Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bhall43
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.

Listen, I put 50+ break run block on my CBs and 45 to 55 balance on them. The problem is, CBs that are capable of defending the pass aren't going to have the skill cap to hold their ground against pure blocking WRs.

I mean, if the O can put a BTE in at WR1 (which they can) I really don't see your argument that LBs shouldn't be permitted at CB.

Originally posted by Time Trial
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.

Again, you don't even address the fact that I can currently line up as many LBers at CB as I want by cheating the Heuristic coverage model (or at least as many as the O is sending WRs).

The only way to do that right now is to trick the LBers into being in position by using fewer CBs than the O is sending WRs. But you can do it. Just like the O can send TEs in at WR (but with a penalty) why can't we send LBs in at CB (but with a penalty)?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Listen, I put 50+ break run block on my CBs and 45 to 55 balance on them. The problem is, CBs that are capable of defending the pass aren't going to have the skill cap to hold their ground against pure blocking WRs.

I mean, if the O can put a BTE in at WR1 (which they can) I really don't see your argument that LBs shouldn't be permitted at CB.

Uh because O is forced to have that BTE play WR the entire game where as you as a DC aren't forced into doing a god damn thing because of the formation depth chart. Meaning if the offense gets into a pass situation you can just as easily turn into a full on coverage team rather than a run stopping juggernaut.

Outside of Goalline formation the run can be stopped multiple ways anyways without needing to manipulate a depth chart. The problem with GL is that you just never have the numbers against the rollout. 4 against 2-3 guys sucks.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Again, you don't even address the fact that I can currently line up as many LBers at CB as I want by cheating the Heuristic coverage model (or at least as many as the O is sending WRs).

The only way to do that right now is to trick the LBers into being in position by using fewer CBs than the O is sending WRs. But you can do it. Just like the O can send TEs in at WR (but with a penalty) why can't we send LBs in at CB (but with a penalty)?

...and if you do that, and the O passes the ball, you are probably in trouble. Especially since the O dictates the game and the D is just guessing what they are going to do.

Originally posted by bhall43
Uh because O is forced to have that BTE play WR the entire game where as you as a DC aren't forced into doing a god damn thing because of the formation depth chart. Meaning if the offense gets into a pass situation you can just as easily turn into a full on coverage team rather than a run stopping juggernaut.

Outside of Goalline formation the run can be stopped multiple ways anyways without needing to manipulate a depth chart. The problem with GL is that you just never have the numbers against the rollout. 4 against 2-3 guys sucks.

Yeah, but the O can also call plays where WR1 is the last bot you ever look at. We both know how to get the ball to the player we want and to not throw to the player we don't want 85% of the time.

Plus, the D is stuck responding to the formation that the O sends out. You can't reliably know whether the O is going to run or pass out of any given formation or which spot on the depth chart the BTE is going to occupy.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Again, you don't even address the fact that I can currently line up as many LBers at CB as I want by cheating the Heuristic coverage model (or at least as many as the O is sending WRs).

The only way to do that right now is to trick the LBers into being in position by using fewer CBs than the O is sending WRs. But you can do it. Just like the O can send TEs in at WR (but with a penalty) why can't we send LBs in at CB (but with a penalty)?

The only way you are tricking it if the offense sends WR's out there. So your argument really isn't holding very well.

Originally posted by Time Trial
...and if you do that, and the O passes the ball, you are probably in trouble. Especially since the O dictates the game and the D is just guessing what they are going to do.

In trouble how? I thought this was because lolblocking WR's?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Yeah, but the O can also call plays where WR1 is the last bot you ever look at. We both know how to get the ball to the player we want and to not throw to the player we don't want 85% of the time.

Plus, the D is stuck responding to the formation that the O sends out. You can't reliably know whether the O is going to run or pass out of any given formation or which spot on the depth chart the BTE is going to occupy.

You don't need to know whether the offense is reliably passing or running. But you do however already know that one or more of their WR's is a blocking WR.

When you show me how you tricked your 4-4 big defense into sending LB's as Corners in a quarter zone formation against GL or 2 WR lemme know. At that point I will concede the argument.

Originally posted by bhall43
In trouble how? I thought this was because lolblocking WR's?

Because what if I have two depth charts:

1) BTE/BWR plays WR1;
2) BTE/BWR plays WR2.

You anticipate blocker at WR2 and put a LB over that position in coverage. You guess wrong and the O actually had a speed WR in at WR2. Your run stopping LB is burned.

Because the O dictates the game and the D is just stuck guessing. They can put a CB in there to stop the pass, but if they guess wrong, they are going to get destroyed by a blocking WR or TE.

Originally posted by bhall43
When you show me how you tricked your 4-4 big defense into sending LB's as Corners in a quarter zone formation against GL or 2 WR lemme know. At that point I will concede the argument.

Why would you run a quarter full of LBs against the GL? You want to put 3 DL in the box against the GL formation and I'm the one who is crazy?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Why would you run a quarter full of LBs against the GL? You want to put 3 DL in the box against the GL formation and I'm the one who is crazy?

have you gone mad

Originally posted by Time Trial
Why would you run a quarter full of LBs against the GL? You want to put 3 DL in the box against the GL formation and I'm the one who is crazy?

Well if you can't answer that on yourself this suggestion is beyond your capabilities.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Because what if I have two depth charts:

1) BTE/BWR plays WR1;
2) BTE/BWR plays WR2.

You anticipate blocker at WR2 and put a LB over that position in coverage. You guess wrong and the O actually had a speed WR in at WR2. Your run stopping LB is burned.

Because the O dictates the game and the D is just stuck guessing. They can put a CB in there to stop the pass, but if they guess wrong, they are going to get destroyed by a blocking WR or TE.

oh what if the OC was smart? Well omg aint that some shit?

lol TT you're doing too much calculating/

No1 in komodo is doing all that BS and no1 in the 30s ladder is either.