Warrior General Games

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I was messing around with GLB2Scout player builder, and S*+EB got me some really crazy looking CB, WR, HB, Coverage/RunStuffing LB's, I didn't try an O-lineman but it probably would've looked good no matter if it was balanced or run/pass only since O-line blocking caps essentially don't matter because they're impossible to reach.

People misinterpret the data a lot of the time - 5 percent savings is something, but a lot of the good bumps in secondaries is simply a result of not spending a ton of SP on getting primaries up.

Curious how you got to a good S* WR. Not to be rude, but you are probably underestimating caps in some skills (conditioning, hands most likely). Same thing with CB. You can make a decent S* EB LB but he won't be better than a specialized non-S* LB in a specific aspect of the game.

61 conditioning, 78 hands.
I wanted to build a YAC WR, so along with normal receiving skills and 86 sprinting, 75 quickness, 75 footwork, 70 balance, 51 CIT, 69 RCon, 60 RecAware I took Elusive running to 74.

Originally posted by FairForever
Curious which positions you think it is borderline OP... the reality is taking S* + EB puts you back at your original caps situation, which is not good when you consider the fact that you've spent 2 traits and haven't benefited your caps at all (obviously your SP situation will be very good - but you will be cap-restrained). The best example I can think of this is the S* blitz/hybrid LB which has worse pure pass-rushing skills than a non-S* blitz LB (because the blitz LB is able to take skills like snap reaction or tactician) - you make up for it in other attributes, but seems like an expensive way to spend on the S* role.

The one position I think it's great on is probably O-line on a balanced O - but EB is already a good skill there even without the S*. LB is ok if you really want to create a well-rounded guy - but he's not going to be particularly good at anything - and to me that is a significant problem.

I would say definitely any S* HB/WR/TE is not going to want EB because of the need to invest into a limited number of certain skills as high as possible. DT/DEs also no - since you want to pump the PRT in a lot of situations... SS* and FS* are arguable depending on what you want to do (did the analysis for HoF before and it was clear that EB was a poor choice for us based on what we wanted to do).

I would argue it is incredibly viable on any position except SS/FS who cannot get decent tackling caps with EB+S*, a S* MLB would probably not want it either. But any other position would benefit immensely if you can manipulate the traits and attribute points enough. You also get to dip into less used but potentially great secondaries people rarely have the room for like Pass Rush Deflect or Intercepting. I can easily get to 100 PRT on an EB+S* DE while getting solid Run Stop skills and tackling ability, AND enough for some experimental stuff like Pass Deflect.

http://www.glb2scout.com/virtualplayer.php?Code=ec7f346604f518906d35ef0492709f78

On a man cover CB you can get pretty decent man cover skills AND run defense to help stop the counter, while dipping into some intercepting with your leftover SP.

http://www.glb2scout.com/virtualplayer.php?Code=3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa

Obviously neither player is super great at any one facet but neither will be a liability on any given play, and both are easily capable of making great plays against the Run or Pass, especially against balanced teams where they will win most of the roles against players who are not specialized.

Heres the code for the CB I made.
Similar to yours in some ways, just a couple different assignment of SP in secondaries and consistency caps.

http://www.glb2scout.com/virtualplayer.php?Code=cc431fd7ec4437de061c2577a4603995

I would rather have this on my team than any other S* CB build IMO. It allows for so much versatility against any team regardless of their playbook. And honestly, CB performance in pass coverage doesn't noticeably improve once man aware, cov tech, and deflect are at 85 or above. Highly specialized defensive S*'s are an absolute waste IMO, at every single position.

**EDIT** I just realized I copied your CB and not mine, edited link above now for correct CB. **EDIT**

Originally posted by FairForever
You can make a decent S* EB LB but he won't be better than a specialized non-S* LB in a specific aspect of the game.

There is a lot to be said for an LB you can put on the field every single play, against every single team. Even if he is not as great at X as X specialist LB is.

Generalist S* defenders also act as multipliers to your specialists. Have a pass coverage specialist LB? Well, now you have 2 LBs that can play well against all pass teams with the generalist S*. Throw in your blitz specialist LB and you have enough LB dots to field a defense.

When your generalist is replacing 2 dots, suddenly that salary increase doesn't look so bad. If he is replacing 3 (rare, but possible), he is a steal.

Even if a S* EB is slightly worse at each aspect than a specialist, being able to leave him in against any team without being a liability is incredible, especially considering how balanced teams are dominating the game more than ever.

http://www.glb2scout.com/virtualplayer.php?Code=b6e710870acb098e584277457ba89d68

The HB I made earlier. Would be absolutely deadly on a passing team, even had enough SP left for pass blocking skills after maxing power rushing and receiving skills. Could easily be paired with a scat HB, and just have a few gotcha runs sprinkled in.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Heres the code for the CB I made.
Similar to yours in some ways, just a couple different assignment of SP in secondaries and consistency caps.

http://www.glb2scout.com/virtualplayer.php?Code=cc431fd7ec4437de061c2577a4603995

I would rather have this on my team than any other S* CB build IMO. It allows for so much versatility against any team regardless of their playbook. And honestly, CB performance in pass coverage doesn't noticeably improve once man aware, cov tech, and deflect are at 85 or above. Highly specialized defensive S*'s are an absolute waste IMO, at every single position.

**EDIT** I just realized I copied your CB and not mine, edited link above now for correct CB. **EDIT**

Man Aware and Deflection don't noticeably improve after 85? Where did you get that stat? Or is it something you are just saying?

No one is saying to build highly specialized defensive Star players. I'm saying that having specialized non-star players are generally better than an EB star. A non-EB CB or DE can still have value against the run while being better than a specialized non-Star DE against the pass.

Also, I opened up our Star EB HB... 59 conditioning is way too little. Which goes back to my argument about caps on Star players.

59 conditioning too little? Have you seen jebuiz run? You can easily have an elite back with lower conditioning.

Originally posted by FairForever
Man Aware and Deflection don't noticeably improve after 85?

Just my observation.
A CB with 85 man aware, deflect, and coverage tech is not going to be a liability in man coverage, and arguably just looking at stats there are plenty of examples of 100/95/100 man aware/cov tech/deflect CB's out there who aren't noticeably better in their receptions allowed %. You're not giving up much by just stopping at 85 apiece for all 3.

Also what are you smoking with the 59 conditioning is too little? What do you think is the absolute bare minimum for conditioning on a HB if 59 is too little?

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Just my observation.
A CB with 85 man aware, deflect, and coverage tech is not going to be a liability in man coverage, and arguably just looking at stats there are plenty of examples of 100/95/100 man aware/cov tech/deflect CB's out there who aren't noticeably better in their receptions allowed %. You're not giving up much by just stopping at 85 apiece for all 3.

I totally disagree... those guys with 85ish with stats as good as guys with high 90s aren't getting lined up against WR3s, they in many cases are against WR1s and WR2s, who have much lower completion percentages (unless screens are ran)

at Madison there's a big diff between the 85ish guys we have and high 90s guys we have when both put at the slot.

Can you be an effective CB with those in the mid-80s? sure, but you better put them on the outside with the less targeted WRs running bad routes

CBs with 95ish+ cov tech are important against teams that force-feed WR3s often... being able to make quicker cuts, leads to LESS targets, which is just as valuable as completion %. People generally think completion % as a CB is everything... number of targets seen in their direction is GIGANTIC also. IMO, I'd prefer against my CB a WR3 in a WR3 pass-focused team catching 4 of 8 targets vs that same WR catching 12 of 26.

Originally posted by TDiddy8701
I totally disagree... those guys with 85ish with stats as good as guys with high 90s aren't getting lined up against WR3s, they in many cases are against WR1s and WR2s, who have much lower completion percentages (unless screens are ran)

at Madison there's a big diff between the 85ish guys we have and high 90s guys we have when both put at the slot.

Can you be an effective CB with those in the mid-80s? sure, but you better put them on the outside with the less targeted WRs running bad routes

CBs with 95ish+ cov tech are important against teams that force-feed WR3s often... being able to make quicker cuts, leads to LESS targets, which is just as valuable as completion %. People generally think completion % as a CB is everything... number of targets seen in their direction is GIGANTIC also. IMO, I'd prefer against my CB a WR3 in a WR3 pass-focused team catching 4 of 8 targets vs that same WR catching 12 of 26.


But how would overall performance look between a 100/100/95 Manawre/CovTech/Deflect corner vs. a 95/85/85 with 70 intercepting?

um, with what I listed above... PRIME example today against logzilla... no way a mid 80s CB could hold belgarion (arguably the best pure reciever in GLB2) to these numbers. My two guys on him were 95ish-100 for the big 3 attributes. Martha Stewart held him to 11 of 29, Lockdown CB 3 of 12.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/229088

Originally posted by Mysterio
But how would overall performance look between a 100/100/95 Manawre/CovTech/Deflect corner vs. a 95/85/85 with 70 intercepting?

I mean if you really are focused that much on trying for INTs...

Even at high numbers, I still feel like INTs are too random to rely on for a build... I prefer to get my turnovers via FFs (power tackling LBs and Ss), as power tackling and inimidation forces them, but also helps against the run... INT attribute only helps turnovers, not shutting down the pass

Originally posted by TDiddy8701
I totally disagree... those guys with 85ish with stats as good as guys with high 90s aren't getting lined up against WR3s, they in many cases are against WR1s and WR2s, who have much lower completion percentages (unless screens are ran)

at Madison there's a big diff between the 85ish guys we have and high 90s guys we have when both put at the slot.

Can you be an effective CB with those in the mid-80s? sure, but you better put them on the outside with the less targeted WRs running bad routes

CBs with 95ish+ cov tech are important against teams that force-feed WR3s often... being able to make quicker cuts, leads to LESS targets, which is just as valuable as completion %. People generally think completion % as a CB is everything... number of targets seen in their direction is GIGANTIC also. IMO, I'd prefer against my CB a WR3 in a WR3 pass-focused team catching 4 of 8 targets vs that same WR catching 12 of 26.


Thats good info and a new perspective for me as far as completion % is concerned. Thank you, you've given me something to investigate further and may have changed my opinion on the matter.

I think if you are going to build CBs with 80ish cov stuff and go high INT, they can be effective, but make sure they are on the outside WRs, as those then to see less targets, yet seem to get more INTs on those routes than quick routes inside.