Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Time Trial
I think the answer is that the opportunity cost of putting points into closing speed is not worth the investment. It isn't that it isn't doing anything, it just isn't doing anything of value. You would be better off getting Monster Hit to 16 before investing in closing speed. The diminishing returns will still be of greater value than closing speed on an FF gunner.

Use those SPs to increase speed, agility, jumping, tackling, strength, wrap up tackle, diving tackle, monster hit, big hit, head hunter, first step, or change direction.

The opportunity cost of chosing closing speed over the other available options is too high for the limited benefit.

So if I cut 3 points off of speed and 3 off of agility, that will save me at least 30 SP's, right? (investing at 5 cap only) I think closing speed will make up for that loss..

CS will always be a part of my formula as well as everything else

Originally posted by snakes22
So if I cut 3 points off of speed and 3 off of agility, that will save me at least 30 SP's, right? (investing at 5 cap only) I think closing speed will make up for that loss..

CS will always be a part of my formula as well as everything else



I mean, you've seen the plays and the speed scores, so you can certainly make that call. It isn't the call I would make given the number of SAs that apply, but if you find success at forcing fumbles you may be less likely to listen to any advice contrary to your build.

Originally posted by snakes22
So if I cut 3 points off of speed and 3 off of agility, that will save me at least 30 SP's, right? (investing at 5 cap only) I think closing speed will make up for that loss..
It doesn't even come close, especially because you're forgetting that the 15% bonus from Special Teamer affects the attributes but not anything gained from Closing Speed.

Originally posted by
CS will always be a part of my formula as well as everything else
Because you're stubborn and self-conscious. Closing Speed only activates for an extremely short time during a return, and it cuts off before the tackle attempt. Again, do whatever you want on your own dots but please don't give other people bad advice just because you don't want to admit that you were proven wrong.

Start your own advice forum bollick if you want , I offer nothing but my opinions. 12 WL seasons and never losing record, people can do as they choose

Btw I wouldn't want to mislead all the new users who visit this forum

If people haven't figured it out by now odds are they never will

Originally posted by snakes22
Start your own advice forum bollick if you want , I offer nothing but my opinions. 12 WL seasons and never losing record, people can do as they choose
The problem is that I proved you wrong. Remember, you were also telling people to enhance 20% instead of 30%, which is also wrong. If you want to give people advice about running a team then you're qualified to do so, but you still have a ton to learn when it comes to building dots.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I've seen plenty of low weight fumble forcers, including mine that I posted before. Any extra weight bonus to forcing fumbles is probably negated by the extra speed from being lighter, since speed at collision is a major factor in forcing fumbles. A lot of it has to do with how you're used (what spot are you running out of and how does the rest of the coverage team affect your opportunities), and then X-factor. I see the same thing with pancakes for OL. I can't explain why some dots seem to naturally perform better than others even if their attributes are uniformly lower.

Worth going back to this post because speed is something the OP should consider. From my experimenting, you can cut an IN4 down to 140 speed and be ok with reaching the returner. The difference in the rather scripted lane start is nominal between a 140 and a 160 guy. If you dropped the additional EQ points into strength, you may gain a larger benefit than you otherwise would from the additional speed. But that's up for debate because there's no way to substantiate either side.

Personally, I do have a WL ST MVP on a speedy gunner, but I prefer the higher strength guys as an IN4. I'll say this...I also chose to go with a combo DT for my new gen guy and with our combined ST 'ability' I think that speaks volumes: http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=4391324

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Worth going back to this post because speed is something the OP should consider. From my experimenting, you can cut an IN4 down to 140 speed and be ok with reaching the returner. The difference in the rather scripted lane start is nominal between a 140 and a 160 guy. If you dropped the additional EQ points into strength, you may gain a larger benefit than you otherwise would from the additional speed. But that's up for debate because there's no way to substantiate either side.

Personally, I do have a WL ST MVP on a speedy gunner, but I prefer the higher strength guys as an IN4. I'll say this...I also chose to go with a combo DT for my new gen guy and with our combined ST 'ability' I think that speaks volumes: http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=4391324

Have you considered going tackling over strength?

I'd be interested in seeing a "slower" STs unit that made a heavy investment in tackling. For example using the JoaT LB or CB build with a lot of weight. They have four majors: Speed, Agility, Strength, and Tackling and they are all that I ever use to build my FF STs players.

I have gone strength first on builds, but never tackling first. If you went with 135 speed and 130 tackling on a STs unit, I wonder:
(a) how many TDs you would allow by letting the STs unit set up; and
(b) how many FFs you would force.

I experiment with a lot of builds, might be worth making a unit like that in a couple of seasons and see how they do.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player_replays.pl?player_id=3826382&game_id=2417414

Anti-FF Build in the WL. TDs? I'm just trying to hold on to the damn thing!

Originally posted by Time Trial
Have you considered going tackling over strength?

I'd be interested in seeing a "slower" STs unit that made a heavy investment in tackling. For example using the JoaT LB or CB build with a lot of weight. They have four majors: Speed, Agility, Strength, and Tackling and they are all that I ever use to build my FF STs players.

I have gone strength first on builds, but never tackling first. If you went with 135 speed and 130 tackling on a STs unit, I wonder:
(a) how many TDs you would allow by letting the STs unit set up; and
(b) how many FFs you would force.

I experiment with a lot of builds, might be worth making a unit like that in a couple of seasons and see how they do.

I don't buy into the tackling over strength deal. If your tackling roll is strong enough then there is no reason to take it even higher. That's overkill.

I wouldn't want an overall "slower" unit. Just guys maximizing their FF roll in the right places. I know I've mentioned it before in public, but it's super easy to utilize a 'push' strategy where a faster ST'er directs the returner towards your slower high FF chance guys (on kick returns).

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I don't buy into the tackling over strength deal. If your tackling roll is strong enough then there is no reason to take it even higher. That's overkill.
You do realize that tackling adds to the tackle score, right? And that the more you exceed the necessary threshold by, the better your chance to force a fumble? Tackling & make tackle AEQ are both essential to forcing fumbles or causing KLs.

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I don't buy into the tackling over strength deal. If your tackling roll is strong enough then there is no reason to take it even higher. That's overkill.

I wouldn't want an overall "slower" unit. Just guys maximizing their FF roll in the right places. I know I've mentioned it before in public, but it's super easy to utilize a 'push' strategy where a faster ST'er directs the returner towards your slower high FF chance guys (on kick returns).

I've forced a lot of fumbles on high tackling / low strength dots, but I've never had luck forcing fumbles on a high strength / low tackling dot. As jd said, the score you achive on the tackle roll is what drives the ability to force the fumbles. The higher the score over the break tackle roll, the more likely you will be to have a high FF roll.

Right, I agree w/ both of what y'all are saying. I just mean that I value strength over tackling after a certain threshold (85-90 tackling on a ST'er).

I don't mean it to be taken that the additional tackling does nothing for you. Just from an opportunity cost perspective, I think the comparative strength adds more utility to my build.

@Time Trial, you don't even get a FF opportunity if you don't make a quality tackle. You essentially have to hit a certain threshold w/ your tackle roll for you to get a FF attempt (much the same as a pancake attempt and a hold block roll). My attitude is that as long as you are consistently hitting that threshold, then you should be maximizing the next stage in the roll (the FF attempt), where strength becomes the dominant factor.

To say TKL is not more important than STR in this aspect is really foolish tbh.

Originally posted by Sellars
To say TKL is not more important than STR in this aspect is really foolish tbh.

If it is foolish can you substantiate your claim? Because if I dig (god damn Q&A) I can substantiate that strength > tackle in the FF roll.

Look at your own ST dot when he was on Benin a few seasons ago, I tried telling u then that u needed more TKL. He made 30 and missed 3, he obviously had no problems making the tackle... but he forced all of 3 fumbles. Now I understand he doesn't have MH, but I can assure u that dot would have had more if he would have taken some STR EQ and put it into TKL.