Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Nyria
This may be mentioned somewhere in the thread, but it's too long for me to go through it: The Singleback Big is a two WR formation: Two TE's, but no FB, so two WR.

Your tool treats the Singleback Big as a one WR formation. It's possible the plays selected from the defensive playbook do as well, which would mean your tool is still providing the best info (If so, it's the game that needs to be fixed, as people will be using 4-4 Big or something and ending up covering WR2 with a non-CB. In general, both in real life and in the game, where TE's are more likely to receive well, two TE/no FB is a better passing formation than 2 RB/1 TE/2 WR, so lumping it in with 1 WR formations is a real mistake.)

Anyway, if it's a flaw in the scouting tool, it ought to be fixed so we can use the filter to get the right playbook match. If it's a flaw in the game's defense chooser and the tool is essentially right, I (and I'm sure others) will want to know so we can adjust our offenses to exploit it and our defenses to limit the damage.

It doesn't need a separate category, but should be treated by the game's defense chooser (and if it is, then by your tool) as a 2 WR formation, as I'd been assuming it was.

I think I understand now. It is supposed to be 2 WR but it is 1 WR in the scout tool. You weren't trying to lump TEs in to the count. Sorry long day. I'm sure the sim recognizes it as a 2 WR play tho.

No, a TE is not a WR. But Singleback Big has as its 5 eligible receivers (besides the QB) 2 WRs, 2 TEs, and 1 HB.

It's a little more pass friendly than the "basic" 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 FB, 1 HB; but it's fine with me to treat it the same as the I/Pro Set/etc. that are also 2 WR formations. My concern is it's being treated (by the scouting tool, and maybe by the defense selection tool) the same as the 1 WR/2 TE (plus 1 HB/1 FB) formation.

Edit: Obviously I posted the above before reading your other post. You've got it. If you're right, and I hope you are, it's the tool that should be fixed.

Originally posted by DeeVee8
I think I understand now. It is supposed to be 2 WR but it is 1 WR in the scout tool. You weren't trying to lump TEs in to the count. Sorry long day. I'm sure the sim recognizes it as a 2 WR play tho.

Nope.

It's been tested over and over and over.

Singleback Big draws from the 2TE Defensive Plays. It may have 2WR, but it has 2TEs and that's how it's classified by the game.

Stobie's tool is correct.

Awwwwe, we were having fun speculating. lol

Thanks Xars!

Originally posted by Xars
Nope.

It's been tested over and over and over.

Singleback Big draws from the 2TE Defensive Plays. It may have 2WR, but it has 2TEs and that's how it's classified by the game.

Stobie's tool is correct.



Wow! Then it's the game that's messed up in that way. That's exploitable as all hell....

Originally posted by Nyria
Wow! Then it's the game that's messed up in that way. That's exploitable as all hell....

How is it exploitable?

Seems perfectly fine to me. Go exploit it if you think it's doable.

Originally posted by FairForever
How is it exploitable?

Seems perfectly fine to me. Go exploit it if you think it's doable.

Really exploitable. You have the other team expecting to only have to cover 1 WR so they go in with the 4-4 Big and you have 2 WR's so their SS is covering WR2 (or in a Cover 2 Man their LB is).

Why would anyone want to use the same defenses for 1 WR and 2 WR's, just because in the second case the FB is replaced by a TE (almost always a better receiver)? The defensive playbooks should be organized by number of WR's. This organization makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Nyria
Really exploitable. You have the other team expecting to only have to cover 1 WR so they go in with the 4-4 Big and you have 2 WR's so their SS is covering WR2 (or in a Cover 2 Man their LB is).

Why would anyone want to use the same defenses for 1 WR and 2 WR's, just because in the second case the FB is replaced by a TE (almost always a better receiver)? The defensive playbooks should be organized by number of WR's. This organization makes no sense whatsoever.

You significantly overestimate the value of the second WR for a number of reasons:

1) 4-4 Big plays are not generally used against any formation - there is a use of them a bit vs 2TE. Every other formation has at least 2 CBs and therefore has no issues putting a CB on the WR. So you, as an OC, may call some plays out of the Singleback Big formation - but a DC is unlikely to be running 4-4 Big plays anyway.

2) As you noted, you have a LB or SS covering the WR in man coverage - so it's not like they 2nd WR is left uncovered.

3) The passing plays in Singleback Big formation suck, for the most part. There's two plays that average more than 5 YPA in Vet this season out of this formation, TE Drive and Double Slants (the latter which has been called a measly 26 times). So what really is the issue is that the SB Big TE Drive play does well against 4-4 Big formation. That's no different than how SB or SG TE Drive craps on MLB Cloud or Weak Flag Deep Post is amazing agaisnt 5-2 Man Base. Essentially - the conclusion reached (and which is what most people knew already) is that SB Big TE Drive is good against 4-4 Big Man Base.

Originally posted by FairForever
You significantly overestimate the value of the second WR for a number of reasons:

1) 4-4 Big plays are not generally used against any formation - there is a use of them a bit vs 2TE. Every other formation has at least 2 CBs and therefore has no issues putting a CB on the WR. So you, as an OC, may call some plays out of the Singleback Big formation - but a DC is unlikely to be running 4-4 Big plays anyway.

2) As you noted, you have a LB or SS covering the WR in man coverage - so it's not like they 2nd WR is left uncovered.

3) The passing plays in Singleback Big formation suck, for the most part. There's two plays that average more than 5 YPA in Vet this season out of this formation, TE Drive and Double Slants (the latter which has been called a measly 26 times). So what really is the issue is that the SB Big TE Drive play does well against 4-4 Big formation. That's no different than how SB or SG TE Drive craps on MLB Cloud or Weak Flag Deep Post is amazing agaisnt 5-2 Man Base. Essentially - the conclusion reached (and which is what most people knew already) is that SB Big TE Drive is good against 4-4 Big Man Base.

Well, I had been using 4-4 Big in my defenses. It would be very useful, if one could use it only against 1 WR formations. Now I know I'd better not use it, except maybe some zones-- but never man-- because as you say in #2 someone will cover the WR. That would happen even if you used 4-4 Big against 4 WR for some reason-- but LB's aren't built to cover WR's adequately. They (correctly) intentionally aren't given the tools to do so, even if you use the Coverage LB trait-- and God forbid if you have a Middle Man or Blitzer having to cover a WR, the WR will do very well. If that didn't matter, then why would there be different playbooks by formation?

As to #3, there is no reason to run out of Singleback Big at all (this was even when I thought it was classed as a 2 WR formation), so Singleback Big is in the game purely a passing formation. The only reason to have run plays without a FB is with 3 and 4 WR's to get the defense spread in Nickel/Dime/Quarter, or at least force a safety or LB away from the line to line up on a WR. If you run with fewer than 3 WR's, you always want the FB in there.

But a big key is: Which playbook do you want against Singleback Big? You want the 2 WR playbook, of course. When you simplify as the strategy is in GLB2 and don't specify exact formations (which I support, so it doesn't take forever to make game strategy) the key factor is the # of WR's.

The key factor is that you usually in man coverage (except for certain blitzes, notably ZEB especially at low levels-- and that's mainly because you believe you'll get to the QB before he throws), and to some degree in zone, want to make the tradeoff of how many CB's you have compared to DL/LB based on how many WR's you have to cover. CB's are weaker against the run. LB's can't cover the pass as well. You generally want a CB for every WR, no more and no less. If the opponent has only 1 WR, I want the 4-4 Big a lot of the time. I may as well get in the extra LB if the second CB doesn't have a WR to cover.

Most people use mostly man coverages, in which case extra CB's are wasted but every WR needs one. I use more zones than most people who do game plans do, so I'm relatively less affected, but I still use more man than zone.

The fundamental thing we have to know is how many WR's we face. Singleback Big should always have been treated as 2 WR, and it really, really needs to be asap-- if only so we can run 4-4 Big against true 1 WR plays.

Originally posted by Nyria
W
As to #3, there is no reason to run out of Singleback Big at all (this was even when I thought it was classed as a 2 WR formation), so Singleback Big is in the game purely a passing formation. The only reason to have run plays without a FB is with 3 and 4 WR's to get the defense spread in Nickel/Dime/Quarter, or at least force a safety or LB away from the line to line up on a WR. If you run with fewer than 3 WR's, you always want the FB in there.



disagree. some nice inside and outside runs there when you get the right defense.

Originally posted by TxSteve
disagree. some nice inside and outside runs there when you get the right defense.

For once I agree with TxSteve, there are some very effective runs from Singleback Big

Originally posted by Jagat0r
For once I agree with TxSteve, there are some very effective runs from Singleback Big

Assuming that, we'd still defend them as we would other runs from 2 WR formations.

When doing defense, we should get to know how many WR's are on the frigging field. I thought we did. There's no reason not to group Singleback Big with the other 2 WR formations, and I can't believe anyone wouldn't want it as such.

Or better yet, why would someone not want to have playbooks by number of WR's rather than by number of TE's, if you can only know one or the other? That's the key to how many CB's you usually want on the field.

Sorry I missed this and Xars was spot on. I questioned this and had it classified as 2WR for a while until I was utterly proven wrong via GLB game. So even my core thoughts were it was a 2WR setup, but I have to mimic the game as close as possible so that is why it is the way it is. Sorry guys for the delayed response.

Originally posted by Stobie
Sorry I missed this and Xars was spot on. I questioned this and had it classified as 2WR for a while until I was utterly proven wrong via GLB game. So even my core thoughts were it was a 2WR setup, but I have to mimic the game as close as possible so that is why it is the way it is. Sorry guys for the delayed response.

Not your fault. I just can't believe it's set up that way, and the powers that be need to let us choose defenses based on the number of WR's on the field. You're doing the right thing in having your tool follow the game as it is, however.

Always a privilege to use this tool Stobie. I know I thank you anytime I talk to you, but, thanks again

Not sure if this has been requested before... Any chance in the future we'll have a search filter or toggle button? I'll be scouting defensive plays and currently have no zone investment, so if I could toggle out zone tags, it would be a little easier.