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 / Formations to add - read the very first post before you post anything Search Forum | |
Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 19 > >| | |
Rating: | |
Poster | Message |
posted: 2016-04-09 06:47:10 (ID: 100073225) Report Abuse | |
3-2-6 Defense (3 DL, 2 OLB, 6 DB)
DEL - DTL - DER - OLBR - OLBL - cbl - cbl2 - cbr - cbr2 - FSc - SSc |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Jiujitsutou
|
posted: 2016-04-15 15:09:09 (ID: 100074071) Report Abuse |
I´d like to see some more variation for existing formation eg :
Heavy Shotgun 5ol 4 Te 1 Qb 1 FB and maybe a variation of Flexbone (but instead of HB slotted wr or te) : 5 ol 2 wideout 2slot receiver 1 fb 1 qb |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
jetto
|
posted: 2016-04-15 15:35:08 (ID: 100074080) Report Abuse |
Jiujitsutou wrote:
I´d like to see some more variation for existing formation eg : Heavy Shotgun 5ol 4 Te 1 Qb 1 FB and maybe a variation of Flexbone (but instead of HB slotted wr or te) : 5 ol 2 wideout 2slot receiver 1 fb 1 qb Heavy Shotgun seems very interesting and would increase the value of TE. I would like to give it a try |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Blaqbarrett84
|
posted: 2016-04-15 18:10:17 (ID: 100074096) Report Abuse |
Tackle spread
TEL OTL_______________OGL OC OGR______________________OTR TER __WR_____________________QB____________________________WR___ __________________________RB_________________________________ Its one nice formation for run and pass. Last edited on 2016-04-15 18:12:07 by Blaqbarrett84 |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-05-11 22:24:47 (ID: 100076319) Report Abuse | |
I'd quite like a wingbone with the 2 receivers like we have in flexbone and wishbone, unless this would be considered unbalanced?
WRL__________OTL_OGL_OC_OGR_OTR__________WRR _________________________QB__________HBR _________________________FB ____________________HBL |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-05-12 01:22:05 (ID: 100076321) Report Abuse |
Weak I:
WR ......... OT OG C OG OT TE ........ WR ......................... QB .................. FB ......................... HB Strong I: WR ......... OT OG C OG OT TE ........ WR ......................... QB ................................ FB ......................... HB Near I: WR ......... OT OG C OG OT TE ........ WR ......................... QB ......................... FB ................................ HB Far I: WR ......... OT OG C OG OT TE ........ WR ......................... QB ......................... FB .................. HB Shotgun Wing: WR ......... OT OG C OG OT TE ........ WR ............ HB . ......................... QB .. FB The SG Wing in real life generally has the FB to the QB's left, and the wing back stacked to the strong side just outside the TE, like a slot WR - however that would violate the balanced sides rule, so I propose this alternate. All 5 of these are "balanced" personnel formations (2 WR, 1 TE, 1 HB, 1 FB) ... any would be a nice addition, as we still have just ONE currently - the I-Form. Last edited on 2016-05-12 01:22:36 by Gambler75 |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-07-13 19:27:43 (ID: 100081323) Report Abuse | |
Pistol formation 4 WR (PF4)
OTL OTR OGL OGR OC QB WRL WRL2 WRR WRR2 FBC Reasons: - 1) Offers another FB based formation 2) More run friendly formation than SG4 3) FB offers slightly less protection to the QB than SG4 4) FB has a slightly better rush Avg. than SG4 Last edited on 2016-07-14 07:54:31 by dell_g |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-07-13 19:29:08 (ID: 100081324) Report Abuse | |
Pistol formation 2 WR (PF2)
OTL OTR OGL OGR OC QB WRL WRR TEL TER FBC Reasons: - 1) Offers yet another FB based formation 2) More run friendly formation than SG2 3) FB offers slightly less protection to the QB than SG2 4) FB has a slightly better rush Avg. than SG2 Last edited on 2016-07-14 07:54:43 by dell_g |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-07-13 19:32:30 (ID: 100081326) Report Abuse |
Now that we're basically "forced" to use 5 formations if we want to get a thumbs up I think it would be a good time to look at all of these suggestions and add a few formations. Having to use 5 out 10 is very limiting, if we had to use 5 out of 20 it would give way more variation to the game
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-07-13 19:54:46 (ID: 100081327) Report Abuse | |
Is there a plan to add more formations?
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
reply Mark this thread unread | |
Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 19 > >| | |
Main / Suggestions / Formations to add - read the very first post before you post anything |