Warrior General Games

Olb and mlb are creations that have been made independent of the game of football....

Ss and fs are official positions...

Bringing this back to glb2... a team may not even needs olbs, since that is based purely on scheme.

You seem to be supporting this idea but haven't adressed the contradiction in ops logic.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Olb and mlb are creations that have been made independent of the game of football....

Ss and fs are official positions...

You keep saying this like it's fact, but "official" according to who?

The pro football hall of fame just uses Defensive Line, Linebacker, and Defensive Back. The DBs are listed as CB or S, never FS/SS.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/positions.aspx

nfl.com player sorts are broken down into Defensive Line, Linebacker, and Defensive Back.
http://www.nfl.com/players/search?category=position
Inside of those categories, LBs appear as either OLB, ILB, MLB, or just LB.
The DBs are listed as CBs, SS, FS, Safety, or just DB. Sean Richardson of Green Bay, for example, is listed as just Safety.
If you want to look at player stats, you have to pick DL, LB, or DB - you can't get more specific than that.

That puts the definition of SS and FS on par with OLB and MLB.

wikipedia (which I believe you told someone to read to learn about football at one point) takes it once step further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_positions

Defense has three main headers - DL, LB, and DB.
LBs are broken down into Middle and Outside. In the Outside category, they mention Sam/Will OLBs.
DBs are broken down into Cornerback, Safety, Nickle/Dime back. Inside the Safety category, they mention Strong vs Free.

So...what's your "official" source for SS and FS being "official" positions and MLB and OLB are "creations" of scheme?
Especially since there are many formations that have only 1 safety and also with 3 safeties - 2010 Giants did this a ton, with Phillips, Rolle, and Grant on the field together quite a bit. So SS and FS are also "creations of scheme".

Originally posted by CyberNinja
FS- Coverage
SS- Run Support

They aren't the same build.

Not true in all defenses.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
It's not the same I don't understand why you ppl keep saying that........

There can be up to 4 LBs on the field at one time... Based on where they line up and who they play against, the LBs (which are ALL LBS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PLAY....) Have to have different skill sets based on where they are lined up.... It is because of these different skill sets that we have FURTHER broken down LB into ilb/mlb and olb...

SS and FS have historically been different positions... What you are asking Burt and co. to do is to change football as it has been known for years now, and create a different game essentially, which is why I can tell you this suggestion is NGTH.

The point you all are making is contradictory... You all are repeating because LB is split up into OLB and MLB we should be able to combine SS and FS into S....

Think about it

Seeme clear you have not kept up with todays NFL because safety's are interchangable.Both safetys can play in the box and both safteys can play the high safety.

Just as you said LB skill set determines which position they play. It is the same with safety's. Their skill set determines where they play on the field. Not sure why you are having trouble understanding this.

Originally posted by daryls61

This is correct. you build a MLB different than a OLB but both are LB's for GLB purposes.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
No, both are LBs for LIFE purposes. irl and in any and every football sim ever made.


Not sure why you are confused but agents do build MLB's different from OLB's.

and what exactly does "LIFE purposes" mean?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Olb and mlb are creations that have been made independent of the game of football....

Ss and fs are official positions...

Bringing this back to glb2... a team may not even needs olbs, since that is based purely on scheme.

You seem to be supporting this idea but haven't adressed the contradiction in ops logic.

wut.

keep it simple.

ss and fs are not the same
olb and ilb and mlb are not the same thing.

if LBs can be grouped together, why cant DBs?

its up to a scheme, yes. so if i only want 3 safeties for my scheme, why do i have to have 4 so i dont get a OOP?

tbh, i dont really care if they merge or not. im just saying, you cant be so against similar positions merging that will be built differently if we already have that.

Going to lock this, as it pretty much isn't going to happen and it's just causing pages of arguing.