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: 2016-07-13 20:34:47 (ID: 100081329) Report Abuse | |
|
Maybe, depends a little on the ideas you guys come up with
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-07-17 01:52:52 (ID: 100081543) Report Abuse |
|
An old school one here, the original formation the veer offense was run out of (popular in the 40s/50s, with Mizzou, Oklahoma and Alabama) and what turned into the modern Wishbone.
Split T formation: Looks like our current wishbone, but replacing WR2 with TE1: WR1 ......... LT LG C RG RT TE1 .......................... QB .......................... FB .................... HB1 .. HB2 In RZA terms, currently only the Big I lets us target the TE without going over the middle. This would add a second option.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dgrid
|
posted: 2016-10-18 22:17:16 (ID: 100089494) Report Abuse |
|
dell_g wrote:
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 dell_g wrote:
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
Also, if allowed... OTL OTR OGL OGR OC QB WRL WRR TER FBL HBR So an offset FB lining up next to QB. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-12-20 23:23:32 (ID: 100093652) Report Abuse | |
|
From Season 24 on Flexbone will be executed like Wishbone, and is kept here for compatibility of playbooks only
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-12-21 08:54:37 (ID: 100093695) Report Abuse |
|
Can you elaborate a little bit on that please? I don't understand what you mean
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-12-21 08:57:18 (ID: 100093698) Report Abuse | |
|
And any chance we can have another formation ahem (Pistol) cough added to the list?
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
scottishbronco
|
posted: 2016-12-23 00:22:31 (ID: 100093981) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Can you elaborate a little bit on that please? I don't understand what you mean The way I understand it is that the formation will begin looking like the wishbone formation, but with the HB's moving to the OT position's after the snap. Gambler75 wrote:
An old school one here, the original formation the veer offense was run out of (popular in the 40s/50s, with Mizzou, Oklahoma and Alabama) and what turned into the modern Wishbone. Split T formation: Looks like our current wishbone, but replacing WR2 with TE1: WR1 ......... LT LG C RG RT TE1 .......................... QB .......................... FB .................... HB1 .. HB2 In RZA terms, currently only the Big I lets us target the TE without going over the middle. This would add a second option. Would like to see this added. Like an inverted Big I Last edited on 2016-12-23 00:24:17 by scottishbronco |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Stanford87
|
posted: 2016-12-23 23:10:42 (ID: 100094062) Report Abuse |
|
Simple Defense Formation to be able to defend (and blitz) properly against SG4, like 3-3-5 but with two extra CBs instead of the two FS; the SS becomes the FS.
CB......DE......NT......DE......CB ...CB...OLB...MLB...OLB...CB ....................FS DER DEL NT MLB OLBR OLBL CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 FSC |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-12-26 12:17:56 (ID: 100094246) Report Abuse | |
|
Stanford87 wrote:
Simple Defense Formation to be able to defend (and blitz) properly against SG4, like 3-3-5 but with two extra CBs instead of the two FS; the SS becomes the FS. CB......DE......NT......DE......CB ...CB...OLB...MLB...OLB...CB ....................FS DER DEL NT MLB OLBR OLBL CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 FSC Looks like this one could be as dangerous as 3-1-7, maybe even more danger. I'm not sure if it is an good idea to add such "nearly no inner DBs" formations to the list |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JoeDangit
|
posted: 2017-05-05 02:25:22 (ID: 100103364) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
In football, I believe that tight ends are some of the most useful players on a football offense at any given time. They're big enough to be good blockers and good enough at recieving to warrant the defense's attention.
Don't get me started on the Two Tight End Set either... but here we go! Not sure if already posted, but this is my school's Jumbo Formation Package. With... FOUR TIGHT ENDS! Or three... depending on the situation. "Jumbo, Jumbo, Jumbo! Pistol Jumbo Three!" - Jumbo meaning Goaline package with multiple tight ends. (Multiple meaning > 2) For the sake of demonstration, we can use just three Tight Ends. - - - - - - TE1 TE2 LT LG C RG RT TE 3 WR 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - QB - - - - - - - - - - - - ----HB/FB Obviously, you have three tight ends, you're going to run the ball with the three tight ends blocking... right? Well, no, not really! It's a balanced formation because tight ends are eligible receivers too! Last edited on 2017-05-05 02:27:24 by JoeDangit |
|
| 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 | |
