no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Allow RB to block/pick up blitzes on pass plays Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-29 09:23:13 (ID: 100077871) Report Abuse |
|
I think this relatively simple change would lead to teams using the FB formations less and the RB formations more, leading to a more balanced game.
Plus it would be more realistic, in the NFL you often hear about RB not getting playing time because they don't block well enough. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-05-29 10:13:06 (ID: 100077876) Report Abuse | |
|
Definitely a good idea, would have to be careful though, if it's too strong the flexbone and wishbone would never yield sacks with three in the back, would be great for my team though!
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-29 10:28:30 (ID: 100077877) Report Abuse |
|
As long as people understand that the blocking skill will be required for the RB to make this effective.
It's surprising how many teams complain about other formations lack of backfield blocking, when they either have no FB on the roster or have a potato as a FB with 0 blocking. It's like having a 20 passing skill QB and wondering why you don't complete passes. Must be the formation, right!? But yeah, not bad as long as people aren't expecting free blocks with no skill investment. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-05-29 11:33:35 (ID: 100077884) Report Abuse |
|
It would certainly give the option for some diversification.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
mikemike778
|
posted: 2016-05-29 11:49:50 (ID: 100077887) Report Abuse |
|
Doesn't this mean though that Singleback and Shotgun 4WR are the same formations ?
Why not just leave it as it is blocking wise ? But make the receiving running back a real weapon (if they have the skills) So you have the choice ... the extra blocker (FB) or the extra receiver that genuinly enhances the passing game. Combine that with making the FB less of an ultimate-blocker and you have your answer. Making more formations viable isn't adding diversification if its just making them all the same. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-29 11:54:23 (ID: 100077888) Report Abuse |
|
mikemike778 wrote:
Doesn't this mean though that Singleback and Shotgun 4WR are the same formations ? Why not just leave it as it is blocking wise ? But make the receiving running back a real weapon (if they have the skills) So you have the choice ... the extra blocker (FB) or the extra receiver that genuinly enhances the passing game. Combine that with making the FB less of an ultimate-blocker and you have your answer. Making more formations viable isn't adding diversification if its just making them all the same. Only if you train the skills to do the job. Singleback Spread, a RB with 15 blocking will see his QB get dunked every play whereas a RB with 45 blocking does a similar job as SG4. It may see some variation in what people run instead of focusing so heavy on SG4. I do like the RB pass option to though, because lets face it, how many are gonna train blocking on their RB's! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-29 12:02:13 (ID: 100077889) Report Abuse |
|
mikemike778 wrote:
Doesn't this mean though that Singleback and Shotgun 4WR are the same formations ? No, one has a RB and the other a FB and in one the QB is under center while in the other he's a few yards back in shotgun. It's like if you said 344 is the same as 335. You have 10 players in common between the 2 formations but the alignments are different. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2016-05-29 13:31:08 (ID: 100077894) Report Abuse |
|
Obviously I like the idea, however, I fear that is not so easy to implement, as the sim would need to make a difference, whether the TB is home to block or if he is running a route.
If I did understand Pete correctly he is simulating a lot of things based on a Formation vs Formation Matrix where currently a FB could mean x % better protection and a TB could mean y % better separation as the D has to account for one extra receiver. However this is pure guessing for my side (or an attempt to get more info regarding the how the sim works out of Pete  ) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gnikeoj
|
posted: 2016-05-29 21:30:11 (ID: 100077927) Report Abuse |
|
RB/FBs should be listed like MLBs/OLB or FSs/SSs under the same skill tree. Use a % for max protection to counter the % for blitzes.
Last edited on 2016-05-29 21:34:41 by gnikeoj |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-05-29 21:39:53 (ID: 100077929) Report Abuse | |
|
Doc wrote:
As long as people understand that the blocking skill will be required for the RB to make this effective. It's surprising how many teams complain about other formations lack of backfield blocking, when they either have no FB on the roster or have a potato as a FB with 0 blocking. It's like having a 20 passing skill QB and wondering why you don't complete passes. Must be the formation, right!? This could very well be aimed at my team. I have no FB and I complained. I take no offense. But I would like to explain my complaint. Granted FB blocking is difficult to understand. It has long been my contention that FB blocking skill does not matter. If a FB makes a block that blocked player almost never gets a sack. So an oop FB is just as good at blocking as a FB. Holly stats I think bear this out. I have had the same QB now for 7 seasons His speed is only 43 and he has always gotten sacked. Fair enough he is relatively slow. I have had seasons with good blocking FBs and oop FBs. The FB does not seem to matter. My oop FBs are on pace to make 468 blocks this season by far the most during the last 7 seasons. Its not like my oop FBs are missing their blocks. I also don't see an increase in interceptions or a loss of pass completion %. So I don't think my QB is getting hurried because of my oop FBs. What Holly's stats point out is not a FB quality issue. Its the fact that in my beloved I formation the FB NEVER blocks the blitzing LB/S. But in the shot2/4 formation the same FB does block the blitzing LB/S. This gives the shot2/4 formation an advantage. Now we have always been told that the formations are balanced. Now I have to ask "are they??" Have I been playing from a disadvantage all these seasons? If so, then I feel I have a legitimate complaint. Im not trying to make a big deal about it but I would like it fixed. I don't really want to switch over to the shot2/4, but It makes no sense to stay with the I formation right now. Last edited on 2016-05-29 21:41:37 by angus |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Allow RB to block/pick up blitzes on pass plays | |
