If I am going with only 4 LBs what should they have for conditioning?
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > LB Corps
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by agerm73
Milehigh, What should the OLBs have for trait in addition to S* and slow built?
Don't go with slow built. You want S* Egotist, and Workhorse for the ROLB.
And S* workhorse, and coverage LB for the LOLB.
Aiming for 70-80 conditioning for the two S* LB's.
100 speed at ROLB with good tackling and mediocre coverage skills. 80-85 speed with better coverage skills for the LOLB.
This is kind of how I'd aim for an ROLB.
You could always trade out the strip tech and opportunist for other skills, I just really like strip tech.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409276.png
And then the LOLB like this.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409514.png
Having these two playing OLB gives you a LOT more freedom to blitz with ZEB, and OWM, as the LB's are fast enough to catch up to the outside rushes, so you can still maintain a blitz against balanced teams with less worry unless you're facing S* OL and 100 speed S* HB. And having a S* CB and S* SS will further solidify you against the outside rush as you'll have a CB who can shake WR blocks, or at the very least not get pancaked on the weak side, while a S* SS who's fast enough to collapse the outside rushes to the strong side that get around the LB's.
Milehigh, What should the OLBs have for trait in addition to S* and slow built?
Don't go with slow built. You want S* Egotist, and Workhorse for the ROLB.
And S* workhorse, and coverage LB for the LOLB.
Aiming for 70-80 conditioning for the two S* LB's.
100 speed at ROLB with good tackling and mediocre coverage skills. 80-85 speed with better coverage skills for the LOLB.
This is kind of how I'd aim for an ROLB.
You could always trade out the strip tech and opportunist for other skills, I just really like strip tech.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409276.png
And then the LOLB like this.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409514.png
Having these two playing OLB gives you a LOT more freedom to blitz with ZEB, and OWM, as the LB's are fast enough to catch up to the outside rushes, so you can still maintain a blitz against balanced teams with less worry unless you're facing S* OL and 100 speed S* HB. And having a S* CB and S* SS will further solidify you against the outside rush as you'll have a CB who can shake WR blocks, or at the very least not get pancaked on the weak side, while a S* SS who's fast enough to collapse the outside rushes to the strong side that get around the LB's.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by agerm73
The 1 Run stop CB is for 100% run teams. My thoughts are if they are 100% run why not go 100% 44 Big Man against them?
Because balanced teams usually have high conditioned/power running HBs too.
The 1 Run stop CB is for 100% run teams. My thoughts are if they are 100% run why not go 100% 44 Big Man against them?
Because balanced teams usually have high conditioned/power running HBs too.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by agerm73
If I am going with only 4 LBs what should they have for conditioning?
About 80.
If I am going with only 4 LBs what should they have for conditioning?
About 80.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
This is kind of how I'd aim for an ROLB.
You could always trade out the strip tech and opportunist for other skills, I just really like strip tech.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409276.png
40 BRB, 13 Hold Ground and 25 Balance? I'd run right at him and put him on his arse.
OWM...off tackle weak.
This is kind of how I'd aim for an ROLB.
You could always trade out the strip tech and opportunist for other skills, I just really like strip tech.
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/239_NEW_1462409276.png
40 BRB, 13 Hold Ground and 25 Balance? I'd run right at him and put him on his arse.
OWM...off tackle weak.Danthesportsman
offline
offline
A lot of this kind of player specific planning also depends on whether you will be using just a few defensive formations with specific roles for each player or whether you will be using virtually the whole defensive playbook and need to mix and match players and positions.
For example, a ROLB may not need any coverage skills at all if his role is limited to either blitzing or being put into man coverage on the RB/FB (it's unlikely you'll loose a game from giving a big receiving game to either of those positions). However, if you plan on using some schemes that drop him into zone coverage (especially against 3WRs formations), he'll be in prime position to deflect passes to WR3 and could use some pass defense skills. If you are able to whittle down your play selection you can make your guys even better for the specific role you want them to play.
One of the mistakes I made with my previous team (Mannheim) was I had too many generic defensive players, especially at LB. I could easily move them around from position to position but they weren't great any one thing. My new team is going to have a large defensive roster because I am hoping to have a lot of role-specific guys, it'll limit my play calling flexibility a little bit but they'll be much better at their roles on defense. We'll see how it goes.
For example, a ROLB may not need any coverage skills at all if his role is limited to either blitzing or being put into man coverage on the RB/FB (it's unlikely you'll loose a game from giving a big receiving game to either of those positions). However, if you plan on using some schemes that drop him into zone coverage (especially against 3WRs formations), he'll be in prime position to deflect passes to WR3 and could use some pass defense skills. If you are able to whittle down your play selection you can make your guys even better for the specific role you want them to play.
One of the mistakes I made with my previous team (Mannheim) was I had too many generic defensive players, especially at LB. I could easily move them around from position to position but they weren't great any one thing. My new team is going to have a large defensive roster because I am hoping to have a lot of role-specific guys, it'll limit my play calling flexibility a little bit but they'll be much better at their roles on defense. We'll see how it goes.
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
40 BRB, 13 Hold Ground and 25 Balance? I'd run right at him and put him on his arse. OWM...off tackle weak.
Obviously the game plan would change for you, as I assume you are going run heavy again right?
Nobody is going to run OWM against a 70% rushing team, or more.
This player gives the DC the opportunity to blitz more often against balanced teams. Don't worry, against teams like what you're planning you can simply move him to MLB and change the play-calls and let him just use his speed to chase down any rushing plays, while the run stuffing CB's force the ball carriers inside.
40 BRB, 13 Hold Ground and 25 Balance? I'd run right at him and put him on his arse. OWM...off tackle weak.
Obviously the game plan would change for you, as I assume you are going run heavy again right?
Nobody is going to run OWM against a 70% rushing team, or more.
This player gives the DC the opportunity to blitz more often against balanced teams. Don't worry, against teams like what you're planning you can simply move him to MLB and change the play-calls and let him just use his speed to chase down any rushing plays, while the run stuffing CB's force the ball carriers inside.
MadCow420
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Is that 2 total DTs? You need 3 DTs, including 1 S*.
no you dont
Is that 2 total DTs? You need 3 DTs, including 1 S*.
no you dont
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Balanced teams still run out of 3 WR sets.
If you're running off tackle weak out of 3WR against OWM the ROLB will be unblocked.
Balanced teams still run out of 3 WR sets.
If you're running off tackle weak out of 3WR against OWM the ROLB will be unblocked.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by MadCow420
no you dont
You gonna run out 2 DTs against my Goalline offense?
no you dont
You gonna run out 2 DTs against my Goalline offense?
Absolut Zero
offline
offline
Originally posted by Danthesportsman
A lot of this kind of player specific planning also depends on whether you will be using just a few defensive formations with specific roles for each player or whether you will be using virtually the whole defensive playbook and need to mix and match players and positions.
For example, a ROLB may not need any coverage skills at all if his role is limited to either blitzing or being put into man coverage on the RB/FB (it's unlikely you'll loose a game from giving a big receiving game to either of those positions). However, if you plan on using some schemes that drop him into zone coverage (especially against 3WRs formations), he'll be in prime position to deflect passes to WR3 and could use some pass defense skills. If you are able to whittle down your play selection you can make your guys even better for the specific role you want them to play.
One of the mistakes I made with my previous team (Mannheim) was I had too many generic defensive players, especially at LB. I could easily move them around from position to position but they weren't great any one thing. My new team is going to have a large defensive roster because I am hoping to have a lot of role-specific guys, it'll limit my play calling flexibility a little bit but they'll be much better at their roles on defense. We'll see how it goes.
If you put the time and effort into a gameplan for each opponent, it can be really good. But it's extremely time consuming to have so many different builds and meshing them into the depth chart for the playcalling. So, just a warning.
A lot of this kind of player specific planning also depends on whether you will be using just a few defensive formations with specific roles for each player or whether you will be using virtually the whole defensive playbook and need to mix and match players and positions.
For example, a ROLB may not need any coverage skills at all if his role is limited to either blitzing or being put into man coverage on the RB/FB (it's unlikely you'll loose a game from giving a big receiving game to either of those positions). However, if you plan on using some schemes that drop him into zone coverage (especially against 3WRs formations), he'll be in prime position to deflect passes to WR3 and could use some pass defense skills. If you are able to whittle down your play selection you can make your guys even better for the specific role you want them to play.
One of the mistakes I made with my previous team (Mannheim) was I had too many generic defensive players, especially at LB. I could easily move them around from position to position but they weren't great any one thing. My new team is going to have a large defensive roster because I am hoping to have a lot of role-specific guys, it'll limit my play calling flexibility a little bit but they'll be much better at their roles on defense. We'll see how it goes.
If you put the time and effort into a gameplan for each opponent, it can be really good. But it's extremely time consuming to have so many different builds and meshing them into the depth chart for the playcalling. So, just a warning.
TyDavis315
offline
offline
I usually make my MLB's S* players because I can use them on blitz plays, run stuffing, and pass coverage. Its pretty much due to the scheme I run, but throughout 30 games (usually starting sophomore season) they average over 10 hurries and sacks, as much as 20 tfls and no less than 13, around (a little bit over) 100 tackles, and they do well in coverage. They also force quite a bit of turnovers from fumbles/interceptions. To me, having a S* MLB is the way to go since you can send regular LBs out to blitz and end up just fine.
Danthesportsman
offline
offline
Originally posted by Absolut Zero
If you put the time and effort into a gameplan for each opponent, it can be really good. But it's extremely time consuming to have so many different builds and meshing them into the depth chart for the playcalling. So, just a warning.
Yeah, I hear you on that. I haven't had a game planning role on a team since season 15 so I'm ready to jump back into it. When I was coaching/owning Glasgow and Mannheim I put a lot (probably too much) time into game planning for each opponent.
If you put the time and effort into a gameplan for each opponent, it can be really good. But it's extremely time consuming to have so many different builds and meshing them into the depth chart for the playcalling. So, just a warning.
Yeah, I hear you on that. I haven't had a game planning role on a team since season 15 so I'm ready to jump back into it. When I was coaching/owning Glasgow and Mannheim I put a lot (probably too much) time into game planning for each opponent.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
