Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Kayoh

what's the point? You'd be stretching your interior OL so thin

lol I know, I was answering the post earlier about many teams only going 1 non superstar center.

LB,LB,FS

Xars theory on DE, DT is good. Let's you build the secondary as specialists with the extra positions.

I'd probably S* my Will Blitz LB too just so you have as much nutty sack potential as possible. Have we seen a 100/100/100 sprinting/quickness/snap reaction build yet? No? That needs to happen.

Originally posted by Galithor
Xars theory on DE, DT is good. Let's you build the secondary as specialists with the extra positions.

I'd probably S* my Will Blitz LB too just so you have as much nutty sack potential as possible. Have we seen a 100/100/100 sprinting/quickness/snap reaction build yet? No? That needs to happen.

May be happening next season

if i had my way when remaking a defense i would like to have an SS and 2 blitzing combo lbers, that where S*s

Originally posted by Galithor
Xars theory on DE, DT is good. Let's you build the secondary as specialists with the extra positions.

I'd probably S* my Will Blitz LB too just so you have as much nutty sack potential as possible. Have we seen a 100/100/100 sprinting/quickness/snap reaction build yet? No? That needs to happen.

fyp

Originally posted by TehKyou
Only a little bit for a much better player. Also which is more expensive, 1 S* center with no backup or 1 S* OT and 2 non S* OTs to play the other side?

That makes zero sense. Are you trying to say a team with 1 center does not need OTs?

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
You can say this about every supetstar.

Um, obviously, which is exactly why it isn't a good argument to say that a S* is a good idea simply because it means you can carry one player instead of two.

Originally posted by Galithor
Xars theory on DE, DT is good. Let's you build the secondary as specialists with the extra positions.

I'd probably S* my Will Blitz LB too just so you have as much nutty sack potential as possible. Have we seen a 100/100/100 sprinting/quickness/snap reaction build yet? No? That needs to happen.

Not hard to build a guy like that. Still debating whether I should do that or a coverage LB with the S* next season.

Originally posted by Kayoh
The general idea is this:

Normal non-S* setup: 3 DT, 2 C, 3 G, 3 T - salary here is 11x

With S* DT: 2 DT, 1 S* DT, 2 C, 3 G, 3 T - salary here is 12.5x

With S* C: 3 DT, 1 S* C, 3 G, 3 T - salary here is 11.5x

With S* G (also applies to T): 3 DT, 2 C, 2 G, 1 S* G, 3 T - salary here is 12.5x

in general, if you're running with this setup, you'll get the most out of (while spending the least on) a S* C

I would disagree with your normal set up, which throws your whole analysis off. Seen plenty of teams with only two DTs and struggling to get PT for the second. Also seen plenty of teams with only one C, or conversely with four G or OT or both.

Also, it is a bit of a reach to think a team with a S* DT is going to have another two. Unless you run a five man front A LOT, those two dots are going to get zero PT.

Originally posted by Galithor
Xars theory on DE, DT is good. Let's you build the secondary as specialists with the extra positions.

I'd probably S* my Will Blitz LB too just so you have as much nutty sack potential as possible. Have we seen a 100/100/100 sprinting/quickness/snap reaction build yet? No? That needs to happen.

Meh, wouldn't accomplish much imo. Guys with less will still get to the QB in time, and guys with that much will still get neutralized by a HB or G with the right build.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
That makes zero sense. Are you trying to say a team with 1 center does not need OTs?

No, ... I'm guessing the "or" confused you. I'll clarify

A S* Center with no backup center and 3 non superstar tackles (1S* and 3 players) is less expensive than

having a S* Tackle with 2 non Superstar Tackles to play the other side, and 2 non superstar centers. (1S* and 4 players).

Tackles also have higher base contracts so when +% salary modifiers are factored in centers are generally cheaper than tackles

OT and G have to pull and move...need more stats. C can just focus on blocking skills

Originally posted by Mysterio
OT and G have to pull and move...need more stats. C can just focus on blocking skills
running up the middle against 4 man fronts leaves the C uncovered. He needs to be able to reach the second level.

Originally posted by TehKyou
No, ... I'm guessing the "or" confused you. I'll clarify

A S* Center with no backup center and 3 non superstar tackles (1S* and 3 players) is less expensive than

having a S* Tackle with 2 non Superstar Tackles to play the other side, and 2 non superstar centers. (1S* and 4 players).

Tackles also have higher base contracts so when +% salary modifiers are factored in centers are generally cheaper than tackles


a) It's funny you have no idea your original post didn't say the above at all.
b) That's a horrible set of assumptions you've made.