Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Jonny on the Spot
is that not the point. the defense should not know what my dc is or what i plan to do. I can do the same thing on d now. with run defense and pass defense. (mostly switching out dline men depending on formation's likely hood to pass) so the d can stack up pass rushers and cover guys against my 3 or 4 wr sets and have a better shot at sacks, hurries, or just stopping the play. i know we are keeping it simple. this is not glb. but we should have the same options on o as d does. if they can set a certain formations to stop things. we should be able to set up certain formations to run better or pass better. If not you make one type of build obsolete for the o. Or its just a crap shoot to get who you want playing when and were you want


In real life you don't have roid monkeys come in for 100% of all running plays. You'd have some guy on the D just smile at the next guy and say, "okay... so running play guys?"

You can still build a blocking TE and pass out of formations that don't use the TE or use plays where the TE is fifth on the progression. Or allow your QB to audible your TE in to block. Or just suck it up and add 30 points to receiving. The D don't have any better options than the O. The fact that they have "formation specific" depth chart is a pretty big waste of space and I don't know that many of the DCs will even use anything beyond the "all DC" depth chart.

There are lots of creative ways you can work a bot in under this system. The best builders and the best teams are going to figure it out.

Originally posted by Time Trial
In real life you don't have roid monkeys come in for 100% of all running plays. You'd have some guy on the D just smile at the next guy and say, "okay... so running play guys?"

You can still build a blocking TE and pass out of formations that don't use the TE or use plays where the TE is fifth on the progression. Or allow your QB to audible your TE in to block. Or just suck it up and add 30 points to receiving. The D don't have any better options than the O. The fact that they have "formation specific" depth chart is a pretty big waste of space and I don't know that many of the DCs will even use anything beyond the "all DC" depth chart.

There are lots of creative ways you can work a bot in under this system. The best builders and the best teams are going to figure it out.

in real life dline switch all the time for pass plays. hell chicago uses almost all different guys on the dline sometimes in passing situations. I can find countless times this is done. so saying it not done is wrong. it is done on the o side of the ball to. i can point out several times in the monday night game where o players where brought in for run only plays. Yes they will pass with them out there sometimes to. but they are there to block. just seems to me that by not giving us a way to at least but a blocking te and fb in on run plays is a huge disadvantage. i think it also will cut down on the type of players built.i can find a way to do what i want. i could just run out of goalline and pass out of every other formations.Or......if i want to have a rqb do only rushing, do the same thing with him in goaline and run only goalline rqb runs. If that is such an advantage for the o i should just kill everybody with blocking te's and blocking fb in on goalline. i doubt i will though. I really think there is a way to accomplish this with out making the game any harder. I like the simple side of this glb. its a nice break from glb1 and the complex animal it has become.

realism and the fact that Bort wants to keep defenses by # of WR's rather than formation aside...if you can't see the huge advantage to a per formation depth chart you are kidding yourself. It was nearly impossible to defend a jack of all trades the way defense is set up.

Originally posted by Time Trial
The first season of the test server we had this power, that's why I know it can be exploited.

just had another thought....

would something like a 3rd down back slot for a RB be able to be abused, especially if you had it limited to HB, FB and maybe TE that could be placed in that spot.

in theory that would be harder to abuse due to the fact that no matter what formation you are in that would be the player that comes in on 3rd downs

Originally posted by eaglesfan20
just had another thought....

would something like a 3rd down back slot for a RB be able to be abused, especially if you had it limited to HB, FB and maybe TE that could be placed in that spot.

in theory that would be harder to abuse due to the fact that no matter what formation you are in that would be the player that comes in on 3rd downs

That is the idea behind GL and regular charts. The idea is not to be able to work around 2 backs that are scat and power unless it is GL which obviously has no pass usage.

I would certainly like Forced starters on 3rd/4th down tho.

Originally posted by eaglesfan20
just had another thought....

would something like a 3rd down back slot for a RB be able to be abused, especially if you had it limited to HB, FB and maybe TE that could be placed in that spot.

in theory that would be harder to abuse due to the fact that no matter what formation you are in that would be the player that comes in on 3rd downs

I haven't looked at the D Coordinator tactics yet but, it would be abused if D-Coordinators did not have a Third down option (Though I'm sure they do) So actually, this sounds like a great suggestion to me.

Defense doesn't have a third down option (well I mean you could get really good at figuring out blitz vs zone I guess and come up with something but that is a lot of though imo). They don't have the ability to play certain defenses against different O formations either. It is all # of WR based.

Originally posted by bhall43
I would certainly like Forced starters on 3rd/4th down tho.

this would be helpful - for both offense and defense

Originally posted by Time Trial

I would have two sets of blockers, one with all running and one with all passing skills. I would have a hand-off QB and a passing QB. I would have a blocking TE and a receiving TE.


Really? How many roster spots do you have? I only have 43....

Pretty easy to do with 43.