It has nothing to do with drawing up the formation. There has to be a number of running and passing plays drawn up and tested for the formation and then they would have to create a separate coverage system for it because there are 2 HB's on the field. Plus an array of defenses to fit against it as well.
Your defense would still be based on 2 TE's. The new coverage model should already be able to handle picking up guys in man because there are still the same number of guys in the backfield, and in zone, it doesn't matter where the offense lines up, just where they go.
And when I said I'd draw up the offense, I meant that I would draw up the running and passing plays for it. Heck, if corndog showed me how they handle play scripting, I'd even do that.
It's 2 te's, 2 hb's, and a fb all in the game. No other formation is like that. . If you are making it with a wr it pretty much is big I except they would have to play around with some different blocking schemes which honestly could be pretty op'd under the right set up.
Originally posted by bhall43 It's 2 te's, 2 hb's, and a fb all in the game. No other formation is like that. . If you are making it with a wr it pretty much is big I except they would have to play around with some different blocking schemes which honestly could be pretty op'd under the right set up.
I'd actually feel pretty okay running my current 4-4 base D against it. What it will be OP against is all those people who think of GLB2 D as All Dogs All The Time.
Originally posted by Xavori I'd actually feel pretty okay running my current 4-4 base D against it. What it will be OP against is all those people who think of GLB2 D as All Dogs All The Time.
Beyond just having another option for anti-Dogz, I think this would be a fun offense to run. It's pretty much football history, and GLB2 is exactly the kinda place where you could play around with things like that just for kicks.