Is this a typo or is it really going to work for Gs?
AngryDragon
offline
offline
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=824037
This G played LG for my team when we were in AAA. I liked it but the O line and D line interactions change so much it is hard to say what extra SA will work well all the time.
This G played LG for my team when we were in AAA. I liked it but the O line and D line interactions change so much it is hard to say what extra SA will work well all the time.
rsb014
offline
offline
People have been asking about this since AEQ came out. As I recall, Bort's answer is that Lead Blocker kicks in when the player is moving forward and the RB is following him.
Does your G often run down field and block ahead of the RB, or does he tend to stay on the LOS with the NT/DT the vast majority of his plays? It's probably hard to say for sure because the defensive formations and builds have a lot of say in what your G can do. I would think it works when the G quickly pancakes a defender or gets help from a double team and then moves down field to get a LB, assuming the RB is coming through that hole of course. I could see it working well for a pulling G, but First Step would probably be a better choice if Bort is to be believed. The problem is Lead Block was designed for FBs and the playbook naturally puts FBs in position to Lead Block on most runs.
I would bet Lead Block could be useful on a blocking TE, they often have to move down field to get a LB or SS and also pull on many sweep plays.
Does your G often run down field and block ahead of the RB, or does he tend to stay on the LOS with the NT/DT the vast majority of his plays? It's probably hard to say for sure because the defensive formations and builds have a lot of say in what your G can do. I would think it works when the G quickly pancakes a defender or gets help from a double team and then moves down field to get a LB, assuming the RB is coming through that hole of course. I could see it working well for a pulling G, but First Step would probably be a better choice if Bort is to be believed. The problem is Lead Block was designed for FBs and the playbook naturally puts FBs in position to Lead Block on most runs.
I would bet Lead Block could be useful on a blocking TE, they often have to move down field to get a LB or SS and also pull on many sweep plays.
Edited by rsb014 on Mar 20, 2010 20:13:27
Dadd
offline
offline
I'd like to see if this works for the entire O-line.
For some reason I was thinking you had to be moving, or heading towards the designed running path ahead of the HB for this SA to work.
?
For some reason I was thinking you had to be moving, or heading towards the designed running path ahead of the HB for this SA to work.
?
AngryDragon
offline
offline
- Add special code for open field blocking that makes blockers who have no valid targets become "dynamic" lead blockers/protectors for ball carrier
Above is from the change log. I think it means that any blocker becomes a lead blocker if he has no valid targets. I think we saw some of this last season with a mid season buff to blocking. An example I can think of is if you are facing a 3-4 defense and the LBs do not blitz. If the play call is a blast the C should take the NT and the Gs should become lead blockers.
Well, that is my guess. So I would assume that the lead block SA would simply give its boosts to the player at this point.
Above is from the change log. I think it means that any blocker becomes a lead blocker if he has no valid targets. I think we saw some of this last season with a mid season buff to blocking. An example I can think of is if you are facing a 3-4 defense and the LBs do not blitz. If the play call is a blast the C should take the NT and the Gs should become lead blockers.
Well, that is my guess. So I would assume that the lead block SA would simply give its boosts to the player at this point.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
