Originally posted by Lokiness
GE wishing good luck to a guy he lost 20 games or something without winning any
PHASE II.
GE wishing good luck to a guy he lost 20 games or something without winning any
PHASE II.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Game Help > 4-4 or 5-2?
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
PHASE II.
The next generation of failure...
PHASE II.
The next generation of failure...
GoGetta
offline
offline
A few solid responses on here, thanks guys. You all answered from a different angle than I was expecting too (was expecting more about schemes than personnel) so I'm glad to look at it in a different way. I'll be putting together a pretty thin roster (35 dots) and I didn't think about the benefit to special teams by adding a fifth lb. the only problem is some of the benefit of having a fifth one is mitigated due to the three starting lbs all being superstars. One will be an elite coverage guy, one will be above average, as will the fourth coming off the bench (more designed for guys out of the backfield) so that extra guy wouldn't be as necessary for coverage. I want to side with fairforever and parab00n here but having that fifth slot for when (even if it's not frequent) I do play those outside rush teams would be more practical. Can you get away with two dedicated pass defenders, a hybrid, a run stopper, and rely on a spare free safety for depth in the passing game?
Also since everyone kind of passed over it, I'm going to presume that neither 4-4 or 5-2 are "must adds" to the playbook, and I don't need to consider that.
Also since everyone kind of passed over it, I'm going to presume that neither 4-4 or 5-2 are "must adds" to the playbook, and I don't need to consider that.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
I'm pretty sure the roster minimum is 36.
Also, if your 5th CB is a pure run stopper, that helps ST at least as much as a 5th LB would.
Also, if your 5th CB is a pure run stopper, that helps ST at least as much as a 5th LB would.
FairForever
offline
offline
Originally posted by GoGetta
A few solid responses on here, thanks guys. You all answered from a different angle than I was expecting too (was expecting more about schemes than personnel) so I'm glad to look at it in a different way. I'll be putting together a pretty thin roster (35 dots) and I didn't think about the benefit to special teams by adding a fifth lb. the only problem is some of the benefit of having a fifth one is mitigated due to the three starting lbs all being superstars. One will be an elite coverage guy, one will be above average, as will the fourth coming off the bench (more designed for guys out of the backfield) so that extra guy wouldn't be as necessary for coverage. I want to side with fairforever and parab00n here but having that fifth slot for when (even if it's not frequent) I do play those outside rush teams would be more practical. Can you get away with two dedicated pass defenders, a hybrid, a run stopper, and rely on a spare free safety for depth in the passing game?
Also since everyone kind of passed over it, I'm going to presume that neither 4-4 or 5-2 are "must adds" to the playbook, and I don't need to consider that.
Oh jeez. If you're running 3 S* LBs then grab the 5th CB for sure. I think it's pretty clear cut especially if you don't have a S* CB.
A few solid responses on here, thanks guys. You all answered from a different angle than I was expecting too (was expecting more about schemes than personnel) so I'm glad to look at it in a different way. I'll be putting together a pretty thin roster (35 dots) and I didn't think about the benefit to special teams by adding a fifth lb. the only problem is some of the benefit of having a fifth one is mitigated due to the three starting lbs all being superstars. One will be an elite coverage guy, one will be above average, as will the fourth coming off the bench (more designed for guys out of the backfield) so that extra guy wouldn't be as necessary for coverage. I want to side with fairforever and parab00n here but having that fifth slot for when (even if it's not frequent) I do play those outside rush teams would be more practical. Can you get away with two dedicated pass defenders, a hybrid, a run stopper, and rely on a spare free safety for depth in the passing game?
Also since everyone kind of passed over it, I'm going to presume that neither 4-4 or 5-2 are "must adds" to the playbook, and I don't need to consider that.
Oh jeez. If you're running 3 S* LBs then grab the 5th CB for sure. I think it's pretty clear cut especially if you don't have a S* CB.
Edited by FairForever on Aug 31, 2015 15:16:39
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by FairForever
Oh jeez. If you're running 3 S* LBs then grab the 5th CB for sure. I think it's pretty clear cut especially if you don't have a S* CB.
This is correct, stars have a ton of stamina and you want to minimize the the number of non-stars to compete with them for plays (though I'd also argue it's overkill to have that many stars at LB, some of them could be used for offense). 4-4 and 5-2 are very popular but aren't necessary, we call mostly 4-3 and get by with 4 LBs, it works because we have one star each at LB and DT.
Oh jeez. If you're running 3 S* LBs then grab the 5th CB for sure. I think it's pretty clear cut especially if you don't have a S* CB.
This is correct, stars have a ton of stamina and you want to minimize the the number of non-stars to compete with them for plays (though I'd also argue it's overkill to have that many stars at LB, some of them could be used for offense). 4-4 and 5-2 are very popular but aren't necessary, we call mostly 4-3 and get by with 4 LBs, it works because we have one star each at LB and DT.
GoGetta
offline
offline
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
This is correct, stars have a ton of stamina and you want to minimize the the number of non-stars to compete with them for plays (though I'd also argue it's overkill to have that many stars at LB, some of them could be used for offense). 4-4 and 5-2 are very popular but aren't necessary, we call mostly 4-3 and get by with 4 LBs, it works because we have one star each at LB and DT.
The stars on offense would be a moot point; let's just say there will be more than enough on that side of the ball. Would you care to elaborate on your DT comment though?
This is correct, stars have a ton of stamina and you want to minimize the the number of non-stars to compete with them for plays (though I'd also argue it's overkill to have that many stars at LB, some of them could be used for offense). 4-4 and 5-2 are very popular but aren't necessary, we call mostly 4-3 and get by with 4 LBs, it works because we have one star each at LB and DT.
The stars on offense would be a moot point; let's just say there will be more than enough on that side of the ball. Would you care to elaborate on your DT comment though?
GoGetta
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
I'm pretty sure the roster minimum is 36.
Also, if your 5th CB is a pure run stopper, that helps ST at least as much as a 5th LB would.
THought it was 34 so thanks for mentioning it
I'm pretty sure the roster minimum is 36.
Also, if your 5th CB is a pure run stopper, that helps ST at least as much as a 5th LB would.
THought it was 34 so thanks for mentioning it
FairForever
offline
offline
By the way you can still run 4-4 ZEB even with only 4 LBs. Obviously can't run it exclusively - but mix it in with some other plays. It might be a little rough on energy early in rookie - but once you hit soph you should be fine.
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by GoGetta
The stars on offense would be a moot point; let's just say there will be more than enough on that side of the ball. Would you care to elaborate on your DT comment though?
It's more of a comment about managing the salary cap, star LBs make a lot of money and you have to give up depth somewhere else in return for adding extra stars on defense. LB is very important and I'm interested to see if it works for you, but it feels risky spending that much money on one position.
The DT comment is two things:
1) Roster - Because we have a star we can get away with having less overall DTs, he has a ton of stamina and plays lots of plays
2) Formations - With our star LB and DT we're trying to stop the run more with 4-3 instead of 5-2 and 4-4 in many situations, the theory is we can have one less guy in the box if our stars do extra work. With the recent run buffs this may or may not hold up in the future.
The stars on offense would be a moot point; let's just say there will be more than enough on that side of the ball. Would you care to elaborate on your DT comment though?
It's more of a comment about managing the salary cap, star LBs make a lot of money and you have to give up depth somewhere else in return for adding extra stars on defense. LB is very important and I'm interested to see if it works for you, but it feels risky spending that much money on one position.
The DT comment is two things:
1) Roster - Because we have a star we can get away with having less overall DTs, he has a ton of stamina and plays lots of plays
2) Formations - With our star LB and DT we're trying to stop the run more with 4-3 instead of 5-2 and 4-4 in many situations, the theory is we can have one less guy in the box if our stars do extra work. With the recent run buffs this may or may not hold up in the future.
Edited by Fumblerooski on Aug 31, 2015 21:43:32
Edited by Fumblerooski on Aug 31, 2015 21:43:20
GoGetta
offline
offline
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
It's more of a comment about managing the salary cap, star LBs make a lot of money and you have to give up depth somewhere else in return for adding extra stars on defense. LB is very important and I'm interested to see if it works for you, but it feels risky spending that much money on one position.
The DT comment is two things:
1) Roster - Because we have a star we can get away with having less overall DTs, he has a ton of stamina and plays lots of plays
2) Formations - With our star LB and DT we're trying to stop the run more with 4-3 instead of 5-2 and 4-4 in many situations, the theory is we can have one less guy in the box if our stars do extra work. With the recent run buffs this may or may not hold up in the future.
Oh I see. Yeah the plan originally wasn't to have the three in the same position. Superstars were more spread out on defense (couple on the line, a safety, 2 lbs) but I was constantly changing the plan to cover the weaknesses (superstars in positions of less depth) to bring the overall floor of the team up, and hey, the three LBs will all be playing at the same time anyways, so it's not terrible. And hey, if it's going to add knowledge to the community by trying something less popular, then all the better.
Anyways I was just asking because I originally had a DT stud in the lineup until last minute. I ultimately changed because I'll have six players for the four linemen slots and four linebackers for the three slots. I think it makes some sense to shift the superstar, and he still contributes to the aggressiveness of the front seven.
Although I'd really like to add a superstar corner. I COULD go 5 LBS 2 of which are S*, and 4 corners 1 of which is a S*, but that's a complete different conversation, and now I'm just thinking out loud =)
It's more of a comment about managing the salary cap, star LBs make a lot of money and you have to give up depth somewhere else in return for adding extra stars on defense. LB is very important and I'm interested to see if it works for you, but it feels risky spending that much money on one position.
The DT comment is two things:
1) Roster - Because we have a star we can get away with having less overall DTs, he has a ton of stamina and plays lots of plays
2) Formations - With our star LB and DT we're trying to stop the run more with 4-3 instead of 5-2 and 4-4 in many situations, the theory is we can have one less guy in the box if our stars do extra work. With the recent run buffs this may or may not hold up in the future.
Oh I see. Yeah the plan originally wasn't to have the three in the same position. Superstars were more spread out on defense (couple on the line, a safety, 2 lbs) but I was constantly changing the plan to cover the weaknesses (superstars in positions of less depth) to bring the overall floor of the team up, and hey, the three LBs will all be playing at the same time anyways, so it's not terrible. And hey, if it's going to add knowledge to the community by trying something less popular, then all the better.
Anyways I was just asking because I originally had a DT stud in the lineup until last minute. I ultimately changed because I'll have six players for the four linemen slots and four linebackers for the three slots. I think it makes some sense to shift the superstar, and he still contributes to the aggressiveness of the front seven.
Although I'd really like to add a superstar corner. I COULD go 5 LBS 2 of which are S*, and 4 corners 1 of which is a S*, but that's a complete different conversation, and now I'm just thinking out loud =)
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
