well as a few tackling SAs (big hit may be good in zone, and wrap up would help in pro and world on pitch plays). and for a CB playing FS, you can get blitz (for what its worth...) for when you maybe want to blitz the FS (really a CB) (combine with fearsome VA?), sticky hands (if you want a good coverage safety), and you get SV one SA slot earlier. the only drawbacks i see are your FS (really a CB) not having wrap up tackle, and your CB (really a FS) not having sticky hands (not too big a deal), and some natural gains stuff being a bit different and some DPC positioning limitations (i dont think you can place the CB way back where FSs generally play?? not sure though as i currently dont have access to the DPC.) you could also of course do this with an SS playing where a CB should normally play and then just play the CB back deep where the SS would normally line up. This would result in a CB (really a SS) with CD, SB, SH, SV, and CS all in the same tree (sounds like a godly zone player... sadly no SDC though unless you get AEQ), with a few tackling SAs, and an SS (really a CB) with blitz (again... meh), and SDC (could be very useful in tagging receiving TEs)

This is nearly illegible.

Originally posted by Forbin
This is nearly illegible.

ha,yeah, my thoughts were maybe a little jumbled. i'll try to dumb it down...

take a CB, build him like an FS, use the DPC to place him deep where the FS would normally line up.
take an FS, build him like a CB, use the DPC to place him deep where the CB would normally line up.
can also do the same thing with an SS and CB

the purpose of this would be to get different SAs and natural gains for a position that would normally not have those SAs or have different natural gains. just like rage's idea of building a DE (which has much better gains and SAs) like a LB and play in a 4-3 that winds up being more of a 3-4 shift.

for the SS and CB idea.

you could potentially have a "CB" that has CD, SB. SH, SV, and CS all in the same tree... sounds like a godly zone CB. and you could have an SS with blitz (combine with fearsome?) and SDC for receiving TEs. only down side here is lack of tackling SAs for the "SS" such as wrap up, and maybe some natural gains stuff which i dont think would be too big of a deal.

Interesting. There is some sort of penalty for d-line players that drop into zones that aren't in the flats, right? I remember a bunch of band-aids being applied right after the DPC came out.

Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
Interesting. There is some sort of penalty for d-line players that drop into zones that aren't in the flats, right? I remember a bunch of band-aids being applied right after the DPC came out.

I'm pretty sure it's only deep zones, so he'd be fine underneath - where you'd generally play a regular OLB anyway.

We might have to try this out next season with Rhodesia, since the OP of this thing is our DC.

We have a couple DEs that play RDE, could move some EQ out of agility and make them pretty damn fast...

Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
Interesting. There is some sort of penalty for d-line players that drop into zones that aren't in the flats, right? I remember a bunch of band-aids being applied right after the DPC came out.

yeah, i believe so, so that's a small limitation. but theres nothing that says you cant also have linebackers buitl like linebackers for a legit 3-4 and have them play deep or mid zones if you wanted. but when it comes to blitzing in 3-4 or just playing the flats, i dont see why having a DE built like a LB wouldnt be amazing.

Originally posted by Worker 3
Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23

Interesting. There is some sort of penalty for d-line players that drop into zones that aren't in the flats, right? I remember a bunch of band-aids being applied right after the DPC came out.

yeah, i believe so, so that's a small limitation. but theres nothing that says you cant also have linebackers buitl like linebackers for a legit 3-4 and have them play deep or mid zones if you wanted. but when it comes to blitzing in 3-4 or just playing the flats, i dont see why having a DE built like a LB wouldnt be amazing.

Against QB rush & pitch teams, it would be pretty damn useful. Not so sure against the pass, but if there is a penalty to underneath zones, it can't be THAT bad... He'd be in the right area, at least.

I think the real problem is that you couldn't have that DE use man coverage. You would be limited to either running a zone defense or blitzing that guy every time, and in that case you might as well run a 4-3. The strength of the 3-4 is that you can send or drop any of your linebackers.

Originally posted by FarmerJosh
I think the real problem is that you couldn't have that DE use man coverage. You would be limited to either running a zone defense or blitzing that guy every time, and in that case you might as well run a 4-3. The strength of the 3-4 is that you can send or drop any of your linebackers.

from what i recall in my DC days (like season 4) the strong side in GLB is always on the right, so if you build your RDE to be the 3-4 LB, you wont ever have to worry about covering a TE in man as the TE will be on the other side of the formation. and you can always just throw the DE out in the flat to cover routes by the HB or FB on your side.

Originally posted by FarmerJosh
I think the real problem is that you couldn't have that DE use man coverage. You would be limited to either running a zone defense or blitzing that guy every time, and in that case you might as well run a 4-3. The strength of the 3-4 is that you can send or drop any of your linebackers.

The problem is the way pathing works with the 3-4. If you're trying to get pressure on the QB, and your choices are 3-4 or 4-3, there's only one real option. You need those 4 linemen to take up space.

The only time you'd really hurt yourself would be covering the HB on the weak side (And yeah Worker, strong side in GLB is always the right)... Normally you might use the ROLB to cover the weak HB routes. In this case, you'd either have to use the MLB or the FS.

Or, I guess, just have the "real" ROLB cover him. Heh.