In my tactics settings, I regular tick the boxes allowing the QB to hold the FB and HB back if he feels pressured, but always want the TE to be on a receiving route where possible. However I've been noticing that even at this there are times when the QB panics, and holds back the TE while the two back go roaming upfield. Is there any way to alter the order by which players are selected to stay back and protect the QB, so that an unticked player will not be held back before the "ticked" players? So in my case, the TE may be held back still, but only in tandem with the FB and HB, and will not be held back before them?
Forum > Suggestions > Holding in Receivers
bhall43
offline
offline
Nope and this is actually by design because people were never holding the te in and always holding a blocking hb or fb in for better targeted plays.
ThirdAndLong
offline
offline
So people were using their best blockers to block and their best receivers to receive. And we want to stop them from doing that because ...?
jhiggseiu14
offline
offline
The title and the post is confusing but i see what youre saying. It does seem like if its an overwhelming blitz in the area of the te the te will stay and block at times. I mean it would make more sense if even if the te has to do something maybe he should just "chip" block and then release.
Edited by jhiggseiu14 on Sep 2, 2016 09:23:11
HayRow
offline
offline
If you never want the TE held in, then make him the first read in the pass play. If the TE is the primary target, they won't be held in
jakedood
offline
offline
Yeah I have done that, but then the TE's for us get over targeted... basically just want the option of that route!
Sorry I'll try to clarify... basically looking to address the order by which players get held back when the QB feels threatened, to hold back the "ticked" players in your tactics before holding back an "unticked" one. I could imagine same issues if someone made a scat back and a blocking TE, but in reverse.
Im not saying the TE should never be held back, I can understand the point where people might make a blocking HB and FB for example and just hold them in, preventing all sacks really. I'd just want the QB to hold them back before he holds back the TE, in terms of the team I do offense for. Or that I could prefer the TE protects while the HB runs a route, if i so felt like adjusting it that way
Sorry I'll try to clarify... basically looking to address the order by which players get held back when the QB feels threatened, to hold back the "ticked" players in your tactics before holding back an "unticked" one. I could imagine same issues if someone made a scat back and a blocking TE, but in reverse.
Im not saying the TE should never be held back, I can understand the point where people might make a blocking HB and FB for example and just hold them in, preventing all sacks really. I'd just want the QB to hold them back before he holds back the TE, in terms of the team I do offense for. Or that I could prefer the TE protects while the HB runs a route, if i so felt like adjusting it that way
Edited by jakedood on Sep 2, 2016 10:57:18
jhiggseiu14
offline
offline
i say the only way to truly fix it is to see which defensive plays trigger the te blocking when unchecked and then target that play as hayrow said for the te. Im sure on some blitzes he will still go and that there are certain blitzes that force the te to block. maybe try that?
Originally posted by bhall43
Because in 3 or 4 wr you always want to hold the hb in so you can target wr3 and/or te/wr4. The hb and fb receiving game is garbage.
You can force the TE out on the route anyway, and even with the HB ticked to be held in, a lot of the time he will run a route.
The OP is asking that it at least uses the Hold back tick option first, or their really isn't a point to having the system at all.
doobas™
Because in 3 or 4 wr you always want to hold the hb in so you can target wr3 and/or te/wr4. The hb and fb receiving game is garbage.
You can force the TE out on the route anyway, and even with the HB ticked to be held in, a lot of the time he will run a route.
The OP is asking that it at least uses the Hold back tick option first, or their really isn't a point to having the system at all.
doobas™
Duro
offline
offline
Originally posted by doobas
You can force the TE out on the route anyway, and even with the HB ticked to be held in, a lot of the time he will run a route.
The OP is asking that it at least uses the Hold back tick option first, or their really isn't a point to having the system at all.
doobas™
It isn't about forcing the TE out. It is about taking away the HB and/or FB from going out on a route because the aren't good options in the receiving game. It is an easy way to game the system on 3 WR and 4 WR passing.
Pretty sure this was all done because passing was ridiculous and they needed to give blitzing more power without it being an auto sack most of the time.
You can force the TE out on the route anyway, and even with the HB ticked to be held in, a lot of the time he will run a route.
The OP is asking that it at least uses the Hold back tick option first, or their really isn't a point to having the system at all.
doobas™
It isn't about forcing the TE out. It is about taking away the HB and/or FB from going out on a route because the aren't good options in the receiving game. It is an easy way to game the system on 3 WR and 4 WR passing.
Pretty sure this was all done because passing was ridiculous and they needed to give blitzing more power without it being an auto sack most of the time.
Edited by Duro on Sep 2, 2016 11:28:50
Originally posted by Duro
It isn't about forcing the TE out. It is about taking away the HB and/or FB from going out on a route because the aren't good options in the receiving game. It is an easy way to game the system on 3 WR and 4 WR passing.
Pretty sure this was all done because passing was ridiculous and they needed to give blitzing more power without it being an auto sack most of the time.
I don't think the suggestion has anything to do with making sure you hold back the HB to game 3 and 4 WR formations. You are getting stuck on the idea that blocking backs will be held in all the time, and sacks won't ever occur.
The suggestion is that the already there tactic option to allow a QB to hold back players should ACTUALLY have an some effect on the order. It's always RANDOM as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all, but if he RANDOMLY chooses to, it should work through the players you have ticked FIRST, before getting to the ones you haven't. This wouldn't increase the amount of times players are held back, as nothing has changed in that respect.
Either that, or remove the tactic altogether, as it has no purpose.
doobas™
It isn't about forcing the TE out. It is about taking away the HB and/or FB from going out on a route because the aren't good options in the receiving game. It is an easy way to game the system on 3 WR and 4 WR passing.
Pretty sure this was all done because passing was ridiculous and they needed to give blitzing more power without it being an auto sack most of the time.
I don't think the suggestion has anything to do with making sure you hold back the HB to game 3 and 4 WR formations. You are getting stuck on the idea that blocking backs will be held in all the time, and sacks won't ever occur.
The suggestion is that the already there tactic option to allow a QB to hold back players should ACTUALLY have an some effect on the order. It's always RANDOM as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all, but if he RANDOMLY chooses to, it should work through the players you have ticked FIRST, before getting to the ones you haven't. This wouldn't increase the amount of times players are held back, as nothing has changed in that respect.
Either that, or remove the tactic altogether, as it has no purpose.
doobas™
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by doobas
I don't think the suggestion has anything to do with making sure you hold back the HB to game 3 and 4 WR formations. You are getting stuck on the idea that blocking backs will be held in all the time, and sacks won't ever occur.
The suggestion is that the already there tactic option to allow a QB to hold back players should ACTUALLY have an some effect on the order. It's always RANDOM as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all, but if he RANDOMLY chooses to, it should work through the players you have ticked FIRST, before getting to the ones you haven't. This wouldn't increase the amount of times players are held back, as nothing has changed in that respect.
Either that, or remove the tactic altogether, as it has no purpose.
doobas™
Wow, I'm surprised this got upvoted 3 times because it's flat out wrong. Sorry doobas.
1. The tactic option to hold in players actually does work and it actually has effect on games. This is the "rattled" mechanic of a QB. QBs don't hold players in until they get "rattled" (and they shouldn't). You can and should build your QB/OLine to handle blitzes. This is what the Consistency skill is all about and it's why good Passing teams have very, very high Consistency from the QB to the OLine to the WRs/TEs.
2. It is not "always RANDOM" as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all. There's a "rattled" mechanic as I mentioned above. You can look through games in past seasons against Pass heavy teams and see games where a DC perfectly toyed with the "rattled" mechanic -- thereby completely disproving that it's "always random". If you're not familiar with this "toying", it's when the DC pulled back on blitzing 100% of the time and went to about 40-50% of the time. You'd get plenty of back-to-back blitzes called creating hurries/sacks and then the "rattled" QB would hold in the HB/TE and the Defense would not blitz and play coverage - creating a huge advantage for the D where there's 8 guys in coverage (3 man rush) versus 8 O guys sitting in the pocket (OLine, HB, TE and QB).
3. The tactic absolutely has a purpose, but play calling also has an effect and you can't judge the Tactic setting without also looking at the Play call. This is why for Passing teams, you always have the TE as the first option (if he's built as a receiver and not a blocker) and you always have the QB hold in the HB/FB but not the TE. This is done so when your QB gets rattled and then decides to use the hold in tactic, he will hold in the HB/FB to protect against the blitz while having the TE release (because of the play call). Not everything can be judged in isolation.
I don't think the suggestion has anything to do with making sure you hold back the HB to game 3 and 4 WR formations. You are getting stuck on the idea that blocking backs will be held in all the time, and sacks won't ever occur.
The suggestion is that the already there tactic option to allow a QB to hold back players should ACTUALLY have an some effect on the order. It's always RANDOM as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all, but if he RANDOMLY chooses to, it should work through the players you have ticked FIRST, before getting to the ones you haven't. This wouldn't increase the amount of times players are held back, as nothing has changed in that respect.
Either that, or remove the tactic altogether, as it has no purpose.
doobas™
Wow, I'm surprised this got upvoted 3 times because it's flat out wrong. Sorry doobas.
1. The tactic option to hold in players actually does work and it actually has effect on games. This is the "rattled" mechanic of a QB. QBs don't hold players in until they get "rattled" (and they shouldn't). You can and should build your QB/OLine to handle blitzes. This is what the Consistency skill is all about and it's why good Passing teams have very, very high Consistency from the QB to the OLine to the WRs/TEs.
2. It is not "always RANDOM" as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all. There's a "rattled" mechanic as I mentioned above. You can look through games in past seasons against Pass heavy teams and see games where a DC perfectly toyed with the "rattled" mechanic -- thereby completely disproving that it's "always random". If you're not familiar with this "toying", it's when the DC pulled back on blitzing 100% of the time and went to about 40-50% of the time. You'd get plenty of back-to-back blitzes called creating hurries/sacks and then the "rattled" QB would hold in the HB/TE and the Defense would not blitz and play coverage - creating a huge advantage for the D where there's 8 guys in coverage (3 man rush) versus 8 O guys sitting in the pocket (OLine, HB, TE and QB).
3. The tactic absolutely has a purpose, but play calling also has an effect and you can't judge the Tactic setting without also looking at the Play call. This is why for Passing teams, you always have the TE as the first option (if he's built as a receiver and not a blocker) and you always have the QB hold in the HB/FB but not the TE. This is done so when your QB gets rattled and then decides to use the hold in tactic, he will hold in the HB/FB to protect against the blitz while having the TE release (because of the play call). Not everything can be judged in isolation.
Originally posted by Xars
Wow, I'm surprised this got upvoted 3 times because it's flat out wrong. Sorry doobas.
1. The tactic option to hold in players actually does work and it actually has effect on games. This is the "rattled" mechanic of a QB. QBs don't hold players in until they get "rattled" (and they shouldn't). You can and should build your QB/OLine to handle blitzes. This is what the Consistency skill is all about and it's why good Passing teams have very, very high Consistency from the QB to the OLine to the WRs/TEs.
We all know what 'rattled' is, mate.
Originally posted by Xars
2. It is not "always RANDOM" as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all. There's a "rattled" mechanic as I mentioned above. You can look through games in past seasons against Pass heavy teams and see games where a DC perfectly toyed with the "rattled" mechanic -- thereby completely disproving that it's "always random". If you're not familiar with this "toying", it's when the DC pulled back on blitzing 100% of the time and went to about 40-50% of the time. You'd get plenty of back-to-back blitzes called creating hurries/sacks and then the "rattled" QB would hold in the HB/TE and the Defense would not blitz and play coverage - creating a huge advantage for the D where there's 8 guys in coverage (3 man rush) versus 8 O guys sitting in the pocket (OLine, HB, TE and QB).
Sorry, it seems I should have prefaced my post with 'As an OC'. I didn't think that was required, going by the context of the thread.
Originally posted by Xars
3. The tactic absolutely has a purpose, but play calling also has an effect and you can't judge the Tactic setting without also looking at the Play call. This is why for Passing teams, you always have the TE as the first option (if he's built as a receiver and not a blocker) and you always have the QB hold in the HB/FB but not the TE. This is done so when your QB gets rattled and then decides to use the hold in tactic, he will hold in the HB/FB to protect against the blitz while having the TE release (because of the play call). Not everything can be judged in isolation.
Read my post higher up, talking about making the TE the primary to get round the problem.
Having to change every play to ensure that the QB will only pick the checked boxes is flawed, and you know it. You also know that if no boxes are ticked, due to the 'rattled' mechanic, the QB will hold the HB or FB or TE back anyway if he feels the need.
I'll say it again, if the QB gets 'rattled', he can hold in as many people as he wants, but he should hold back checked players first, or there is no point in having the option to choose.
doobas™
Wow, I'm surprised this got upvoted 3 times because it's flat out wrong. Sorry doobas.
1. The tactic option to hold in players actually does work and it actually has effect on games. This is the "rattled" mechanic of a QB. QBs don't hold players in until they get "rattled" (and they shouldn't). You can and should build your QB/OLine to handle blitzes. This is what the Consistency skill is all about and it's why good Passing teams have very, very high Consistency from the QB to the OLine to the WRs/TEs.
We all know what 'rattled' is, mate.
Originally posted by Xars
2. It is not "always RANDOM" as to whether the QB holds anyone back at all. There's a "rattled" mechanic as I mentioned above. You can look through games in past seasons against Pass heavy teams and see games where a DC perfectly toyed with the "rattled" mechanic -- thereby completely disproving that it's "always random". If you're not familiar with this "toying", it's when the DC pulled back on blitzing 100% of the time and went to about 40-50% of the time. You'd get plenty of back-to-back blitzes called creating hurries/sacks and then the "rattled" QB would hold in the HB/TE and the Defense would not blitz and play coverage - creating a huge advantage for the D where there's 8 guys in coverage (3 man rush) versus 8 O guys sitting in the pocket (OLine, HB, TE and QB).
Sorry, it seems I should have prefaced my post with 'As an OC'. I didn't think that was required, going by the context of the thread.
Originally posted by Xars
3. The tactic absolutely has a purpose, but play calling also has an effect and you can't judge the Tactic setting without also looking at the Play call. This is why for Passing teams, you always have the TE as the first option (if he's built as a receiver and not a blocker) and you always have the QB hold in the HB/FB but not the TE. This is done so when your QB gets rattled and then decides to use the hold in tactic, he will hold in the HB/FB to protect against the blitz while having the TE release (because of the play call). Not everything can be judged in isolation.
Read my post higher up, talking about making the TE the primary to get round the problem.
Having to change every play to ensure that the QB will only pick the checked boxes is flawed, and you know it. You also know that if no boxes are ticked, due to the 'rattled' mechanic, the QB will hold the HB or FB or TE back anyway if he feels the need.
I'll say it again, if the QB gets 'rattled', he can hold in as many people as he wants, but he should hold back checked players first, or there is no point in having the option to choose.
doobas™
+1, the rest is a food fight and a battle to see who's lightsaber is the biggest 
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
