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 |
|
Civilis
|
posted: 2013-01-28 19:05:18 (ID: 79167) Report Abuse |
|
alexshans84 wrote:
I like this from andrew2scott2 post: SINGLEBACK Big OTL OTR OGL OGR OC QB WRR WRL TER TEL HBC BALANCED FORMATION FOR RUN AND PASS That's the one I wanted to suggest  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
alexshans84
|
posted: 2013-01-29 06:39:08 (ID: 79242) Report Abuse |
|
Civilis wrote:
alexshans84 wrote:
I like this from andrew2scott2 post: SINGLEBACK Big OTL OTR OGL OGR OC QB WRR WRL TER TEL HBC BALANCED FORMATION FOR RUN AND PASS That's the one I wanted to suggest This formation would be our base for sure... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Chareos
|
posted: 2013-01-29 06:40:13 (ID: 79243) Report Abuse |
|
and maybe some empty backfield
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Warlord99
|
posted: 2013-01-30 10:14:11 (ID: 79511) Report Abuse |
|
not sure the engine allows for empty backfield atm
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-02-21 14:57:15 (ID: 84185) Report Abuse |
|
Im guessing a formation like:
otl otr ogl ogr oc wrl wrr wrl2 ter hbc qb Isent allowed? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-02-21 16:54:52 (ID: 84193) Report Abuse | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:
Im guessing a formation like: otl otr ogl ogr oc wrl wrr wrl2 ter hbc qb Isent allowed? Not at the moment, since it violates the "be symmetric" rule |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-02-21 21:12:02 (ID: 84233) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Not at the moment, since it violates the "be symmetric" rule yet we have the Big-I |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Monkey
|
posted: 2013-02-21 23:51:43 (ID: 84246) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
pete wrote:
Not at the moment, since it violates the "be symmetric" rule yet we have the Big-I read the 1st post in the thread |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-02-22 09:47:10 (ID: 84261) Report Abuse |
|
I'm well aware of the rules, just bewildered by them.
Why can we have the Big-I but not the 5-3 or 4-4 with a CB taken out and a SF put in to match the Big-I properly. or why is the Big-I not made to be a 3TE formation with no WRs and then have a 5-4 or 4-5 with 2 SFs and no CBs? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-02-22 09:50:34 (ID: 84262) Report Abuse | |
|
Why cant you just follow the rule, that we dont like to discuss within this thread?
|
|
| 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 | |
