Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
If you have a 95 speed LB trying to cover a 120 speed scat back with maxed out scat back VA, then you will realize why it is important to have over 110 speed on your LB


I have a level 55 FB that already has 115 speed and 87 agility and has scat back maxed. Just adding equipment would put him at 125 (I'm still short 2 level 48 AEQ upgrades), but I'm going to chose scat back archetype and I'm going to add more sp to speed and train speed over a couple of times.

He will be at least 130 speed at level 64, and 135 speed at level 72 with FS AEQ and I'm chosing the RR SA when I pick the archetype. With scatback VA he will be running routes with 148 speed, 102 agility, with FS and RR SA bonuses.


So you tell me. How much speed do you need on a LB?

You don't use a LB to cover that kind of build... you tag him and use a 3rd CB TBPH.

Not much different than in real football... smart teams would put a DB on Greg Olsen, because only a handful of LBs have the speed to cover him.

Originally posted by Warlock
You don't use a LB to cover that kind of build... you tag him and use a 3rd CB TBPH.

Not much different than in real football... smart teams would put a DB on Greg Olsen, because only a handful of LBs have the speed to cover him.

And then what happens when we run? He can block to, especially DBs.

Do you go quarter defense if we have the receiving TE, elusive HB, and speed FB on the field?

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
And then what happens when we run? He can block to, especially DBs.

Do you go quarter defense if we have the receiving TE, elusive HB, and speed FB on the field?

Yes.

It's called game strategy. A team has to decide if they want to risk putting a LB on Olsen, possibly getting burned on a deep route or if they want to put a CB on Olsen, possibly watching the CB get blocked into submission by a 6" 50lb bigger TE.

This is also an example of cycles in real football... teams develop/draft smaller speedier LBs if smaller speedier backs become more common or vice versa.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
And then what happens when we run? He can block to, especially DBs.

Do you go quarter defense if we have the receiving TE, elusive HB, and speed FB on the field?

you make it sound like a bad thing to have faster/weaker defenders covering faster/weaker receivers and blockers.

Originally posted by monsterkill
you make it sound like a bad thing to have faster/weaker defenders covering faster/weaker receivers and blockers.

I'd rather have faster/stronger defenders covering faster/weaker receivers and blockers.
The question is basically jumping or strength if we're talking about safeties, catching or strength for CBs and I don't know anyone who uses slow LBs for coverage

Originally posted by Djinnt
I'd rather have faster/stronger defenders covering faster/weaker receivers and blockers.

well no shit

Originally posted by monsterkill
you make it sound like a bad thing to have faster/weaker defenders covering faster/weaker receivers and blockers.

covering, no. having them out there to play run defense, yes. It's pretty easy for a player with 60 strength and 50 blocking to block a defender with 60-75 strength. Whether or not that should be the case is debatable, but it has been that way for several seasons. If a team goes dime because they are worried about a fast FB and a fast TE being on the field, or if they have to drastically adjust their defensive formation, then the offense can run the ball much easier.

Besides, if the SIM is working right, then a 110 speed, 90 agility DB with ball hawk should still have trouble covering a 135 speed, 90 agility back with scat back. That's the beauty of scat back (which really should be nerfed or done away with). A WR or TE can't get an extra 13 pts of speed and 12 pts of agility from a VA like a FB or HB can.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
covering, no. having them out there to play run defense, yes. It's pretty easy for a player with 60 strength and 50 blocking to block a defender with 60-75 strength. Whether or not that should be the case is debatable, but it has been that way for several seasons. If a team goes dime because they are worried about a fast FB and a fast TE being on the field, or if they have to drastically adjust their defensive formation, then the offense can run the ball much easier.

Besides, if the SIM is working right, then a 110 speed, 90 agility DB with ball hawk should still have trouble covering a 135 speed, 90 agility back with scat back. That's the beauty of scat back (which really should be nerfed or done away with). A WR or TE can't get an extra 13 pts of speed and 12 pts of agility from a VA like a FB or HB can.

we'll just have to disagree then. if a team decides they want to run more than pass with speed receiving personnel against a CB heavy defense then my money is still on the defense.

it just doesnt seem worth it to build LBs like disadvantaged CBs when you can just field a CB. maybe it would make sense if LBs had a scat back-ish VA that gave them +15% to pass coverage, but they don't.

i would say the same thing if the scat back VA/SA didnt exist: why build a receiver HB when you could just build a WR

Originally posted by monsterkill
we'll just have to disagree then. if a team decides they want to run more than pass with speed receiving personnel against a CB heavy defense then my money is still on the defense.

it just doesnt seem worth it to build LBs like disadvantaged CBs when you can just field a CB. maybe it would make sense if LBs had a scat back-ish VA that gave them +15% to pass coverage, but they don't.

i would say the same thing if the scat back VA/SA didnt exist: why build a receiver HB when you could just build a WR

Because somebody like you will cover the receiving HB with a CB and he'll make 200 yards a game due to being faster and stronger than his coverage when you could have just used a safety who's fast and strong instead of fast with deflection bonuses/jumping.

LBs don't belong in coverage, but CBs shouldn't cover HBs either.

yeah, what was i thinking? if a team fields a really fast receiving HB, TE and FB, i'll just put a safety on each of them.

i thought it was a given that safeties would be helping deep to protect against being burned. i didnt realize i have to explain every obvious detail. my bad, i forgot this is the internet. gd, i hate forums

Originally posted by monsterkill
yeah, what was i thinking? if a team fields a really fast receiving HB, TE and FB, i'll just put a safety on each of them.

i thought it was a given that safeties would be helping deep to protect against being burned. i didnt realize i have to explain every obvious detail. my bad, i forgot this is the internet. gd, i hate forums

You keep changing the situation in order to make you seem right. We were talking about a receiving HB. Now we're talking about an entire field of receiving non-WRs?
What do you want? Set up a fucking zone defense instead of whining about people not being able to read your mind. Blocking against passes isn't entirely about what man you set on what man. A lot of routes (predictable FB routes especially) can be covered using smart zones.
LOLBs shouldn't have trouble covering TEs, who don't have scat back and function more like WRs.

You're making this way more complicated than it is. All I'm saying is that CBs should be a last resort covering anybody but WRs because even though they're good at deflecting, putting them up against a super fast guy with twice as much strength is not a good idea.

Originally posted by monsterkill
yeah, what was i thinking? if a team fields a really fast receiving HB, TE and FB, i'll just put a safety on each of them.

i thought it was a given that safeties would be helping deep to protect against being burned. i didnt realize i have to explain every obvious detail. my bad, i forgot this is the internet. gd, i hate forums

Coverage LB?