Not so much a suggestion, but more of a question... Why aren't there any designed plays where the HB or FB is held to block incoming pass rushers? It drives me crazy when my blocking FB isn't held by the QB to block, and goes out for a pass.
Forum > Suggestions > HB or FB blocking
Because that's OP + unfair to the defense.
If you want to stop blitzes against you then don't run plays that a heavy blitz beats.
If you want to stop blitzes against you then don't run plays that a heavy blitz beats.
hiimjake
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Because that's OP + unfair to the defense.
If you want to stop blitzes against you then don't run plays that a heavy blitz beats.
A max protect blocking scheme is not unfair, it's a pretty basic part of football. If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it. It's not like that extra blocker is going to eliminate sacks completely, linemen still get beat.
Because that's OP + unfair to the defense.
If you want to stop blitzes against you then don't run plays that a heavy blitz beats.
A max protect blocking scheme is not unfair, it's a pretty basic part of football. If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it. It's not like that extra blocker is going to eliminate sacks completely, linemen still get beat.
peeti
offline
offline
Originally posted by hiimjake
A max protect blocking scheme is not unfair, it's a pretty basic part of football. If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it. It's not like that extra blocker is going to eliminate sacks completely, linemen still get beat.
exactly...It would just be more realistic. You only have 4 Rushing Linemen vs 5 Liners and a FB? Live with the Fact that you barely get Sacks. Rush with one or 2 LBs and you will one on ones with a normal chance of a sack. I barely blitzed at all last season with Erkner, and we still had over a hundred Sacks (which is ofc not much in this game^^). 100 Should still be enough to be Sacks beeing an important Part of the Game. But no...The new Meta looks like trying to get 100 Sacks for each DE and LBs. Just seems silly. Let HBs and FBs be able to block and finally make the Pass Blocking Attributes on them at least SOME kind of useful
A max protect blocking scheme is not unfair, it's a pretty basic part of football. If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it. It's not like that extra blocker is going to eliminate sacks completely, linemen still get beat.
exactly...It would just be more realistic. You only have 4 Rushing Linemen vs 5 Liners and a FB? Live with the Fact that you barely get Sacks. Rush with one or 2 LBs and you will one on ones with a normal chance of a sack. I barely blitzed at all last season with Erkner, and we still had over a hundred Sacks (which is ofc not much in this game^^). 100 Should still be enough to be Sacks beeing an important Part of the Game. But no...The new Meta looks like trying to get 100 Sacks for each DE and LBs. Just seems silly. Let HBs and FBs be able to block and finally make the Pass Blocking Attributes on them at least SOME kind of useful
So basically what you guys want is no pass pressure so you can 100% effectively exploit the most broken aspect of this game? Which is the pass.
Makes sense.
Originally posted by hiimjake
If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it.
Originally posted by peeti
100 Should still be enough to be Sacks beeing an important Part of the Game. But no...The new Meta looks like trying to get 100 Sacks for each DE and LBs. Just seems silly.
You guys are making it look like D players just automatically get sacks.. in S1 with AGD2D we blitzed 5 people MAX. And we still ended the season with a few hundred sacks.
I don't understand why if the DC + agents put in the work to get sacks, then why can't the players do what they are being told + built to do?
Makes sense.
Originally posted by hiimjake
If it's unfair to the defense for the offense to have an adequate number of blockers, then by the same logic it's unfair to the offense for the defense to be able to rush 6 guys because the offense doesn't have a reliable way to block it.
Originally posted by peeti
100 Should still be enough to be Sacks beeing an important Part of the Game. But no...The new Meta looks like trying to get 100 Sacks for each DE and LBs. Just seems silly.
You guys are making it look like D players just automatically get sacks.. in S1 with AGD2D we blitzed 5 people MAX. And we still ended the season with a few hundred sacks.
I don't understand why if the DC + agents put in the work to get sacks, then why can't the players do what they are being told + built to do?
kidalb3rt
offline
offline
It just makes sense to include passing plays where the backfield will attempt to block blitzers, and then release if the coast is clear. It is a basic part of football.
hiimjake
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
You guys are making it look like D players just automatically get sacks.. in S1 with AGD2D we blitzed 5 people MAX. And we still ended the season with a few hundred sacks.
I don't understand why if the DC + agents put in the work to get sacks, then why can't the players do what they are being told + built to do?
How is the ability to block 6 guys with 6 guys unfair? Sounds about as fair as it gets to me. If your D players are well built they will still win one on one interactions and get sacks. If they're not, then that's your fault.
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
You guys are making it look like D players just automatically get sacks.. in S1 with AGD2D we blitzed 5 people MAX. And we still ended the season with a few hundred sacks.
I don't understand why if the DC + agents put in the work to get sacks, then why can't the players do what they are being told + built to do?
How is the ability to block 6 guys with 6 guys unfair? Sounds about as fair as it gets to me. If your D players are well built they will still win one on one interactions and get sacks. If they're not, then that's your fault.
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
Edited by hiimjake on Mar 13, 2014 12:58:33
Xavori
offline
offline
Originally posted by hiimjake
How is the ability to block 6 guys with 6 guys unfair? Sounds about as fair as it gets to me. If your D players are well built they will still win one on one interactions and get sacks. If they're not, then that's your fault.
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
Go watch replays of Zorp and tell me exactly how you're going to stop them playing catch if you can't get pressure on the QB.
WR's have huge advantages over CB's in the game right now, especially on hook and comeback routes. Taking pressure of the QB just makes a bad situation for the defense worse.
How is the ability to block 6 guys with 6 guys unfair? Sounds about as fair as it gets to me. If your D players are well built they will still win one on one interactions and get sacks. If they're not, then that's your fault.
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
Go watch replays of Zorp and tell me exactly how you're going to stop them playing catch if you can't get pressure on the QB.
WR's have huge advantages over CB's in the game right now, especially on hook and comeback routes. Taking pressure of the QB just makes a bad situation for the defense worse.
Originally posted by hiimjake
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
Have you ever thought to stop passing then?
I've never seen people want to make an OP situation even more OP... People usually ask for balance... Not game breaking additions.
And what work does it take for a DC to get sacks? The work of setting up their playbook to run the same two plays over and over? Right now in rookie there's about 4 pass plays that you can use, otherwise it is pretty close to an auto sack.
Have you ever thought to stop passing then?
I've never seen people want to make an OP situation even more OP... People usually ask for balance... Not game breaking additions.
hiimjake
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Have you ever thought to stop passing then?
I've never seen people want to make an OP situation even more OP... People usually ask for balance... Not game breaking additions.
That's exactly what I'm asking for. Take the stupid OP blitzes and give me 6 guys to block with. Like I said, if your defenders are well built they're still going to win one one one interactions and get sacks.
Have you ever thought to stop passing then?
I've never seen people want to make an OP situation even more OP... People usually ask for balance... Not game breaking additions.
That's exactly what I'm asking for. Take the stupid OP blitzes and give me 6 guys to block with. Like I said, if your defenders are well built they're still going to win one one one interactions and get sacks.
dfwai
offline
offline
What people want is fair interactions between all bots and more reasonable strategic options. Instead of exploiting to stop the exploity, why not just balance things out a bit?
hiimjake
offline
offline
Originally posted by dfwai
What people want is fair interactions between all bots and more reasonable strategic options. Instead of exploiting to stop the exploity, why not just balance things out a bit?
Exactly. I don't disagree that the WR-CB interaction is a mess. But OP blitzes isn't the right answer. Defenses only need to run 2 plays vs. teams who don't know what they're doing to blow them out. And teams who do know what they're doing have a handful of plays that counter DAG/Zero Edge. 95% of the playbooks aren't necessary right now, which makes things incredibly boring.
What people want is fair interactions between all bots and more reasonable strategic options. Instead of exploiting to stop the exploity, why not just balance things out a bit?
Exactly. I don't disagree that the WR-CB interaction is a mess. But OP blitzes isn't the right answer. Defenses only need to run 2 plays vs. teams who don't know what they're doing to blow them out. And teams who do know what they're doing have a handful of plays that counter DAG/Zero Edge. 95% of the playbooks aren't necessary right now, which makes things incredibly boring.
Originally posted by hiimjake
That's exactly what I'm asking for. Take the stupid OP blitzes and give me 6 guys to block with. Like I said, if your defenders are well built they're still going to win one one one interactions and get sacks.
Didn't you read what I said in my first post?
S1 AGD2D got hundreds of sacks blitzing 5 max.
blitzes by nature aren't OP, some lineups might be more effective than others, but there is a counter for EVERYTHING a team does defensively.
Honestly, if you don't see the coords of the best teams in the game complaining about it, it's not a REAL problem.
4wr spread? Everyone from the #2 team in the game to people who were competitive enough to see it ran against them knew there was a real inconsistency in the game. Which is why it got a fix.
Honestly... If your Gs don't have the freaking awareness to stop DAG or ZEB, then freaking run some pitches, I mean come on...
That's exactly what I'm asking for. Take the stupid OP blitzes and give me 6 guys to block with. Like I said, if your defenders are well built they're still going to win one one one interactions and get sacks.
Didn't you read what I said in my first post?
S1 AGD2D got hundreds of sacks blitzing 5 max.
blitzes by nature aren't OP, some lineups might be more effective than others, but there is a counter for EVERYTHING a team does defensively.
Honestly, if you don't see the coords of the best teams in the game complaining about it, it's not a REAL problem.
4wr spread? Everyone from the #2 team in the game to people who were competitive enough to see it ran against them knew there was a real inconsistency in the game. Which is why it got a fix.
Honestly... If your Gs don't have the freaking awareness to stop DAG or ZEB, then freaking run some pitches, I mean come on...
Edited by Jampy2.0 on Mar 13, 2014 14:07:33
Xavori
offline
offline
Originally posted by hiimjake
Exactly. I don't disagree that the WR-CB interaction is a mess. But OP blitzes isn't the right answer. Defenses only need to run 2 plays vs. teams who don't know what they're doing to blow them out. And teams who do know what they're doing have a handful of plays that counter DAG/Zero Edge. 95% of the playbooks aren't necessary right now, which makes things incredibly boring.
Just FYI, you can get away with running one play against a team that doesn't know what it is doing.
For giggles, I ran a 100% Dogs All Go defense on one my teams for their last league game (they'd already locked in top seed in the playoffs, so why not). It worked, albiet with a lower sack total that I've gotten using my normal defense against teams that don't know what they're doing.
However, I'm 99.99999% if I did that to Djibouti 2.0 or Zorp or Dresdent or a bunch of others, I might very well have had my most lopsided loss of the season.
Exactly. I don't disagree that the WR-CB interaction is a mess. But OP blitzes isn't the right answer. Defenses only need to run 2 plays vs. teams who don't know what they're doing to blow them out. And teams who do know what they're doing have a handful of plays that counter DAG/Zero Edge. 95% of the playbooks aren't necessary right now, which makes things incredibly boring.
Just FYI, you can get away with running one play against a team that doesn't know what it is doing.
For giggles, I ran a 100% Dogs All Go defense on one my teams for their last league game (they'd already locked in top seed in the playoffs, so why not). It worked, albiet with a lower sack total that I've gotten using my normal defense against teams that don't know what they're doing.
However, I'm 99.99999% if I did that to Djibouti 2.0 or Zorp or Dresdent or a bunch of others, I might very well have had my most lopsided loss of the season.
Blitzing is too heavily weighted right now IMO. Surely, blitzing carries with it an innate risk? That jeopardy doesn't seem to be happening. (This is a hunch, not based on any statistical or physical evidence).
But, as Jampy states, with only 5 blitzers he got "hundreds" of sacks - by definition, more than a hundred and arguably at least 200. With only 5 blitzers.
peeti 'barely blitzed at all' and got over 100 sacks. He also said of Chron27's original post, that having the option to assign a bFB 'would just be more realistic'
I don't for one minute think this game is the NFL or that the game can replicate the NFL, but, as a measure, Carolina were top team on sacks with 67 last season.
Max Protect is a real-life option for OCs just as All Out Blitz (or a heavy pass rush D) is a real-life option for DCs. In this game we have no option to max protect as OCs but as DCs we have unlimited Pass Rush options. Instead OCs have to leave it to the QB to hold back his options. Personally, I haven't seen that happen yet, though I know others have and have given examples.
This situation is (IMO), as Jampy put it, 'a real inconsistency in the game' and needs a fix.
Having said all of that, I've only owned a team and played for less than half a season at Rookie and maybe it all changes at Sophomore?
But, as Jampy states, with only 5 blitzers he got "hundreds" of sacks - by definition, more than a hundred and arguably at least 200. With only 5 blitzers.
peeti 'barely blitzed at all' and got over 100 sacks. He also said of Chron27's original post, that having the option to assign a bFB 'would just be more realistic'
I don't for one minute think this game is the NFL or that the game can replicate the NFL, but, as a measure, Carolina were top team on sacks with 67 last season.
Max Protect is a real-life option for OCs just as All Out Blitz (or a heavy pass rush D) is a real-life option for DCs. In this game we have no option to max protect as OCs but as DCs we have unlimited Pass Rush options. Instead OCs have to leave it to the QB to hold back his options. Personally, I haven't seen that happen yet, though I know others have and have given examples.
This situation is (IMO), as Jampy put it, 'a real inconsistency in the game' and needs a fix.
Having said all of that, I've only owned a team and played for less than half a season at Rookie and maybe it all changes at Sophomore?
Edited by Makntak on Mar 14, 2014 07:38:34
Edited by Makntak on Mar 14, 2014 07:37:47
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
