Warrior General Games

Are people really going to make a S* FB over a WR, CB, S, TE, or DE?

depending on how well scat FB's work out at higher levels, I probably would at some point.

Originally posted by maxxmisery DTD
depending on how well scat FB's work out at higher levels, I probably would at some point.

He's the scat man.

I'm wanting to make a S* FB this season.

Am I really the only one that would rather have a S* WR or CB or Safety?

I feel like FB should be on the same level as other 50 fp players. They aren't game changers.

Originally posted by chronic23
Am I really the only one that would rather have a S* WR or CB or Safety?

I feel like FB should be on the same level as other 50 fp players. They aren't game changers.

My rookie team's running game would beg to differ. You pretty much can't run outside at all without a stud blocking FB, and running inside behind said stud blocker is a lot more effective as well.

Then you add in the fact you can make them into receivers out of the backfield, or runners in their own right, and suddenly paying 100 flex for that kind of dude doesn't seem so out there.

Originally posted by Xavori
My rookie team's running game would beg to differ. You pretty much can't run outside at all without a stud blocking FB, and running inside behind said stud blocker is a lot more effective as well.

Then you add in the fact you can make them into receivers out of the backfield, or runners in their own right, and suddenly paying 100 flex for that kind of dude doesn't seem so out there.

But I'm pretty sure your rookie team's offensive line is even better .
I'm not saying they're useless, but they aren't more valuable to team than offensive linemen. Hell, some teams don't even use fullbacks.
I don't know, I guess I was just saying that I'd actually entertain the idea of making a S* fb if it was in the third tier, but there's no way I'm choosing one over a game changing position such as WR/CB.

Originally posted by pottsman
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/59934

Also - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/59643 and http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/56712

Like real life, I think you're not giving the addition of a stud FB the credit he deserves. If you're a running team, your FB is going to be involved in a lot more plays than your WRs or even CBs. You may only throw a few passes a game, and for your CB the pass defense in this game is already pretty wonky. Factor that in plus the fact there's no guarantee the other team will even target the WR your CB is on, and he may only be a key played in a couple plays a game. Meanwhile, if you have a great blocking FB (or one with a bit of receiving), he can be involved in a huge number of your offensive plays.

Obviously I think the OL is just as important, but I view the FB more as a backfield TE in this game than an OL. He blocks on the outside (and sometimes inside) runs, but he can also pick up conversion downs as the other team isn't as likely to be able to stop him from making short receptions.

Originally posted by pottsman
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/59934

The team he is on runs a lot and they are 4-0

Originally posted by ahnonamis
Like real life, I think you're not giving the addition of a stud FB the credit he deserves. If you're a running team, your FB is going to be involved in a lot more plays than your WRs or even CBs. You may only throw a few passes a game, and for your CB the pass defense in this game is already pretty wonky. Factor that in plus the fact there's no guarantee the other team will even target the WR your CB is on, and he may only be a key played in a couple plays a game. Meanwhile, if you have a great blocking FB (or one with a bit of receiving), he can be involved in a huge number of your offensive plays.

Obviously I think the OL is just as important, but I view the FB more as a backfield TE in this game than an OL. He blocks on the outside (and sometimes inside) runs, but he can also pick up conversion downs as the other team isn't as likely to be able to stop him from making short receptions.

Let's be honest, if you're a running team your WRs are still more noticeable and involved in real life. I'm very knowledgable about football, and I can name you the whole depth chart of receivers the Seahawks(a heavy running team for example) have, but without looking it up I have no clue who their FB is.

I understand, but howmany "stud" FBs are there in real life. A few come to mind, but the point I was making is that we should be deciding whether or not to create a superstar FB over a K/P/OL, not a receiver.

Originally posted by chronic23
Let's be honest, if you're a running team your WRs are still more noticeable and involved in real life. I'm very knowledgable about football, and I can name you the whole depth chart of receivers the Seahawks(a heavy running team for example) have, but without looking it up I have no clue who their FB is.


HUB City has thrown an average of three passes per game across the first four games of this season (1, 2, 8, 1). Don't expect that to change. This isn't the NFL.

I made a rushing FB, was pretty good. scat back probably would have been better. A good balanced FB is just as good as a TE/WR

Originally posted by chronic23
Let's be honest, if you're a running team your WRs are still more noticeable and involved in real life. I'm very knowledgable about football, and I can name you the whole depth chart of receivers the Seahawks(a heavy running team for example) have, but without looking it up I have no clue who their FB is.

I understand, but howmany "stud" FBs are there in real life. A few come to mind, but the point I was making is that we should be deciding whether or not to create a superstar FB over a K/P/OL, not a receiver.


"if" you know so much about FB, then you would know every HB would love to have a decent FB infront of him.