What about if we could just assign guys to cover who we would like on D. Like it is in GLB1. You can set any guy to cover any of the 5 rec that the O can have. This would make if more of a DC thing then a play or player thing.
Forum > Suggestions > Both passing and rush defense needs a buff
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
I realize I'm about 2 weeks late to the party but...
to me it seems like an obvious design flaw that offenses can specialize in the types of players they want, and the play selection they can use --while defenses have to specifically be built to be prepared for everything i.e. cannot afford to specialize.
I think it's funny how everybody is complaining that offenses have it easy compared to defense because offenses can specialize while defenses have to build to stop both the run and pass.
Well guess what...that is how it is in real football. Look at the SEC when they play spread teams from other conferences. They are built for stopping the run but then they play a spread pass attack and have trouble stopping the pass. Or a Big 12 team playing a power running SEC. They are built to stop the pass but now they have to stop the run.
Teams are now ADJUSTING and building players to stop both, yet not specializing in either. That, plus, a good game plan is a must too. So you have to scout, build properly and game plan. It takes a combination of all 3 to win at the highest level. The best coaches hide the weakness of the team through scheme and game planning.
Build your defense more balanced and game plan/scout if you want to stop both kinds of attacks. Create a couple of schemes...one for running and one for passing...that hides the weakness of your players who are not good at that particular defense.
I realize I'm about 2 weeks late to the party but...
to me it seems like an obvious design flaw that offenses can specialize in the types of players they want, and the play selection they can use --while defenses have to specifically be built to be prepared for everything i.e. cannot afford to specialize.
I think it's funny how everybody is complaining that offenses have it easy compared to defense because offenses can specialize while defenses have to build to stop both the run and pass.
Well guess what...that is how it is in real football. Look at the SEC when they play spread teams from other conferences. They are built for stopping the run but then they play a spread pass attack and have trouble stopping the pass. Or a Big 12 team playing a power running SEC. They are built to stop the pass but now they have to stop the run.
Teams are now ADJUSTING and building players to stop both, yet not specializing in either. That, plus, a good game plan is a must too. So you have to scout, build properly and game plan. It takes a combination of all 3 to win at the highest level. The best coaches hide the weakness of the team through scheme and game planning.
Build your defense more balanced and game plan/scout if you want to stop both kinds of attacks. Create a couple of schemes...one for running and one for passing...that hides the weakness of your players who are not good at that particular defense.
Edited by Galactic Empire on Sep 16, 2014 08:05:24
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by joe
What about if we could just assign guys to cover who we would like on D. Like it is in GLB1. You can set any guy to cover any of the 5 rec that the O can have. This would make if more of a DC thing then a play or player thing.
That is a slippery slope. This is suppose to be more for the casual gamer. You start doing what you mentioned, and then the offense will need a counter and then the defense wants another counter, etc...
What about if we could just assign guys to cover who we would like on D. Like it is in GLB1. You can set any guy to cover any of the 5 rec that the O can have. This would make if more of a DC thing then a play or player thing.
That is a slippery slope. This is suppose to be more for the casual gamer. You start doing what you mentioned, and then the offense will need a counter and then the defense wants another counter, etc...
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galithor
you do realize that the first down morale bonus for the offense, and debuff for the defense happens after tackle right?
so your crushing tackle will typically get overwritten by good offensive plays.
Crushing tackle on WR catching the ball for 1st down = wash
Crushing blow to knock the ball loose from receiver = demoralize
Maybe I should have said "I welcome the WR to try and catch the ball."
you do realize that the first down morale bonus for the offense, and debuff for the defense happens after tackle right?
so your crushing tackle will typically get overwritten by good offensive plays.
Crushing tackle on WR catching the ball for 1st down = wash
Crushing blow to knock the ball loose from receiver = demoralize
Maybe I should have said "I welcome the WR to try and catch the ball."
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Crushing tackle on WR catching the ball for 1st down = wash
Crushing blow to knock the ball loose from receiver = demoralize
Maybe I should have said "I welcome the WR to try and catch the ball."
You demoralize that one player. That first down is demoralizing your entire defense.
Crushing tackle on WR catching the ball for 1st down = wash
Crushing blow to knock the ball loose from receiver = demoralize
Maybe I should have said "I welcome the WR to try and catch the ball."
You demoralize that one player. That first down is demoralizing your entire defense.
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
That is a slippery slope. This is suppose to be more for the casual gamer. You start doing what you mentioned, and then the offense will need a counter and then the defense wants another counter, etc...
yeah it would fix all the spamming O plays and make it more of a game of x and o and not my QB is fast and we run goalline and only 2wr sets all game.
That is a slippery slope. This is suppose to be more for the casual gamer. You start doing what you mentioned, and then the offense will need a counter and then the defense wants another counter, etc...
yeah it would fix all the spamming O plays and make it more of a game of x and o and not my QB is fast and we run goalline and only 2wr sets all game.
Edited by joe on Sep 16, 2014 10:40:01
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galithor
You demoralize that one player. That first down is demoralizing your entire defense.
As long as that one player is Rebelslayer, I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
You demoralize that one player. That first down is demoralizing your entire defense.
As long as that one player is Rebelslayer, I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
As long as that one player is Rebelslayer, I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
Lol.
You are funny.
Good luck.
As long as that one player is Rebelslayer, I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
Lol.
You are funny.
Good luck.
USC_Trojans
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
I think it's funny how everybody is complaining that offenses have it easy compared to defense because offenses can specialize while defenses have to build to stop both the run and pass.
Well guess what...that is how it is in real football. Look at the SEC when they play spread teams from other conferences. They are built for stopping the run but then they play a spread pass attack and have trouble stopping the pass. Or a Big 12 team playing a power running SEC. They are built to stop the pass but now they have to stop the run.
Teams are now ADJUSTING and building players to stop both, yet not specializing in either. That, plus, a good game plan is a must too. So you have to scout, build properly and game plan. It takes a combination of all 3 to win at the highest level. The best coaches hide the weakness of the team through scheme and game planning.
Build your defense more balanced and game plan/scout if you want to stop both kinds of attacks. Create a couple of schemes...one for running and one for passing...that hides the weakness of your players who are not good at that particular defense.
real life players arent limited to what skills they have as a defender. I rarely see a cb get pancaked all day by a wr. If anything comparing it to real life football proves our point, as most defensive players can play the run and the pass.
I think it's funny how everybody is complaining that offenses have it easy compared to defense because offenses can specialize while defenses have to build to stop both the run and pass.
Well guess what...that is how it is in real football. Look at the SEC when they play spread teams from other conferences. They are built for stopping the run but then they play a spread pass attack and have trouble stopping the pass. Or a Big 12 team playing a power running SEC. They are built to stop the pass but now they have to stop the run.
Teams are now ADJUSTING and building players to stop both, yet not specializing in either. That, plus, a good game plan is a must too. So you have to scout, build properly and game plan. It takes a combination of all 3 to win at the highest level. The best coaches hide the weakness of the team through scheme and game planning.
Build your defense more balanced and game plan/scout if you want to stop both kinds of attacks. Create a couple of schemes...one for running and one for passing...that hides the weakness of your players who are not good at that particular defense.
real life players arent limited to what skills they have as a defender. I rarely see a cb get pancaked all day by a wr. If anything comparing it to real life football proves our point, as most defensive players can play the run and the pass.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by TDiddy8701
is it possible to ban a user from posting on your thread?
is it possible to ban a user from posting on your thread?
Originally posted by USC_Trojans
there seriously needs to be a way to balance specialized offenses. There is literally no reason for the stunners to put up 56 points running right into my defense (even with me botching the 4 wr defense) There needs to be some weakness to building extreme like that. Defenses just dont have the points to deal with this without completely sacrificing pass stopping abilities
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I averaged 5 yards a carry (mostly because they didn't have a D play in to stop the 2 WR sweeps)
More analysis:
inside rushes: 30 for 90 (3 yards per carry)
outside rushes: 46 for 288.5 (6.2 yards per carry) <-- they didn't have a great D for stopping the 2WR sweeps (that is a tough one to stop and LB Contain has never really worked like it should based on the drawing).
Just watching the game - dramatic difference in his D players performance compared to other games we play -- breaking blocks, not losing tackles, swarming defense, generally good play calls, etc.
Now I'm not complaining (still had a chance to win darn it) - but a D built for stopping me -- contained me pretty well. The only reason I had a chance was that their O isn't really that good and I guessed right...and they guessed poorly on 2 WR sets (isn't that the way the game will ultimately have to work out?).
But for me (yes I'm biased):
If you want to argue (as this thread started out to be) that defensive players need more points in general - I can get behind that and have no issue.
If you want to argue (like USC) that 'running is overpowered and has to be nerfed' -- in my mind it's a pretty clear 'fix your builds' issue. The game is about choices. The reason the stunners have been successful is people generally don't want to spend their points on run stopping. In spite of the fact that (as people say) "all of the top teams are running teams" -- even STILL people apparently don't want to start capping run blocking skills....getting CB's with hold ground and break block to 50....etc.
there seriously needs to be a way to balance specialized offenses. There is literally no reason for the stunners to put up 56 points running right into my defense (even with me botching the 4 wr defense) There needs to be some weakness to building extreme like that. Defenses just dont have the points to deal with this without completely sacrificing pass stopping abilities
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I averaged 5 yards a carry (mostly because they didn't have a D play in to stop the 2 WR sweeps)
More analysis:
inside rushes: 30 for 90 (3 yards per carry)
outside rushes: 46 for 288.5 (6.2 yards per carry) <-- they didn't have a great D for stopping the 2WR sweeps (that is a tough one to stop and LB Contain has never really worked like it should based on the drawing).
Just watching the game - dramatic difference in his D players performance compared to other games we play -- breaking blocks, not losing tackles, swarming defense, generally good play calls, etc.
Now I'm not complaining (still had a chance to win darn it) - but a D built for stopping me -- contained me pretty well. The only reason I had a chance was that their O isn't really that good and I guessed right...and they guessed poorly on 2 WR sets (isn't that the way the game will ultimately have to work out?).
But for me (yes I'm biased):
If you want to argue (as this thread started out to be) that defensive players need more points in general - I can get behind that and have no issue.
If you want to argue (like USC) that 'running is overpowered and has to be nerfed' -- in my mind it's a pretty clear 'fix your builds' issue. The game is about choices. The reason the stunners have been successful is people generally don't want to spend their points on run stopping. In spite of the fact that (as people say) "all of the top teams are running teams" -- even STILL people apparently don't want to start capping run blocking skills....getting CB's with hold ground and break block to 50....etc.
Edited by TxSteve on Sep 17, 2014 08:38:30
Edited by TxSteve on Sep 17, 2014 08:36:29
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I averaged 5 yards a carry (mostly because they didn't have a D play in to stop the 2 WR sweeps)
More analysis:
inside rushes: 30 for 90 (3 yards per carry)
outside rushes: 46 for 288.5 (6.2 yards per carry) <-- they didn't have a great D for stopping the 2WR sweeps (that is a tough one to stop and LB Contain has never really worked like it should based on the drawing).
Just watching the game - dramatic difference in his D players performance compared to other games we play -- breaking blocks, not losing tackles, swarming defense, generally good play calls, etc.
Now I'm not complaining (still had a chance to win darn it) - but a D built for stopping me -- contained me pretty well. The only reason I had a chance was that their O isn't really that good and I guessed right...and they guessed poorly on 2 WR sets (isn't that the way the game will ultimately have to work out?).
But for me (yes I'm biased):
If you want to argue (as this thread started out to be) that defensive players need more points in general - I can get behind that and have no issue.
If you want to argue (like USC) that 'running is overpowered and has to be nerfed' -- in my mind it's a pretty clear 'fix your builds' issue. The game is about choices. The reason the stunners have been successful is people generally don't want to spend their points on run stopping. In spite of the fact that (as people say) "all of the top teams are running teams" -- even STILL people apparently don't want to start capping run blocking skills....getting CB's with hold ground and break block to 50....etc.
Saying a team with a generally good plan, and Veteran builds, just barely squeaking by your journeyman team is evidence against the all run attack being overpowered is kinda silly I think.
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I averaged 5 yards a carry (mostly because they didn't have a D play in to stop the 2 WR sweeps)
More analysis:
inside rushes: 30 for 90 (3 yards per carry)
outside rushes: 46 for 288.5 (6.2 yards per carry) <-- they didn't have a great D for stopping the 2WR sweeps (that is a tough one to stop and LB Contain has never really worked like it should based on the drawing).
Just watching the game - dramatic difference in his D players performance compared to other games we play -- breaking blocks, not losing tackles, swarming defense, generally good play calls, etc.
Now I'm not complaining (still had a chance to win darn it) - but a D built for stopping me -- contained me pretty well. The only reason I had a chance was that their O isn't really that good and I guessed right...and they guessed poorly on 2 WR sets (isn't that the way the game will ultimately have to work out?).
But for me (yes I'm biased):
If you want to argue (as this thread started out to be) that defensive players need more points in general - I can get behind that and have no issue.
If you want to argue (like USC) that 'running is overpowered and has to be nerfed' -- in my mind it's a pretty clear 'fix your builds' issue. The game is about choices. The reason the stunners have been successful is people generally don't want to spend their points on run stopping. In spite of the fact that (as people say) "all of the top teams are running teams" -- even STILL people apparently don't want to start capping run blocking skills....getting CB's with hold ground and break block to 50....etc.
Saying a team with a generally good plan, and Veteran builds, just barely squeaking by your journeyman team is evidence against the all run attack being overpowered is kinda silly I think.
Originally posted by TxSteve
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I'm not going to argue that Seneca has a solid run defense...they do. That said, a Veteran team struggled defensively against a Journeyman team who offers no threat of throwing the football. To me, you just made a case for the point you're arguing against.
Good example here of what a team who focuses on run stopping can do to the stunners.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/106804
I'm not going to argue that Seneca has a solid run defense...they do. That said, a Veteran team struggled defensively against a Journeyman team who offers no threat of throwing the football. To me, you just made a case for the point you're arguing against.
So what do you think the average yards per carry should be? 0?
Do you think a 100% pass focused defense should be able to hold a 100% pass focused offense to a 0% completion rate? I seriously doubt it!
I am responding to the people who say that the stunners are "impossible to stop"
If builds are similar (and I would expect here they are -- I am 100% run -- they are heavy, heavy run stop -- any points they spent on pass defense may as well not exist in this game) - so I would argue that builds are likely similar in the "run / stop run" comparison. That means (other than SA's) - the tier difference likely doesn't make much difference.
If builds are similar - meaning they can more or less cancel each other out to some degree -- then game planning and RNG are going to be the deciding factors. I would argue this game was close because of game planning -- mine was quite cheezy as I thought it was my only chance (spammed spread inside runs and spammed 2WR sweeps).
So - what do you think the yards per carry should be with a run d vs run o?
What do you think the completion rate and average yards per attempt should be between a pass d and a pass o?
Do you think a 100% pass focused defense should be able to hold a 100% pass focused offense to a 0% completion rate? I seriously doubt it!
I am responding to the people who say that the stunners are "impossible to stop"
If builds are similar (and I would expect here they are -- I am 100% run -- they are heavy, heavy run stop -- any points they spent on pass defense may as well not exist in this game) - so I would argue that builds are likely similar in the "run / stop run" comparison. That means (other than SA's) - the tier difference likely doesn't make much difference.
If builds are similar - meaning they can more or less cancel each other out to some degree -- then game planning and RNG are going to be the deciding factors. I would argue this game was close because of game planning -- mine was quite cheezy as I thought it was my only chance (spammed spread inside runs and spammed 2WR sweeps).
So - what do you think the yards per carry should be with a run d vs run o?
What do you think the completion rate and average yards per attempt should be between a pass d and a pass o?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
