I like the idea. While we are at it- change it so I can put guards at WR please.
Forum > Suggestions > Allow us to put SS or LB (or DT/DE) at CB positions
Xavori
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
I like the idea. While we are at it- change it so I can put guards at WR please.
And then raise the cap on the number of guards we can have on a team
I like the idea. While we are at it- change it so I can put guards at WR please.
And then raise the cap on the number of guards we can have on a team
Playing an LB at CB2 seems a lot more gamey than running a play where an LB covers WR2.
Adderfist
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Playing an LB at CB2 seems a lot more gamey than running a play where an LB covers WR2.
Seems less gamey than having two plays in your entire offensive game plan and winning every game by 80 points.
Playing an LB at CB2 seems a lot more gamey than running a play where an LB covers WR2.
Seems less gamey than having two plays in your entire offensive game plan and winning every game by 80 points.
Originally posted by Adderfist
Seems less gamey than having two plays in your entire offensive game plan and winning every game by 80 points.
Who is doing that?
Seems less gamey than having two plays in your entire offensive game plan and winning every game by 80 points.
Who is doing that?
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Who is doing that?
Think he is talking about rookie league and the QB rollouts.
Who is doing that?
Think he is talking about rookie league and the QB rollouts.
Adderfist
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Who is doing that?
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
Who is doing that?
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Playing an LB at CB2 seems a lot more gamey than running a play where an LB covers WR2.
So having to game your playbook to do it is less gamey than doing it through your depth chart?
So it forces you to run a play that is built to cover a formation with a different number of WRs, just to get your LB into position.
They are coming out in 3WRs... better call a formation with only one CB!
But oh look! My LBer is going to leave the box in order to cover a WR. No problem!
And I can do this with no OOP penalty because I'm not calling that player a CB, just asking him to be one.
How am I the only person that doesn't see the issue here?
Playing an LB at CB2 seems a lot more gamey than running a play where an LB covers WR2.
So having to game your playbook to do it is less gamey than doing it through your depth chart?
So it forces you to run a play that is built to cover a formation with a different number of WRs, just to get your LB into position.
They are coming out in 3WRs... better call a formation with only one CB!
But oh look! My LBer is going to leave the box in order to cover a WR. No problem!
And I can do this with no OOP penalty because I'm not calling that player a CB, just asking him to be one.
How am I the only person that doesn't see the issue here?
Originally posted by Adderfist
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
qb rollout is self destructive.
btw its not tht hard to stop, relax.
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
qb rollout is self destructive.
btw its not tht hard to stop, relax.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
They are coming out in 3WRs... better call a formation with only one CB!
Makes more sense than hey better call a Quarter formation with 5 DE's, 5 DT's, and a LB!
They are coming out in 3WRs... better call a formation with only one CB!
Makes more sense than hey better call a Quarter formation with 5 DE's, 5 DT's, and a LB!
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Makes more sense than hey better call a Quarter formation with 5 DE's, 5 DT's, and a LB!
I didn't say that D-linemen should be available. I was asking for the SS and a LBs. (also I don't think roster limits would permit)
...but when you are playing a team whose WRs are built like blocking TEs is it really wrong to be able to sell out against the run and force them to either play against a lineup set to stop the run, or to throw a curve ball and pass it if they think the D is going to sell out?
Makes more sense than hey better call a Quarter formation with 5 DE's, 5 DT's, and a LB!
I didn't say that D-linemen should be available. I was asking for the SS and a LBs. (also I don't think roster limits would permit)
...but when you are playing a team whose WRs are built like blocking TEs is it really wrong to be able to sell out against the run and force them to either play against a lineup set to stop the run, or to throw a curve ball and pass it if they think the D is going to sell out?
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
I didn't say that D-linemen should be available. I was asking for the SS and a LBs. (also I don't think roster limits would permit)
...but when you are playing a team whose WRs are built like blocking TEs is it really wrong to be able to sell out against the run and force them to either play against a lineup set to stop the run, or to throw a curve ball and pass it if they think the D is going to sell out?
Thought the entire idea around the roster limits was not to be a jack of all trades. Is there really a point to limit rosters if you are just gaming the depth chart positions? To counter that team you could build a CB or 2 like an MLB. But of course there is no point in doing that if I can just take my MLB and put him there instead. Why waste the roster spot?
I didn't say that D-linemen should be available. I was asking for the SS and a LBs. (also I don't think roster limits would permit)
...but when you are playing a team whose WRs are built like blocking TEs is it really wrong to be able to sell out against the run and force them to either play against a lineup set to stop the run, or to throw a curve ball and pass it if they think the D is going to sell out?
Thought the entire idea around the roster limits was not to be a jack of all trades. Is there really a point to limit rosters if you are just gaming the depth chart positions? To counter that team you could build a CB or 2 like an MLB. But of course there is no point in doing that if I can just take my MLB and put him there instead. Why waste the roster spot?
Xavori
offline
offline
Originally posted by Adderfist
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
Want to bet on that?
I'd suggest looking at all the teams with GL as their base plays. QB rollout has -zero- ways to stop it if you don't completely sell out, and by doing so you give iup everything else they want to do.
Want to bet on that?
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Thought the entire idea around the roster limits was not to be a jack of all trades. Is there really a point to limit rosters if you are just gaming the depth chart positions? To counter that team you could build a CB or 2 like an MLB. But of course there is no point in doing that if I can just take my MLB and put him there instead. Why waste the roster spot?
Okay, but what you are telling me is that YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT.
You just have to select a formation that doesn't have a CB2, and your MLB can be in the CB2 "spot" covering the WR2 in man. WITHOUT A PENALTY.
So you still don't have to waste the roster spot, you just have to know how the heuristic coverage scheme works.
Thought the entire idea around the roster limits was not to be a jack of all trades. Is there really a point to limit rosters if you are just gaming the depth chart positions? To counter that team you could build a CB or 2 like an MLB. But of course there is no point in doing that if I can just take my MLB and put him there instead. Why waste the roster spot?
Okay, but what you are telling me is that YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT.
You just have to select a formation that doesn't have a CB2, and your MLB can be in the CB2 "spot" covering the WR2 in man. WITHOUT A PENALTY.
So you still don't have to waste the roster spot, you just have to know how the heuristic coverage scheme works.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
