Warrior General Games

Originally posted by King of Bling
Certainly not to the extent it should be, 100% agree

EDIT: I believe there should be a positional sliding scale. ie: An OT playing G should be pretty chill and visa-versa, G to C or the opposite should work too as examples. On the other hand, a WR playing TE should get a penalty for instance.



It's pretty much that way now. I could go diggin about for former Bort's on this subject but I have it in my notes as follows;

One position away from original = least penalty.
2 positions = likely double penalty.
3 positions away = likely disaster.

And, TBPH, I've seen this in replays plenty enough. Trying to play a Center at TE generally weakens the center pretty badly. I've tried a STOP center at FB once... that was ugly... even though the skill sets between a STOP center and a BFB are pretty close to same. WR at TE does ok... unless called to block... even if you build a blocking WR. TE at WR plays good. FB at TE... I'll look about but I've likely tried them all... either out of curiosity or necessity so I made a list of "do/don't" for OOP. Generally speaking, most managers try hard to avoid it unless you have a need and not a dot for it. A few coaches do stuff like BTE's at WR for running plays (yup... and BFB's too). It's nothing new. But any advantage you can get by doing that can be overcome by a good DC, tagging, and other such things... so I still don't see a need to change the system. And, I highly suspect, neither does Bort.

my thread title clearly says FB at WR. TAke your OPP nonsense at other positions to another thread. We already know O linemen suck at blocking WR. This has been tested.

NERF FB AT WR BORT. THIS IS A JOKE that has been going on for years.

Originally posted by TheBear
I just don't see him changing anything unless it proves to be overpowered and spammed a lot.

Ever seen SWAT play? The ignorance of replies in here is insane

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
But any advantage you can get by doing that can be overcome by a good DC, tagging, and other such things... so I still don't see a need to change the system. And, I highly suspect, neither does Bort.

Explain how tagging helps in the slightest, or are you just talking out your arse? Do you think DCs can actually tag WRs? Newsflash, we can't. So unless the OC tips off what they're doing with the rest of the personnel they deploy, zero help there.

Tagging WRs I believe is on the NGTH list anyways, as that would explode the current 156 DAI inputs it takes to cover the existing permutations with full tagging (and that's with ZERO inputs to cover down/distance), to well over 500. Would probably break the servers if someone actually made a proper DAI that tagged all the WRs and accounted for distances a bit, it would be over 700 inputs minimum at that point...

My point was simply this, if you're going to try to address what's going on with a nerf to FB -> WR OoPP, you'd have to do the same to TE -> WR OoPP, or the same teams using this tactic, would very simply switch to blkTEs at WR, and those dots are likely already running 15 Outside Blocker VA, they wouldn't even have to burn their VA reset or blink an eye.

Imo the root of the problem is the size difference

If the defense OoPP was adjusted so that 270 pound LBs could play in DB slot, all of these issues mostly go away.

Even the basic blocking WR has a 50+ pound weight against the average CB. When you get a bFB or bTE or there with Max weight, a strict blocking only build, and blocking VAs that the defense has no counter for, it's just a perfect storm.

I don't mind how good the offense is, as long as there's a counter. Right now there isn't.

Btw... That bFB thing is pretty smart. I don't know how I've never noticed that before. That 25% ALG advantage over bTEs is pretty nice.

https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=20816&pbp_id=817029

more BS

Originally posted by Gambler75
Explain how tagging helps in the slightest, or are you just talking out your arse? Do you think DCs can actually tag WRs? Newsflash, we can't. So unless the OC tips off what they're doing with the rest of the personnel they deploy, zero help there.

Tagging WRs I believe is on the NGTH list anyways, as that would explode the current 156 DAI inputs it takes to cover the existing permutations with full tagging (and that's with ZERO inputs to cover down/distance), to well over 500. Would probably break the servers if someone actually made a proper DAI that tagged all the WRs and accounted for distances a bit, it would be over 700 inputs minimum at that point...

My point was simply this, if you're going to try to address what's going on with a nerf to FB -> WR OoPP, you'd have to do the same to TE -> WR OoPP, or the same teams using this tactic, would very simply switch to blkTEs at WR, and those dots are likely already running 15 Outside Blocker VA, they wouldn't even have to burn their VA reset or blink an eye.


I meant that generically... meaning that tagging is a part of doing DC work and not specifically talking WR's only. Sorry for that confusion. What I do remember (from before the crash) was there were plenty of teams spamming certain plays and using non-WR's at WR because they were great blockers. AFAIK that's been going on for decades. But, also, AFAIK, (top) DC's have figured out how to stop it.
As to what you're saying, I'm pretty sure FB's aren't listed at WR even if they're assigned there so if you tag them as they're listed, wouldn't that tag apply no matter where they line up? I'm not a (top) DC so I don't know the answer there. I knew you don't tag WR'S but then I've never seen players listed for tagging outside of their area. FB's and HB's are taggable AFAIK.

Way too long post incoming:

If the OC has a dead giveaway, in terms of the formation, the other personnel they deploy along it, AND you feel 100% sure, that they're not going to change it from game to game, then yes - you can work off that. But that is a MASSIVE gamble, and if they do change it up - say swapping the OoP FB or TE over to WR2 and running heavily to strongside, and you've overloaded weakside against where they were attacking with that in previous games? You're likely going to get TROUNCED for it.

In terms of WRs tagging, I should clarify - you CAN *place* a tag on them - but that's only ever used if the WR is out of position. In other words, you can tag a STWR or powWR as blocker, and it will trigger if they place that WR at FB, or put that WR at TE, and so on - but it doesn't work at all in the reverse. A FB tagged (as anything), doesn't affect the D play calls in the slightest when playing WR. Nor does any tag you place on the WR, if they're at WR. The defense is 100% blind to who is playing WR, ALWAYS. Full stop.

So the (top) OCs, won't give you those tells, mixing formations, personnel, etc. to make it a HUGE gamble by the defense to overload a side, just based on what they did in previous games, risking getting burned 1) by them switching sides, 2) by them deploying speedy fake WRs where the blocker was, attacking combo/HH DBs you slid over there, 3) getting no pressure, because you took the desperation move of fanning out the DEs to the flats on that side, to try to force plays back inside. I could go on, but yeah ... none of the options are "solving" it, they're all guesswork. IF we had the ability to use tags on the WR slots, it would solve 99% of that, but it would literally cause DAIs to explode in size exponentially.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
As to what you're saying, I'm pretty sure FB's aren't listed at WR even if they're assigned there so if you tag them as they're listed, wouldn't that tag apply no matter where they line up?

Partially correct. If you tag a FB as a blocker it follows them to whatever position they're placed in. But WR isn't an option, the available positions are only (QB | HB | FB | TE | BTE) in terms of triggering DAI inputs.

Keep in mind, each permutation of personnel, requires it's own input if you want everything covered. If you want a look inside the hell of a DC's life, here's the ones for Big I, using just "blocker" to imply a power runner or blocker, and "receiver" for any speedy dot (nothing specific for combo types, as that explodes the inputs to unmaintainable insanity, in a similar way that adding WRs to the mix would. Combos just get tagged whichever way they 'lean'.):

pQB bTE bBTE bFB bHB
pQB bTE bBTE bFB rHB
pQB bTE bBTE rFB bHB
pQB bTE bBTE rFB rHB
pQB bTE rBTE bFB bHB
pQB bTE rBTE bFB rHB
pQB bTE rBTE rFB bHB
pQB bTE rBTE rFB rHB
pQB rTE bBTE bFB bHB
pQB rTE bBTE bFB rHB
pQB rTE bBTE rFB bHB
pQB rTE bBTE rFB rHB
pQB rTE rBTE bFB bHB
pQB rTE rBTE bFB rHB
pQB rTE rBTE rFB bHB
pQB rTE rBTE rFB rHB

Then repeat ALL of those again, replacing with rQB. That's one formation. That also doesn't include any logic for yardage/down mind you, which IMO is all but mandatory, and you're already at 32 inputs just to cover the personnel ... If we made the WR slot taggable for the Big I ... that doubles it to 64 inputs, again with nothing for distance/downs. Formations with more WRs, would be 2^X exponential growth, so quadruple for 2 WR forms, octuple for 3 WR forms, (whatever the hell the word is for 16x) for spread, etc. Those formations don't have quite as many required inputs as Big I, but still that's just a completely untennable mess. Short version: DCs either wouldn't use it, or would burn out completely trying to maintain their DAIs if they did.

All of that said, those same problems exist for dealing with powWR or ST WR blockers too, if the OC is moving them around and mixing formation/personnel ...

The unique advantages to using blkFB or blkTE at WR, over a blockWR, either pow or ST: 1) Much higher weight as TJ pointed out, 2) much better ALGs (FB>TE), 3a) access to a blocking SA tree, 3b) favored SAs, 4) less flex cost.

If you check out how sluggishly the FB @ WR moves on pass plays (OB VA turned off on non-runs), one possible fix would just be disabling OB VA when playing out of position, rather than nerfing it in general. They'd still wreck if they get their hands on you, but you'd have a fighting chance of slipping around them. It would have some collateral damage to teams who use FBs at GL TE spots (I'm one of those), but it would avoid the collateral damage of hammering scatFB / recTE at WR4/5 spots, which more teams probably use (albeit sparingly), if OoPP were increased for FB & TE -> WR.

Too much rambling, time to sleep.

Buff my defense. Only mine though.

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
Buff my defense. Only mine though.
Still wouldn't help

Wow. Thanks Gambler. That is the most informative post on DC stuff I've seen in a long time and answers a lot of (DC) questions I have in my notes. So much appreciated (at least from me).

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Wow. Thanks Gambler. That is the most informative post on DC stuff I've seen in a long time and answers a lot of (DC) questions I have in my notes. So much appreciated (at least from me).

No worries, sorry for the nasty tone of my first post re-reading it. I was in the middle of trying to game plan against that exact problem and weighing whether or not to MAKE that gamble ... and I kind of read your post as "this is only a problem for crap DCs", and it's IMO the hardest thing to deal with as a DC, since blkWRs (or bFB or bTE at WR), running amuck will tear apart a D fast and the available solutions really aren't great.

Back to the OP, to try to get the thread back on topic - options for dealing with FBs at WR, assuming Bort actually wants to look at it:

1) Increase the OoPP for FB -> WR. (Likely just gets people using blkTE at WR instead, hurts scatFB at WR4/5 for no reason).
2) Increase the OoPP for FB + TE -> WR (Likely makes blkWRs worth the flex depending how strong the increase is, but hurts sFB + rTE both in WR4/5)
3) Nerf Outside Blocker, to make the existing FB + TE OoPP actually hurt their mobility + vision appropriately, since it overpowers the OoPP completely as is. (Hurts normal FB/TE/blkWR w/that VA, doesn't really effect the overall balance of blkWR being < FB + TE OoP, so meh.)
4) Nerf/Turn off Outside Blocker, when playing out of position only. (Might be a pain to code?, hurts bFB in GL TE spots, very likely makes blkWR vastly superior to out of position dots however, making the flex worth it again.)
5) Another nerf to WR blocking in general. (Doesn't help FB > TE > WR current pecking order at all, terrible solution IMO)
6) Allow tagging WR slots in the DAI. (Dear god no, and I *think* it's on the NGTH list anyways lol.)

Really only 2 or 4 addresses blkWR being worth than out of position dots, the rest are just listed for spitballing ideas. Someone more creative might have some suggestions though.

New Defensive VA

Versatile:

Each level of Versatile reduces the effects of the out-of-possision penalty by 6%.
Prerequisite: 60 Tackling

I guess the reason I'm against changing the OOP is that I've had to use Scat FB's at WR from time to time and they're already punished enough for that OOP. I think the problem with putting blockers out at WR is more about the disparity between DB's and big assed TE's and BFB's in weight and strength and blocking ability vs weak assed, tiny DB's. I'm not sure you could apply a penalty big enough to overcome the difference and such a heavy penalty would harm Scats playing the position (more than they already are). In a perfect world, wouldn't need either (scats at WR or BTE/BFB's at WR) but then nobody wants to build blocking WR's so there's that.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes
New Defensive VA

Versatile:

Each level of Versatile reduces the effects of the out-of-possision penalty by 6%.
Prerequisite: 60 Tackling



Here's one for offense, haha.

Gadget Player:

Each level of Gadget Player reduces the effects of the out-of-position penalty by 6% when running routes on offense.
Prerequisite: 60 Catching