Warrior General Games

Cool

Actually the only flaw I see in adding new defense formations is the limited range of where the LBs can line up. It is nice to have 4 LBs and 4 D linemen but it is kind of moot if we can't move the OLBs further to the outside. The 4-4 seems like it will rock for slams but the slams really were not a major issue for me last season. It was the sweeps and screens that hurt the most.

Basically I had to use dime and nickel formations to get a CB to the outside. It would be great if we could get a LB further outside and still have 2 LBs inside in an effort to create a generic play that covers outside and inside runs. This would obviously have a disadvantage vs the pass but that would be a good trade off.

4-4 is nice. The question I have is has Bort fixed the problem with the LBs dropping into deep zone coverages? I tried last season to play deep middle with a ROLB and MLB. It didn't work. Also has he fixed the LB pathing problem? 4-4 will suck if the OLBs still drift inside on run plays

Originally posted by pottsman
Exactly my point, though I personally move my SS to my LILB to cover a back.

yeah, either way you do it, I think making an SS the defacto fourth LB is more flexible than having four LBs on the field, but hey, I'm sure others will want a true 4-4...let 'em have it.

Hopefully next season he will get on the 4 WR, 2 TE, and WR pulldowns per position just as quickly.

Originally posted by OttawaShane
Meh, I'm already pretty happy with the 4-4 I can do by simply moving up the SS to the LOLB spot on the field.

I wonder what the penalty would be. But some 4-4 teams do indeed just move the SS up to LB. If you move him around a lot to different positions it's called the rover position. My only wish is they would've added the option of switching the NT & DT. You could essentially run a 46 out of this formation this way. You still can run the TNT 46 plays, where you line 3 DTs up directly over the LG, C & RG, Then split the RDE wide...oops, I bet you can't bring the LILB down next to the LOLB. See new formations are great. And this one will be. But really we need more flexibility in placing the D and we could just create any formation by lining it up.

Originally posted by OttawaShane
yeah, either way you do it, I think making an SS the defacto fourth LB is more flexible than having four LBs on the field, but hey, I'm sure others will want a true 4-4...let 'em have it.

Agree with the flexibility point, but there may be instances in which you find that a 4-4 defense is a solid choice. I'm thinking it may be nice to have on 3rd and short situations in which you predict the offense has a HIGH chance of running the ball. Not to mention, you can get all of your LBs and DL nice PT

Originally posted by Staz
Originally posted by OttawaShane

yeah, either way you do it, I think making an SS the defacto fourth LB is more flexible than having four LBs on the field, but hey, I'm sure others will want a true 4-4...let 'em have it.

Agree with the flexibility point, but there may be instances in which you find that a 4-4 defense is a solid choice. I'm thinking it may be nice to have on 3rd and short situations in which you predict the offense has a HIGH chance of running the ball. Not to mention, you can get all of your LBs and DL nice PT

I'm goingto use the 4-4 as a point. I want to prove that the morale and confidence modifiers don't mean jackshit in games.

Trash Talk, Glare at 7 for all 4 LB's. Plus the stuff on the D line.

Originally posted by Adderfist
I'm goingto use the 4-4 as a point. I want to prove that the morale and confidence modifiers don't mean jackshit in games.

Trash Talk, Glare at 7 for all 4 LB's. Plus the stuff on the D line.

Putting any SA @ 7 isn't going to prove anything....

Originally posted by Donner
Hopefully next season he will get on the 4 WR, 2 TE, and WR pulldowns per position just as quickly.

Of course, because making an offensive formation, and dozens of plays for it is just as easy as making a new formation in the DPC >_>

Are there any concerns about playing time with the new formations? I guess a 4-4 would be great is a team was limited on safeties but I guess DCs will have to be careful to not over use these new formations if they have a full roster.

Originally posted by AngryDragon
Are there any concerns about playing time with the new formations? I guess a 4-4 would be great is a team was limited on safeties but I guess DCs will have to be careful to not over use these new formations if they have a full roster.

Of course, just like there will be different play time issues with 3-4 instead of 4-3.

I mean, if you use a 4-4 all the time, then yeah, you will lack SS play time.

Originally posted by EagleOtto
Putting any SA @ 7 isn't going to prove anything....

4 LB's and 2 DT's with morale effecting abilities.

There should most deff be an impact on the opposing QB.

Originally posted by Adderfist
I'm goingto use the 4-4 as a point. I want to prove that the morale and confidence modifiers don't mean jackshit in games.

Trash Talk, Glare at 7 for all 4 LB's. Plus the stuff on the D line.

Not with your 70+ confidence QBs. Unless Bort makes a tweak to it.