Cheaper to have 2 S*HB's vs. 1 S*QB and 1 S*HB?
or
Would you go with just 1 S*HB, reg QB and 2 S*LB's?
or
Would you go with just 1 S*HB, reg QB and 2 S*LB's?
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > S* question
FairForever
offline
offline
I think you would need to provide more information (what type of offense/defense are you running) before anyone could really answer that question appropriately.
dlcurt
offline
offline
Originally posted by FairForever
I think you would need to provide more information (what type of offense/defense are you running) before anyone could really answer that question appropriately.
Fair enough.... let me clarify. I'm looking at this strictly as a salary cap thing. There was a thread you all discussed in regards to having a S*QB vs a non S*QB. Most saying it's cheaper to have a non S*QB and using the money elsewhere. This is more hypothetical since I'm not 100% sure what D my DC is running quite yet. Offensively, looking at a balanced approach.
I think you would need to provide more information (what type of offense/defense are you running) before anyone could really answer that question appropriately.
Fair enough.... let me clarify. I'm looking at this strictly as a salary cap thing. There was a thread you all discussed in regards to having a S*QB vs a non S*QB. Most saying it's cheaper to have a non S*QB and using the money elsewhere. This is more hypothetical since I'm not 100% sure what D my DC is running quite yet. Offensively, looking at a balanced approach.
Kayoh
offline
offline
welp, I had a thing, and then I disproved it, so here's what I'll say:
linebackers cost around 60% what QBs cost. 2 S* LBs would be ~20% more expensive than 1 S* QB, but in my personal opinion, even a single S* LB is more useful for a team's overall success than a S* QB. QB success isn't dependent on build, it's dependent on surrounding cast + playcalling.
linebackers cost around 60% what QBs cost. 2 S* LBs would be ~20% more expensive than 1 S* QB, but in my personal opinion, even a single S* LB is more useful for a team's overall success than a S* QB. QB success isn't dependent on build, it's dependent on surrounding cast + playcalling.
Edited by Kayoh on Aug 1, 2015 10:01:12
FairForever
offline
offline
I would definitely take the S* HB in a balanced O. I definitely would not take two S* HBs.
The other choices probably depends on what the DC would want to do with the LBs or QB, but as Kayoh said, your last option with 3 S*s is more expensive than your QB/HB option (I'm assuming you're not cutting out one LB here and running with 4 in total).
You also don't indicate your other S*s which are important. For example, the S* TE is probably more important than the QB or LB.
The other choices probably depends on what the DC would want to do with the LBs or QB, but as Kayoh said, your last option with 3 S*s is more expensive than your QB/HB option (I'm assuming you're not cutting out one LB here and running with 4 in total).
You also don't indicate your other S*s which are important. For example, the S* TE is probably more important than the QB or LB.
dlcurt
offline
offline
Originally posted by FairForever
I would definitely take the S* HB in a balanced O. I definitely would not take two S* HBs.
The other choices probably depends on what the DC would want to do with the LBs or QB, but as Kayoh said, your last option with 3 S*s is more expensive than your QB/HB option (I'm assuming you're not cutting out one LB here and running with 4 in total).
You also don't indicate your other S*s which are important. For example, the S* TE is probably more important than the QB or LB.
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
I would definitely take the S* HB in a balanced O. I definitely would not take two S* HBs.
The other choices probably depends on what the DC would want to do with the LBs or QB, but as Kayoh said, your last option with 3 S*s is more expensive than your QB/HB option (I'm assuming you're not cutting out one LB here and running with 4 in total).
You also don't indicate your other S*s which are important. For example, the S* TE is probably more important than the QB or LB.
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
jfbueno
offline
offline
Originally posted by dlcurt
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
If you can fit 8 S*s in your scheme and you want to be a balanced offense I'd probably add a second S* WR. Opens up the passing game for you a little more and it's not a huge investment like a QB would be
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
If you can fit 8 S*s in your scheme and you want to be a balanced offense I'd probably add a second S* WR. Opens up the passing game for you a little more and it's not a huge investment like a QB would be
Jagat0r
offline
offline
Originally posted by jfbueno
If you can fit 8 S*s in your scheme and you want to be a balanced offense I'd probably add a second S* WR. Opens up the passing game for you a little more and it's not a huge investment like a QB would be
This the second s* WR would be a good investment over a s* QB I think with 2 s* WRs and a s* TE your looking at a reg QB putting up s* numbers anyhow
If you can fit 8 S*s in your scheme and you want to be a balanced offense I'd probably add a second S* WR. Opens up the passing game for you a little more and it's not a huge investment like a QB would be
This the second s* WR would be a good investment over a s* QB I think with 2 s* WRs and a s* TE your looking at a reg QB putting up s* numbers anyhow
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by dlcurt
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
Don't make the blitzing LB a S*, you can do it with a regular LB and put up identical stats. Coverage LB arguably needs more stats so if it has to be a LB I think more use can come from a S* Coverage LB
Between 4 agent friends, we have 8 S*'s. We're originally thinking S* FS and SS, S*HB, S*TE, S*WR, S*C. Defensively, we're looking at 5 LB's, 4 covers and 1 blitzing, with the blitzing becoming a S*. That leaves 1 S* left and my debate.
Don't make the blitzing LB a S*, you can do it with a regular LB and put up identical stats. Coverage LB arguably needs more stats so if it has to be a LB I think more use can come from a S* Coverage LB
dbill
offline
offline
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Don't make the blitzing LB a S*, you can do it with a regular LB and put up identical stats. Coverage LB arguably needs more stats so if it has to be a LB I think more use can come from a S* Coverage LB
I agree with this.
Use the S* LB as the MLB so he can be very good cover and still decent against the run
Don't make the blitzing LB a S*, you can do it with a regular LB and put up identical stats. Coverage LB arguably needs more stats so if it has to be a LB I think more use can come from a S* Coverage LB
I agree with this.
Use the S* LB as the MLB so he can be very good cover and still decent against the run
jfbueno
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mysterio
Idk a S* blitzing LB can be faster than a non S* and not be a liability against rushing
This. You have enough SP to go around to make a S* blitzing LB to make him a great blitzer and very good in run support, allowing you to make a couple coverage LBs to complement him.
Idk a S* blitzing LB can be faster than a non S* and not be a liability against rushing
This. You have enough SP to go around to make a S* blitzing LB to make him a great blitzer and very good in run support, allowing you to make a couple coverage LBs to complement him.
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by Kayoh
you can get a blitzing LB (non-S*) to 99 sprinting, 100 snap reaction, 70 conditioning and 55 intim. You could go higher than that stuff, and maybe pump quickness a bit more if you went S* but the opportunity cost just isn't worth it.
This, I've also seen 99 sprinting, 91 quickness, 90 snap reaction on a non S* blitzing LB. I really can't see how having a S* would help here since the only role of this player, is to run really fast, avoid engaging in blocks, and mess with the QB.
you can get a blitzing LB (non-S*) to 99 sprinting, 100 snap reaction, 70 conditioning and 55 intim. You could go higher than that stuff, and maybe pump quickness a bit more if you went S* but the opportunity cost just isn't worth it.
This, I've also seen 99 sprinting, 91 quickness, 90 snap reaction on a non S* blitzing LB. I really can't see how having a S* would help here since the only role of this player, is to run really fast, avoid engaging in blocks, and mess with the QB.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
