Warrior General Games

So... as I mentioned earlier, simply taking stats from LZ or DN is not a great idea for what I list below.

These are all the 22 plays I ran last season and my completion percentages versus the whole tiers averages. As you can tell among all the plays the majority I am up a large % rate than the rest of the tier, but that is because I am built that way. So I call in question is the pass game overpowered or are teams not building to schemes correctly? Something else for thought on this, ALL my 5 WR are built the exact same, no difference at all in builds, and they all cycle in and out of all 3 WR positions. Had I built around their duties and routes like Xars did, I feel I would have even larger success in the plays I ran, but I went for a general blanket 'better' scheme.

Play : DN : Tier : Diff
Singleback Spread Diamonds : 58.50 : 48.97 : 9.53
Singleback Spread WR1 Clearout : 50.50 : 48.02 : 2.48
Singleback Trips WR Posts : 56.50 : 51.06 : 5.44
Singleback TE Post : 64.40 : 59.63 : 4.77
Singleback TE Drive : 61.30 : 52.22 : 9.08
Singleback Spread HB Clearout : 62.60 : 39.84 : 22.76
Shotgun TE Drive : 59.20 : 50.86 : 8.34
Shotgun Corner Threat : 56.70 : 51.03 : 5.67
Singleback Trips Flood Left : 60.00 : 62.03 : -2.03
Shotgun Shotgun Hooks : 60.00 : 55.00 : 5.00
Singleback HB Wheel : 63.60 : 59.22 : 4.38
Singleback Trips Trips Left Slants : 52.90 : 49.19 : 3.71
Singleback Overload : 61.50 : 43.37 : 18.13
Shotgun In N Out : 67.90 : 62.18 : 5.72
Singleback HB Clear : 52.60 : 49.64 : 2.96
Singleback Trips WR1 Clearout : 57.60 : 53.30 : 4.30
Singleback Single Back Crossup : 61.50 : 51.42 : 10.08
Singleback Trips WR Cross : 57.10 : 53.74 : 3.36
Pro Set TE Sail : 57.60 : 51.66 : 5.94
Diamond Undercut : 53.60 : 52.26 : 1.34
I Double Back Out and Up : 58.80 : 53.13 : 5.67
Big I TE Crosses : 33.30 : 55.30 : -22.00

Originally posted by bhall43
I see where I am going wrong in this thread. I was under the impression that more formations existed beyond 3 WR. But they must not exist anymore.

No, they really don't. You can use 2WR if you're a balanced offense for some "pick your poison" type choices to present a DC.

5WR is sack-bait.

4WR doesn't have enough plays to build a playbook around and it can't attack a defense from different angles like 3WR can with different formations, especially trips.

Originally posted by bhall43
Some of the new lurks could be better if the LB's dropped into zones that were more middle of the field and deeper. Not exactly a robber but I don't want them creeping out to almost a flat like they currently sometimes do. It is frustrating to see the LB pass up a TE on post because a back is gonna enter his zone.

Definitely, I want a few of the drops to change a little. Or re-title a few of the current Double Lurk's to "Shallow Double Lurk", and add in some "Deeper Double Lurks".

3-3-5 has a few Double Lurk's whose drops look deeper on paper, but I just like sending more guys after the QB. Sending only 3 feels off, but I'm a whore for QB pressure, so I've never done them yet.

I'd like 2 new plays added. 3-2-6 C1 Robber with one LB in robber and the other LB blitzing and 4-2-5 Double Lurk with the SS as the 2nd Lurk instead of the LOLB. SS's zone would be more of a Robber role, and the ROLB would drop a smidgen deeper. So it's a "Double Lurk" that's shifted slightly to the left side of the field. That would take out the TE from a lot of the popular 3WR routes, as well as every now and then interfering with WR3 on the Drive routes.

Originally posted by bhall43
Watchers of the Wall, currently in seasoned, will make a lot of use out of the Lurks and Robbers. We have a zone coverage LB and one is waiting in the wings if we feel that 2 are necessary. I really like some of the plays.

That sounds cool. HAHA currently has 1 linebacker designed just for Lurk's/Robber's, will be interesting to see how both teams progress with them.

2 WR actually has some really nice plays that you can attack with differently. But I do agree that there is nothing like going from trips to SG/SB in terms of having to change your defense.

Originally posted by bhall43
2 WR actually has some really nice plays that you can attack with differently. But I do agree that there is nothing like going from trips to SG/SB in terms of having to change your defense.

yup, and those 2WR plays work better if you can threaten an opponent with a S* HB.

If I built a "balanced" team tomorrow, it'd be designed to operate exclusively from 2WR.

Originally posted by Galithor
5WR is sack-bait.

It's ridiculous how true this is. This is a formation with no extra protection possible, and the routes do not work with the idea of get-open-ridiculously-fast-because-pressure-is-coming. Far too many of the plays are so long developing where the first break happens too far down the field.

The breaks on the WR's need to be shorter, and any WR's used in it need to have really high quickness/speed.

If only screens worked in 5wides

Originally posted by Xars
Scat Back - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/97539 Build has always been open. Gold Brace and Mr. Reliable. 675 touches - 7 fumbles. Go for it.

Pretty sure Cover 4 has been tried. Same with the Clouds.


55% completion rate for 6.6 YPC. Assuming the ability to encourage targets towards someone on your offense, I think I'd go with the HB as the desired target.

If you've got an example of someone running Cover 4 against you for a game, I'd love to see it.


Not that we'll follow this advice with Ground Assault or anything when we face ya'll later this season. We'll run 5-2 Man Base and try and hold you to 45% passing that way

Originally posted by Galithor
55% completion rate for 6.6 YPC. Assuming the ability to encourage targets towards someone on your offense, I think I'd go with the HB as the desired target.

If you've got an example of someone running Cover 4 against you for a game, I'd love to see it.

GE queue up the Cover 4 games (probably scrims)....

Originally posted by Xars
GE queue up the Cover 4 games (probably scrims)....



I can queue up some Cover 4 vs you after work with DD3

Originally posted by Xars
GE queue up the Cover 4 games (probably scrims)....



But it was GE.... soooo.... not quite sure that helps your argument

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
One of the issues when comparing stats like this, is that my defense is generally built to take advantage of Over Will, whereas it's not built to take advantage of Lurk's. I don't have any Zone SA's on any of my guys, I don't have much Zone Awareness, I've spent a lot of SP in areas I wouldn't have if I were building them for Lurk's.

This is an argument that right now is fun, but I seriously doubt any of the teams at the Seasoned or higher level have built rosters with Lurk's in mind.

But there's another Lurk that I've only ran 5 times, and might run it more often if a team runs similar plays to what Whoville did:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/189494/604633 (3 guys including the LB in Lurk, converge on WR1 to prevent him from catching it, the LB even gets a deflection roll according to the JSON info)
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/189494/603124 (this one was caught, but the linebacker got pump faked away from the throwing lane, it's an example of a build being asked to do a Lurk, when it wasn't designed for that)



I hear what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure out -- the people who say "I love the lurks" / "I like the lurks" -- or even "lurks have done wonders for the passing defense" -- I'm trying to find who is successfully using them.

Bhall: love them but I'm a run stopping team don't count me.
You: love them but I'm a blitzing team so don't count me.

I'll go check out watchers of the wall

edit: never mind - they've only run 1 lurk this season against 3WR that I can see.

They did run a lot last season. 643 passes in 3WR sets.

326 C2 double lurk 62 times / 69.4% completion / 7.1/10.3
326 C1 double lurk 51 times / 60.8% completion / 5.5/9.1

wtf is a LUrk

defensive play where the LB's drop into a middle-ish of the field zone

10-4