User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Playing out of position
Page:
 
steinbajl
offline
Link
 
Are there penalties for playing out of your position? Ex... WR lined up as FB or HB in passing plays? TE used as blocking FB?
 
slughead42
Don't panic!
offline
Link
 
Yes, there are penalties for that. I don't believe that Bort ever exactly quantified what they are, but it's clear that the further from the "natural" position (think offensive lineman playing halfback or quarterback, etc), the larger the penalties, and the closer (like perhaps the blocking TE playing FB, or CB playing Safety), the smaller the penalty.
 
bigtisme
offline
Link
 
I dont know if it was ever confirmed but the rumor back in the day was the "close" positions was a 5% penalty.
 
TJ Spikes
offline
Link
 
it doesn't really matter how big the penalty is, because there's not really a whole lot of advantages to playing OoP... Maybe a receiving TE at WR4 or 5 or whatever... but every position on defense cost the same flex. the o-line is pretty much all the same... there's just not a lot of real motivation to do it, unless your team is short on dots half way into it's life span.

 
zz man
offline
Link
 
Probably more useful in casual for things like defending rQBs and having stronger tackling dots in the right positions..And occassionally useful in tagging matchups
 
Novus
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
it doesn't really matter how big the penalty is, because there's not really a whole lot of advantages to playing OoP... Maybe a receiving TE at WR4 or 5 or whatever... but every position on defense cost the same flex. the o-line is pretty much all the same... there's just not a lot of real motivation to do it, unless your team is short on dots half way into it's life span.



I mostly agree with you... except if you're an all-running team, in which case you can really fuck with an opponent's QB tagging by, say, plugging in your punter as the QB on an HB run to trigger their passing-QB defense instead.

But yeah, other than weird gimmicky cases like that, pretty much anything an out-of-position player can do, an in-position player can do better. And if your roster is short on human dots and your only choices are CPU dot or OOP dot, guess what: you're fucked anyway, doesn't matter which one you choose.
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Actually I use OOP at certain positions if I need something that I don't have to run a play. Example; You have a passing QB but not a RQB. Playing a EHB at QB to use the QB runs works perfectly fine. Also, believe it or not there are teams out there that don't tag offenses and sometimes OOP can take advantage of that. I've seen numerous times when the Scat FB when put in at TE doesn't get covered and is left wide open for a completion. Same play later in the same game with the TE in at that spot against the same defense and he's (the TE) tightly covered. I can only attribute that to defensive assignments without tagging so that the defender assigned to cover the TE doesn't see a TE there and therefore moves on to his second assignment. If I'd only seen this once, I'd say it's a fluke... but I've been doing this for several seasons now and it still happens all the time.
Funny truth is I never wanted to do dots OOP... but there were 2 things I needed... a particular 'dot' that I didn't have to run a play I wanted to... or to save Stamina by spreading the workload out even more. The one thing I will say is you gotta know your best OOP swap and don't stray from that or the penalty is just too much.

And I'm not 100% sure but I think that 5% is the WORST you can get as a penalty... not the best. So playing that HB at QB might be only 2 or 3%... hell... maybe even only 1%. But like many here... it's been a LONG time since I've seen the reply to that question... it's probably in the old Bort Q&A somewhere.
 
steinbajl
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Also, believe it or not there are teams out there that don't tag offenses and sometimes OOP can take advantage of that. I've seen numerous times when the Scat FB when put in at TE doesn't get covered and is left wide open for a completion. Same play later in the same game with the TE in at that spot against the same defense and he's (the TE) tightly covered. I can only attribute that to defensive assignments without tagging so that the defender assigned to cover the TE doesn't see a TE there and therefore moves on to his second assignment. If I'd only seen this once, I'd say it's a fluke... but I've been doing this for several seasons now and it still happens all the time.



This makes sense to me.... I have seen plays where I am leaving a man uncovered that I know I had assigned in the play builder. I wondered if the game just worked in some small percentage of blown assignments for realism, but never thought to look to see if the player in that spot was actually an OoP player. If true, it will make scouting much more tedious as you have to look at each player in the offensive formation each play so I would know which OoP player to tag.

Edited by steinbajl on May 12, 2020 00:57:42
Edited by steinbajl on May 12, 2020 00:57:25
Edited by steinbajl on May 12, 2020 00:56:03
 
Novus
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
And I'm not 100% sure but I think that 5% is the WORST you can get as a penalty... not the best. So playing that HB at QB might be only 2 or 3%... hell... maybe even only 1%. But like many here... it's been a LONG time since I've seen the reply to that question... it's probably in the old Bort Q&A somewhere.


I'm about 90% certain that one of the powers-that-be once confirmed the penalty for HB-FB was 5% and it only goes up from there... WAY up for something like a Guard playing CB or something. But they never gave exact numbers. I'm a bit less certain on this, but I think I recall people doing Speed-Script tests with OOP dots that suggested some penalties could be more than 20%.

Bottom line is that there are very few situations where it makes sense to play a dot OOP, and it works better as a trick to screw with tagging than it does for trying to fix roster holes. If you have roster holes, fill 'em, even if you have to fill 'em with CPU dots.
 
Novus
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by steinbajl

This makes sense to me.... I have seen plays where I am leaving a man uncovered that I know I had assigned in the play builder. I wondered if the game just worked in some small percentage of blown assignments for realism, but never thought to look to see if the player in that spot was actually an OoP player. If true, it will make scouting much more tedious as you have to look at each player in the offensive formation each play so I would know which OoP player to tag.



Faster method: for the player you want to know about, just pull up their play log from their last game. You can see the position they filled in each of their plays on a nice easy chart. No need to watch replays.

Example: https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/player_replays.pl?player_id=4723112&game_id=3003309

Looks like this FB always plays as an FB or occasionally on Special Teams, and you have the complete picture in 10 seconds. Do that for multiple players and maybe check a few games back. Should take 5 minutes.
 
TJ Spikes
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by steinbajl

This makes sense to me.... I have seen plays where I am leaving a man uncovered that I know I had assigned in the play builder. I wondered if the game just worked in some small percentage of blown assignments for realism, but never thought to look to see if the player in that spot was actually an OoP player. If true, it will make scouting much more tedious as you have to look at each player in the offensive formation each play so I would know which OoP player to tag.



If it was me... I'd just have a play design with no tags at all, and use that as a default. Then use tags to create plays to optimize situations.

If there's a certain team that comes along with a gimmick play, adjust the default to take that away.

 
steinbajl
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
If it was me... I'd just have a play design with no tags at all, and use that as a default. Then use tags to create plays to optimize situations.

If there's a certain team that comes along with a gimmick play, adjust the default to take that away.



My interpretation of what he was saying is that NOT tagging is the problem. I set up my LB to man cover the TE, but the offense plays a FB out of position in the TE slot and my LB drops to a zone because he does not see a TE in the formation even though the FB is lined up at the TE spot. If that is the situation it makes an easy loophole for dropped coverages, so I think that situation is unlikely unless it is a bug.... but I have seen my players fail to cover the man they are assigned too so????
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by steinbajl
My interpretation of what he was saying is that NOT tagging is the problem. I set up my LB to man cover the TE, but the offense plays a FB out of position in the TE slot and my LB drops to a zone because he does not see a TE in the formation even though the FB is lined up at the TE spot. If that is the situation it makes an easy loophole for dropped coverages, so I think that situation is unlikely unless it is a bug.... but I have seen my players fail to cover the man they are assigned too so????


TBH, I should say I've had this happen to me doing both OC and DC... and tagging can also backfire if you rely on it too much. As a DC, I kept getting burned on 3rd and long with 2 TE formations where I tagged one of their BTE's as a 'blocker'... then watched as he caught passes to give them 1st downs. As TJ points out... you gotta check out the teams you're playing to be sure there's not some kind of 'ringer' or tricks they use (like me).
Also, as I pointed out with the Scat FB making wide open catches from the TE slot... the trick to beating that is to assign 2 dots... one to the TE and one to the FB position. That way if he shows up at either one he'll be covered.
Add to that that there's no real reason to get too crazy with either Tagging OR Assigning because you can just as easily plan your way into trouble as you can gimmick the system. A simple 2 assignment is best... like 'Cover TE 1st assignment & Cover Zone 2nd assignment'. For any Blitz dots I would ONLY blitz them because assigning them any other primary task seems to cause them to delay their blitz (likely because they have to take the time to read their 1st assignment)... unless you WANT a delayed blitz. I generally don't go beyond 3 assignments because it seems to create dot confusion.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on May 12, 2020 10:30:20
 
SeattleNiner
NINERS
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by steinbajl
My interpretation of what he was saying is that NOT tagging is the problem. I set up my LB to man cover the TE, but the offense plays a FB out of position in the TE slot and my LB drops to a zone because he does not see a TE in the formation even though the FB is lined up at the TE spot. If that is the situation it makes an easy loophole for dropped overages, so I think that situation is unlikely unless it is a bug.... but I have seen my players fail to cover the man they are assigned too so????


Tagging is easy if you do it right. All you need to do is tag all receiving dots as receivers, and all blockers as blockers - then no matter what dot is in the TE slot (for example a TE, FB, HB, WR, G, C, etc) - if you tagged the dot as a receiver the dot will get treated as a receiver and will get covered. If you tagged the dot as a blocker it will get treated as a blocker. Any position penalties on the O by playing dots in different position are just a bonus for you. Very simple!
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
It's not that it's not easy... it's that I believe (although, no, I am NOT 110% sure) that it can be exploited.
There are two things you can do concerning how each offensive dot is accounted for. #1 is assignments. When setting up your DAI you can assign tasks to each dot position. Example; the MLB can cover the HB man2man as it's 1st assignment... or, if the HB stays in to block, then it can play a middle zone coverage. I forget exactly but think you can list up to 5 assignments for each dot position.
#2 is Tagging. Here you assign each offensive dot (that you wish to tag) a particular 'offensive outlook' so to speak. If you see a BTE and you tag him as a Blocker... and then he goes out for a pass... he's likely not to get covered if he's playing at the FB or WR slot. If he's playing the TE slot, you should be fine... but I've had BTE's get left wide open and I know I assigned a dot to cover that position... and tagged the BTE as a blocker. By doing it that way, IMO, as long at the BTE is blocking then no defensive dot should cover him as if he was a receiver... and if he runs a pass route then the 'assignment' should kick in and he would be covered. But It doesn't always work that way... which is why I say there's a bit of a 'bug' in how it all works.

The same goes for the Scat FB if he finds himself going out for a pass from the TE slot. If you tag him as a receiver, that's fine... as long as he has someone assigned to cover him. But, sometimes, it seems that only works if he's running routes from the FB slot... because I sure have seen plenty of 'non-covered-oop-dots' such as that. And I tried the 'must be a DC mistake' approach but that doesn't seem to cover every single time it happens.
TBH, I cannot say for 110% sure that the reasons I'm giving above are the reasons these things happen... but I don't have another solid explanation for why they do.... because that would mean there's a whole lot of DC's out there just as good as me and I'm not all that great.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.