I get it, your basically saying might aswell let us do it as it is possible to achieve anyway without a penalty, so why not just make it easier and give us a penalty for it.
Forum > Suggestions > Allow us to put SS or LB (or DT/DE) at CB positions
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.
just chiming in to say YES - goal line roll out is too overpowered and needs tweaking.
Honestly I'm hoping Corndog's rookie team gets killed with it so he'll be convinced
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.
just chiming in to say YES - goal line roll out is too overpowered and needs tweaking.
Honestly I'm hoping Corndog's rookie team gets killed with it so he'll be convinced
Originally posted by bhall43
Why not build a CB to stop that kind of thing? The entire idea around minimizing the roster was to give yourself more identity and less jack of all trades. If I can throw players anywhere I want on the depth chart what is the point?
You identified the problem, imo.
The minimized roster forces teams to have an identity. Typically offense is where that identity is focused. That means defenses need to be able to stop a run-first team on day and a pass-first team the next. If you could, for example, put LBs or safeties at the CB position it would give defenses a chance.
Why not build a CB to stop that kind of thing? The entire idea around minimizing the roster was to give yourself more identity and less jack of all trades. If I can throw players anywhere I want on the depth chart what is the point?
You identified the problem, imo.
The minimized roster forces teams to have an identity. Typically offense is where that identity is focused. That means defenses need to be able to stop a run-first team on day and a pass-first team the next. If you could, for example, put LBs or safeties at the CB position it would give defenses a chance.
bhall43
offline
offline
Saying they don't stand a chance is nonsense. Again I ask what is the point of a minimized roster if you can place guys wherever you wish?
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
You identified the problem, imo.
The minimized roster forces teams to have an identity. Typically offense is where that identity is focused. That means defenses need to be able to stop a run-first team on day and a pass-first team the next. If you could, for example, put LBs or safeties at the CB position it would give defenses a chance.
And actually force the P/R/S gameplanning.
A CB has to be a lot more things because the D has to be reactive. You have already shown that you can force the LB to line-up over the WR with no OOP penalty. Rosters are still limited. If a team puts their run stopping LB on the strong side out of the 4-4 Big, they may not have another on their team. Being able to put a player in on the depth chart (at a 5% penalty) vs. being able to put that player there with no penalty (as we currently have by forcing the LB into man over the WR) seems like the preferred method.
You identified the problem, imo.
The minimized roster forces teams to have an identity. Typically offense is where that identity is focused. That means defenses need to be able to stop a run-first team on day and a pass-first team the next. If you could, for example, put LBs or safeties at the CB position it would give defenses a chance.
And actually force the P/R/S gameplanning.
A CB has to be a lot more things because the D has to be reactive. You have already shown that you can force the LB to line-up over the WR with no OOP penalty. Rosters are still limited. If a team puts their run stopping LB on the strong side out of the 4-4 Big, they may not have another on their team. Being able to put a player in on the depth chart (at a 5% penalty) vs. being able to put that player there with no penalty (as we currently have by forcing the LB into man over the WR) seems like the preferred method.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Saying they don't stand a chance is nonsense. Again I ask what is the point of a minimized roster if you can place guys wherever you wish?
Again, can you not already put a LB in that spot?
Answer me that.
1) Can you put whatever LBer you want in that spot?
2) Is that LBer playing with an OOP penalty?
Saying they don't stand a chance is nonsense. Again I ask what is the point of a minimized roster if you can place guys wherever you wish?
Again, can you not already put a LB in that spot?
Answer me that.
1) Can you put whatever LBer you want in that spot?
2) Is that LBer playing with an OOP penalty?
bhall43
offline
offline
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
Xavori
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
C'mon. You know you wanna unleash your inner Buddy Ryan
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
C'mon. You know you wanna unleash your inner Buddy Ryan
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
Yes. You can.
4-4 Big. No CB2 in that formation. Guess which Bot plays man directly over the WR2? Whichever LBer that you have that covers WR2 according to the Heuristic coverage scheme.
Get your head out of your ass, you know it is possible to pick which LBer goes there. Xav knows it is possible too.
Originally posted by Xavori
Or run a 4-4 Big that doesn't have CB2 at all.
Originally posted by Xavori
Time Trial, do you not have a playbook to use against run teams?
It's easy to make.
Start by looking what formations your opponent runs out of. Put 4-4 Big formation defenses on those pages along with other good run stopping plays you've found.
Tada!
No need for an OOP.
Here is even an example:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/61718/121756
Note how the blocking WR doesn't destroy the CB he is lined up against? Probably because it is a LBer.
As designed. Because you can game the coverage scheme to do that. Without a penalty. Without letting me put a LB in the CB slot. I did it.
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
Yes. You can.
4-4 Big. No CB2 in that formation. Guess which Bot plays man directly over the WR2? Whichever LBer that you have that covers WR2 according to the Heuristic coverage scheme.
Get your head out of your ass, you know it is possible to pick which LBer goes there. Xav knows it is possible too.
Originally posted by Xavori
Or run a 4-4 Big that doesn't have CB2 at all.
Originally posted by Xavori
Time Trial, do you not have a playbook to use against run teams?
It's easy to make.
Start by looking what formations your opponent runs out of. Put 4-4 Big formation defenses on those pages along with other good run stopping plays you've found.
Tada!
No need for an OOP.
Here is even an example:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/61718/121756
Note how the blocking WR doesn't destroy the CB he is lined up against? Probably because it is a LBer.
As designed. Because you can game the coverage scheme to do that. Without a penalty. Without letting me put a LB in the CB slot. I did it.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
You want that coverage?
You can get pretty damn close. Call a 4-4 against the 5 WR formation and have the LBers go man over the other 4 WRs.
Your argument is silly anyway.
Why in the hell would you call a quarter defence with all five of your LBers on the outside unless you were 100% sure that this play wasn't going to go up the gut?
A running team that can't run up the gut against a quarter D in this game doesn't exist. You would get destroyed.
No currently you can't put whatever lb you want in that spot. The game isn't rigged around running a quarter defense with 6 lbs. stop with this silly nonsense.
You want that coverage?
You can get pretty damn close. Call a 4-4 against the 5 WR formation and have the LBers go man over the other 4 WRs.
Your argument is silly anyway.
Why in the hell would you call a quarter defence with all five of your LBers on the outside unless you were 100% sure that this play wasn't going to go up the gut?
A running team that can't run up the gut against a quarter D in this game doesn't exist. You would get destroyed.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
You want that coverage?
You can get pretty damn close. Call a 4-4 against the 5 WR formation and have the LBers go man over the other 4 WRs.
Your argument is silly anyway.
Why in the hell would you call a quarter defence with all five of your LBers on the outside unless you were 100% sure that this play wasn't going to go up the gut?
A running team that can't run up the gut against a quarter D in this game doesn't exist. You would get destroyed.
Why would I call that vs. 5 WR? You really aren't making very good points.
There are butt loads of reasons I would call a lot of Quarter defenses with LB's at CB4/5/2 against rushing teams.
You want that coverage?
You can get pretty damn close. Call a 4-4 against the 5 WR formation and have the LBers go man over the other 4 WRs.
Your argument is silly anyway.
Why in the hell would you call a quarter defence with all five of your LBers on the outside unless you were 100% sure that this play wasn't going to go up the gut?
A running team that can't run up the gut against a quarter D in this game doesn't exist. You would get destroyed.
Why would I call that vs. 5 WR? You really aren't making very good points.
There are butt loads of reasons I would call a lot of Quarter defenses with LB's at CB4/5/2 against rushing teams.
Edited by bhall43 on May 15, 2014 16:01:32
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Why would I call that vs. 5 WR? You really aren't making very good points.
READ THE FUCKING REST.
Why would I call that vs. 5 WR? You really aren't making very good points.
READ THE FUCKING REST.
Time Trial
offline
offline
You are the one who said "quarter D with five LBers".
...as though that was what I was saying with this suggestion.
...as though that was what I was saying with this suggestion.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
READ THE FUCKING REST.
I did read the rest. Which is more nonsense. I find it hilarious that you are begging for this for the obvious reasons in which I am telling you its stupid.
READ THE FUCKING REST.
I did read the rest. Which is more nonsense. I find it hilarious that you are begging for this for the obvious reasons in which I am telling you its stupid.
bhall43
offline
offline
Why don't we just remove the run stopping elements of CB's? Because obviously you don't want to tamper with any of that. 
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
