Warrior General Games

For being built under the new archetypes/training system, stats are in general alittle low. You are using quad training by start of season 1 right?

Originally posted by whatje
Originally posted by Darkstrand

I feel like as a coverage LB strength works against me since I won't get blocked too much and I can DvG almost any ball carrier.

you will miss a ton of tackles and lose a lot of stamina to revcakes. i mean, situationally thats a player that could be used...but you'd be better off at least getting strength to 68 and having less agility/vision.

i wouldn't go so far as to say that the plan's not at all viable, but it could definitely be much better. also, strength helps in pass defense, too.

somewhat related is the fact that overall you should be able to get your stats a bit higher than that.

This. Even if DvG prevents some of the missed tackles, you're going to get pancaked to death. Hardly a thorough study, but glancing at last season's stats for my coverage LB (http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1513682), he was pancaked 30 times in the regular season and 17 in four playoff games with a AAA team. That was with strength in the low 50s. I'm taking it to 68, which, if I'm correct, is standard for coverage LBs now. And there's a good reason for that--it may not be essential for tackling, but it help to, you know, actually be standing up and running as opposed to prone. It's your dot, but if you're gunning for the top, it's kinda silly to deliberately set yourself up for less production.

Also agree re: low jumping. With jumping as a major for the coverage archetype, and with good multi-training, there's no reason not to double-cap it. Again, jumping to 61 is standard for coverage LBs now, so going with less than that for a build that will plateau ten seasons from now isn't the best idea.

Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
I think there's a penalty for that if it's a non-CB anyways.

Why would you think that?

Originally posted by motownjunkboy
This. Even if DvG prevents some of the missed tackles, you're going to get pancaked to death. Hardly a thorough study, but glancing at last season's stats for my coverage LB (http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1513682), he was pancaked 30 times in the regular season and 17 in four playoff games with a AAA team. That was with strength in the low 50s. I'm taking it to 68, which, if I'm correct, is standard for coverage LBs now. And there's a good reason for that--it may not be essential for tackling, but it help to, you know, actually be standing up and running as opposed to prone. It's your dot, but if you're gunning for the top, it's kinda silly to deliberately set yourself up for less production.

Also agree re: low jumping. With jumping as a major for the coverage archetype, and with good multi-training, there's no reason not to double-cap it. Again, jumping to 61 is standard for coverage LBs now, so going with less than that for a build that will plateau ten seasons from now isn't the best idea.

I don't even think you need 68 str. You can save some sp's by adding a little at a time until you stop getting pancaked so much, and call it a day.

Originally posted by Underdawg08
Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23

I think there's a penalty for that if it's a non-CB anyways.

Why would you think that?
Im not one for trolling through old posts, but i remember reading this on an early gamechange post last year some time. Basically said a LB covering a WR has a penalty(man not zone i assume)

Originally posted by Shrazkil

Im not one for trolling through old posts, but i remember reading this on an early gamechange post last year some time. Basically said a LB covering a WR has a penalty(man not zone i assume)



Thanks, thats good to know. Not like I'd ever cover a wr with a LB unless he was build like this one. I assume there isn't a penalty for FS or SS covering man on WR right? That would be dumb.

Originally posted by Underdawg08
Thanks, thats good to know. Not like I'd ever cover a wr with a LB unless he was build like this one. I assume there isn't a penalty for FS or SS covering man on WR right? That would be dumb.

even if he was built like this one...what would be the point? i don't understand why you wouldn't just use a CB.

Either SV or FS is a necessity depending on position, I'd get both for some players. Reducing vision and getting SV will make the player better.

Originally posted by whatje
even if he was built like this one...what would be the point? i don't understand why you wouldn't just use a CB.

For some random dumb plays or something.

Originally posted by Underdawg08
For some random dumb plays or something.

fair i guess lol

Pancake city...That end-build looks more like a ST gunner than a defensive asset.

on my coverage LB i have SV as my bonus SA. i bought FS then i got Shutdown Coverage from AEQ. i didnt touch any regular LB SAs. hes a back up on a WL team but i would say his build is even with the players in front of him at least.

Looks like a very good nickel LB build. First downs against a run-first team would get ugly though.

I'd definitely sacrifice some confidence for stamina for that build plan. He won't have enough stamina to keep up with the speed.

Originally posted by Darkstrand
This is how I'm building my LB to be on day 440. Should I be using SAs? they seem pretty bad.

layer Build
Position: lb_coverage_linebacke
Season: 10
Day: 1
Level: 74
XP: 46
VA XP: 675
VA: 64
Bonus Tokens: 1204
Training Points: 0
SP: 0

Attributes:
strength : 40.71
speed : 96.01
agility : 90.01
jumping : 56.02
stamina : 56.71
vision : 83.02
confidence : 56.71
blocking : 8
throwing : 8
catching : 8
carrying : 8
tackling : 72.71
kicking : 8
punting : 8

Top SA Tree: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Bottom SA Tree: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Additional SA Tree: | 0 |

If you want a coverage LB, you need more jumping and strength because your pass defense numbers will be crap with that build. If you want a blitzing LB, then more speed and less jumping, agility, and vision.