Originally posted by bhall43
Thread title too long
Shorten it to just DCs crying?
Thread title too long
Shorten it to just DCs crying?
Forum > Pro Leagues > S22 GG Thread
Texan DTD
offline
offline
Originally posted by GMathiasf
Shorten it to just DCs crying?
I'm not crying, I just got something in my eye is all...
Shorten it to just DCs crying?
I'm not crying, I just got something in my eye is all...
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by Otega
It's not creativity when you already know what an offense can throw at you and can simply place your dots in spots. That's knowing the answers to the test.
Ugh, no. Please stop posting because you are embarrassing yourself and irritating the shit out of me. DCs didn't know which play you were going to run, they only knew the limited range of possibilities. By having only 10-15 passes out of a particular formation, we knew what areas were most likely to be targeted, a calculation which could then be augmented by knowledge of personnel and tendencies. Knowing that a pass will be one of 10-15 possibilities is nowhere near the same as knowing exactly which one it will be, and suggesting otherwise is asinine.
Originally posted by
You're not forced to be vanilla, but it's 10x more risk/reward now than in the past to run gimmicky defensive sets, as it should have always been. So, Vanilla is going to have to be part of your defensive scheme. How much a part of it is up to you, and presumably, what you scout from an offense.
Wrong. We have to go vanilla now because there is no longer any possibility of making educated guesses about what areas you need to defend unless the opposing OC is so predictable that he always uses just a couple out of a particular formation with particular personnel. DCs can't guess anymore, they have to try and protect all areas of the field as well as possible. To give you another example of how the changes have homogenized DCing, the standard practice has always been to create plays and calls by offensive formation. That's no longer important, at least against the pass. Now you have to run pretty much the same blanket, vanilla coverage against one formation that you do against any other with that many WRs. Before I knew which areas needed the most attention against Strong I, and even then it was difficult to stop against a good OC.
Originally posted by
But as it was, 1 defensive scheme stopped teams from using an entire offensive package (5 wide).
Which is actually realistic, as real teams rarely if ever use 5 wide because it's so susceptible to blitzing. GLB made the mistake of going 5 wide instead of using 4 wide. Many if not most real defenses automatically audible to a blitz if the offense goes into an empty set. That runs the risk of a big play if the WR gets by coverage on a quick throw, but having no back to help with blitz pick-up has always been an open invitation to come after the quarterback.
Originally posted by
Pathing issues forced OCs to take almost a defensive posture against certain teams in singleback or shotgun 3, with very limited options otherwise. Now we have those options.
Are you joking? Offense has always had the advantage, and that was only increased with the gimping of the DPC. Defenses could attack, but that was fairly easily countered by OCs who cared to do so. If you played SoCal, you had to adjust your play-calling. Similarly, if I go up against a screen-heavy offense, I had to adjust as well. That's the game. Now instead of hundreds of plays to choose from, DCs are pretty much reduced to either bringing the house on certain blitzes (the most popular of which were copied from me), or else sitting back in blanket coverage. There's no more strategy to defense.
Originally posted by
I would think someone such as yourself would relish the challenge of actually having more of an open field to guard against. Based on the fact that you made 200 unique plays knowing the 20 offensive plays that actually worked/were used, it seems to me that you should love the fact that you know have to think even more about where to align players, how much to blitz, etc. etc.
Again, the more you post the more you show how little you understand about defenses on GLB. There is no challenge anymore. When you have to defend all areas of the field, there is no challenge left. Now you either blitz heavy or sit back. There's no more creativity to be had, which is why so many defenses look alike, because we're all using the same plays since those are the only options left to us. There's really no point to even having DCs any longer, you just create a generic coverage scheme and pray that your dots are better than the offense's.
Originally posted by
BTW, i do get what you are saying, I just disagree from a different perspective.
You don't have a perspective because you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Before you post any more on this subject, please talk to bug, as he might be able to help you understand.
Now that is a regulation bolicking.
Originally posted by Pariah
v. bolicked, bolick·ing, bolick, bolicks
v.tr.
1. To shape a post into a into a large wall of text: posting a bolick or multiple bolicks.
2. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through a thread; obstruct: boliock a thread.
3. To shut out from view: a post bolicked another post.
4. To stop the passage of (a new point or opinion) in a thread: you've been bolicked beyotch.
5. To indicate how one is right in great detail: bolicking your side of the debate.
Originally posted by Otega
It's not creativity when you already know what an offense can throw at you and can simply place your dots in spots. That's knowing the answers to the test.
Ugh, no. Please stop posting because you are embarrassing yourself and irritating the shit out of me. DCs didn't know which play you were going to run, they only knew the limited range of possibilities. By having only 10-15 passes out of a particular formation, we knew what areas were most likely to be targeted, a calculation which could then be augmented by knowledge of personnel and tendencies. Knowing that a pass will be one of 10-15 possibilities is nowhere near the same as knowing exactly which one it will be, and suggesting otherwise is asinine.
Originally posted by
You're not forced to be vanilla, but it's 10x more risk/reward now than in the past to run gimmicky defensive sets, as it should have always been. So, Vanilla is going to have to be part of your defensive scheme. How much a part of it is up to you, and presumably, what you scout from an offense.
Wrong. We have to go vanilla now because there is no longer any possibility of making educated guesses about what areas you need to defend unless the opposing OC is so predictable that he always uses just a couple out of a particular formation with particular personnel. DCs can't guess anymore, they have to try and protect all areas of the field as well as possible. To give you another example of how the changes have homogenized DCing, the standard practice has always been to create plays and calls by offensive formation. That's no longer important, at least against the pass. Now you have to run pretty much the same blanket, vanilla coverage against one formation that you do against any other with that many WRs. Before I knew which areas needed the most attention against Strong I, and even then it was difficult to stop against a good OC.
Originally posted by
But as it was, 1 defensive scheme stopped teams from using an entire offensive package (5 wide).
Which is actually realistic, as real teams rarely if ever use 5 wide because it's so susceptible to blitzing. GLB made the mistake of going 5 wide instead of using 4 wide. Many if not most real defenses automatically audible to a blitz if the offense goes into an empty set. That runs the risk of a big play if the WR gets by coverage on a quick throw, but having no back to help with blitz pick-up has always been an open invitation to come after the quarterback.
Originally posted by
Pathing issues forced OCs to take almost a defensive posture against certain teams in singleback or shotgun 3, with very limited options otherwise. Now we have those options.
Are you joking? Offense has always had the advantage, and that was only increased with the gimping of the DPC. Defenses could attack, but that was fairly easily countered by OCs who cared to do so. If you played SoCal, you had to adjust your play-calling. Similarly, if I go up against a screen-heavy offense, I had to adjust as well. That's the game. Now instead of hundreds of plays to choose from, DCs are pretty much reduced to either bringing the house on certain blitzes (the most popular of which were copied from me), or else sitting back in blanket coverage. There's no more strategy to defense.
Originally posted by
I would think someone such as yourself would relish the challenge of actually having more of an open field to guard against. Based on the fact that you made 200 unique plays knowing the 20 offensive plays that actually worked/were used, it seems to me that you should love the fact that you know have to think even more about where to align players, how much to blitz, etc. etc.
Again, the more you post the more you show how little you understand about defenses on GLB. There is no challenge anymore. When you have to defend all areas of the field, there is no challenge left. Now you either blitz heavy or sit back. There's no more creativity to be had, which is why so many defenses look alike, because we're all using the same plays since those are the only options left to us. There's really no point to even having DCs any longer, you just create a generic coverage scheme and pray that your dots are better than the offense's.
Originally posted by
BTW, i do get what you are saying, I just disagree from a different perspective.
You don't have a perspective because you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Before you post any more on this subject, please talk to bug, as he might be able to help you understand.
Now that is a regulation bolicking.
Originally posted by Pariah
v. bolicked, bolick·ing, bolick, bolicks
v.tr.
1. To shape a post into a into a large wall of text: posting a bolick or multiple bolicks.
2. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through a thread; obstruct: boliock a thread.
3. To shut out from view: a post bolicked another post.
4. To stop the passage of (a new point or opinion) in a thread: you've been bolicked beyotch.
5. To indicate how one is right in great detail: bolicking your side of the debate.
Texan DTD
offline
offline
Originally posted by The Big Cack Envy
Never mind the Bolicks
ah, a classic album, with a slightly different spelling...
Never mind the Bolicks
ah, a classic album, with a slightly different spelling...
Moondog22
offline
offline
Originally posted by hays23
Also doesn't realize I don't do the defense for carthage...or that we don't have esp. good dots...or that there was a complete morale spiral that negated any type of strategy in the lol scrim. Do something worthwhile against Odessa today and then you can run your mouth
I think we can run our mouths right now. We did come back big time last season to make the POs. Baby steps. Odessa will be a tough out.
lolSCRIm all you want, we didnt gameplan either, we never do for scrims, so take for what its worth, you guys blow
Also doesn't realize I don't do the defense for carthage...or that we don't have esp. good dots...or that there was a complete morale spiral that negated any type of strategy in the lol scrim. Do something worthwhile against Odessa today and then you can run your mouth
I think we can run our mouths right now. We did come back big time last season to make the POs. Baby steps. Odessa will be a tough out.
lolSCRIm all you want, we didnt gameplan either, we never do for scrims, so take for what its worth, you guys blow
The Big Cack Envy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Texan DTD
ah, a classic album, with a slightly different spelling...
Youll like this, im certain.
Echo at Rockpalast back early in the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt1aJuwAprU&feature=autoplay&list=ULJR3p2uzYVSo&index=2&playnext=14
ah, a classic album, with a slightly different spelling...
Youll like this, im certain.
Echo at Rockpalast back early in the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt1aJuwAprU&feature=autoplay&list=ULJR3p2uzYVSo&index=2&playnext=14
Rage Kinard
offline
offline
I guess I'll post in here since this is the thread where the subject is being discussed
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by Texan DTD
I'm not crying, I just got something in my eye is all...
I have allergies.
Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by Pariah
v. bolicked, bolick·ing, bolick, bolicks
v.tr.
1. To shape a post into a into a large wall of text: posting a bolick or multiple bolicks.
2. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through a thread; obstruct: boliock a thread.
3. To shut out from view: a post bolicked another post.
4. To stop the passage of (a new point or opinion) in a thread: you've been bolicked beyotch.
5. To indicate how one is right in great detail: bolicking your side of the debate.
Without a doubt, Pariah's greatest achievement on GLB.
I'm not crying, I just got something in my eye is all...
I have allergies.
Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by Pariah
v. bolicked, bolick·ing, bolick, bolicks
v.tr.
1. To shape a post into a into a large wall of text: posting a bolick or multiple bolicks.
2. To stop or impede the passage of or movement through a thread; obstruct: boliock a thread.
3. To shut out from view: a post bolicked another post.
4. To stop the passage of (a new point or opinion) in a thread: you've been bolicked beyotch.
5. To indicate how one is right in great detail: bolicking your side of the debate.
Without a doubt, Pariah's greatest achievement on GLB.
The Big Cack Envy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Rage Kinard
I guess I'll post in here since this is the thread where the subject is being discussed
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
That seems to be what happens till we all find that magic exploit, as in last years fabulous WR in stuff.
then we run that 100% of the time and almost win LolPro trophies and stuff.
I guess I'll post in here since this is the thread where the subject is being discussed
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
That seems to be what happens till we all find that magic exploit, as in last years fabulous WR in stuff.
then we run that 100% of the time and almost win LolPro trophies and stuff.
Originally posted by Rage Kinard
I guess I'll post in here since this is the thread where the subject is being discussed
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
I like the term Luck thrown around in there.
I want to win on Luck that's why I build the dots and do the AI. I just hope luck is on my side
I guess I'll post in here since this is the thread where the subject is being discussed
What I believe Bort really wants is for this to be a guessing game rather than a strategy game. He wants to force DCs to have to try and over commit to different areas of the field in order to hold plays to a short gain. That he wants DCs to use multiple different defenses against each formation, each with a chance to hold a handful of plays to less than a 3 yard gain, but make it easy for the offense to score a TD on another handful. Then the rest are good for 4-10 yard gains.
So what you would end up with is an offense running a wide variety of plays, and a defense running a wide variety of plays, and then luck determines how often the right defense is called for the offensive play or how often the right offensive play is called when a specific defense is called.
The thing is that the defense has to be right 80+% of the time in that type of game.
I like the term Luck thrown around in there.
I want to win on Luck that's why I build the dots and do the AI. I just hope luck is on my side
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
