Warrior General Games

+1 this again.

The only thing I dont like about this is...

It takes away from the "realisticness" (out of words) of the game.

There are constant complaints and even the other day a "This game is obviously broken forum".
In the NFL there is not a position for Special Teamers.

People like Devin Hester, Josh Cribbs... etc. Are under certain positions.
They both happen to be WRs.

So I believe what the WR position does not offer, they can not have.

Originally posted by jamman
The only thing I dont like about this is...

It takes away from the "realisticness" (out of words) of the game.

There are constant complaints and even the other day a "This game is obviously broken forum".
In the NFL there is not a position for Special Teamers.

People like Devin Hester, Josh Cribbs... etc. Are under certain positions.
They both happen to be WRs.

So I believe what the WR position does not offer, they can not have.

well, you mentioned some of the more famous and versatile special teamers. only issue with those two examples, they are returners and they play downs on offense regularly.

While it is correct that most long-snappers are a different positions (TE or FB etc), they are still identified as the LS on the depth chart. Kyries Hebert (http://www.bengals.com/team/roster/Kyries-Hebert/HEB633435) is listed as a safety from the 2009 Bengals roster, but I don't think I saw him take any snaps on defense aside from when both safeties got dinged up for a play. But, Hebert was a captain of the team and on every special teams formation the Bengals had.

so when i think of a STOP, Hebert is the person I see in my mind's eye. Somebody that only plays O or D in the case of injury/emergency, but is on every down in the special teams. I just think they should have the tools to do their 1/3 of the game better.

But why would you want to stop their trees? (joke)

I don't know, really...I think the majors/minors were enough, and with our ability to add SAs and custom equipment I don't think we need separate SA trees for them. If this were to be done, it would make a lot more sense to make them their own create-able position.

Originally posted by dmfa41
But why would you want to stop their trees? (joke)

I don't know, really...I think the majors/minors were enough, and with our ability to add SAs and custom equipment I don't think we need separate SA trees for them. If this were to be done, it would make a lot more sense to make them their own create-able position.

while the measures you mention helped STOPs, why make them purchase extra SAs that could and should be available to a STOP at creation?

If anything, it should be the other way around. Give them STOP tree(s), and then let them purchase extra SAs if they are needed on the regular O and D depth charts.

Originally posted by Clarka3
while the measures you mention helped STOPs, why make them purchase extra SAs that could and should be available to a STOP at creation?

If anything, it should be the other way around. Give them STOP tree(s), and then let them purchase extra SAs if they are needed on the regular O and D depth charts.

OK, I could see it either way. Instead of having completely separate trees, I wonder if it would be better (or even possible) to choose one of a player's trees to take out, e.g. an OL's pass blocking or run blocking tree, in favor of one of the trees you mentioned originally - offensive ST, defensive ST, or returner trees.

I think the easiest thing for what you would want is a completely new ST position at creation, though.

Would be a very nice addition for special team players, +1.(Although not sure if it was stated already, they would only need to be active during special team plays).

edit: too much bourbon

I would go one further and let people design their own tree when they build a player, the current tree system is outdated

It would give people a reason to choose the STOP archetype, but obviously the tree shouldn't be insanely overpowered.

Originally posted by jdbolick
It would give people a reason to choose the STOP archetype, but obviously the tree shouldn't be insanely overpowered.

agreed. I don't want to make anything overpowering- i just want to make sure STOPs get a tree or two that will actually have a bearing on their roles rather than being forced to use an offensive player for a blocking STOP and a defensive player for a tackling/pursuit STOP.

Same with the returners- i think i'm not the only one that would like to see the CB trees differentiated so people making a defensive CB aren't stuck with the returner stuff in their speedster tree.

+1
I support this 100%

Originally posted by Clarka3
so when i think of a STOP, Hebert is the person I see in my mind's eye. Somebody that only plays O or D in the case of injury/emergency, but is on every down in the special teams. I just think they should have the tools to do their 1/3 of the game better.

I'll give you that most long snappers are STOPS, but every other non-kicking, non-returning position on special teams is held by depth guys whose core competency is playing a position on O or D.

The invention of the STOP archetype is the single most unrealistic aspect of GLB.

-1

Originally posted by TruthHammer
I'll give you that most long snappers are STOPS, but every other non-kicking, non-returning position on special teams is held by depth guys whose core competency is playing a position on O or D.

The invention of the STOP archetype is the single most unrealistic aspect of GLB.

-1

no, it isn't unrealistic. Larry Izzo was a highly touted special teamer for the... Patriots in the past years. I don't think I saw him on the field at all aside from special teams while he was a patriot.

Rocky Boiman
Kyris Hebert
Kevin Hauser
Steve Tasker
Bryan Kehl
Brad St. Louis
Clark Harris
Nick Novak



all special teamers. there are more for sure, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

Heath Farwell.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=9359