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 / Discussions / Formations and their way they work Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-10-27 16:31:00 (ID: 63910) Report Abuse |
|
But when ranking them against each other, should shotgun be better at sweep plays than any other formation.... Shotgun 2 WRs should be just about ok, but Shotgun 4 WR is the worst sweep formation there - no lead blocker, no TE.
And the Big I, is it better for the short passing game in reality than most other formations? Not really, with the QB taking the snap under C there is no real quick release, it has 1 less WR than all other formations, allowing CB to shift attention onto the TE, or even blitz. It's a specialist running formation. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dark_wing
|
posted: 2012-10-28 06:54:29 (ID: 63988) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
But when ranking them against each other, should shotgun be better at sweep plays than any other formation.... Shotgun 2 WRs should be just about ok, but Shotgun 4 WR is the worst sweep formation there - no lead blocker, no TE. And the Big I, is it better for the short passing game in reality than most other formations? Not really, with the QB taking the snap under C there is no real quick release, it has 1 less WR than all other formations, allowing CB to shift attention onto the TE, or even blitz. It's a specialist running formation. I don't wrote about best formations. Sweep from Shotgum to right flank with 3 WR on the right flank is no bad idea. If Your team have Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski but weak OL. Passing from Big-I with HB and FB as extra-blockers is no bad idea.  Last edited on 2012-10-28 07:11:03 by dark_wing |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-10-28 06:57:11 (ID: 63989) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
Precisely, and the way I read Pete's question is 'rank them how they SHOULD be', not rank them how they currently are in RZA I had the exact opposite read!  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-10-28 07:02:46 (ID: 63990) Report Abuse |
|
dark_wing wrote:
Nogard wrote:
Could anybody explain me again why the 5-2 defense should be better against pass than 4-4-3 and 5-3-3? For sure there are two SF instead of only 1. So one more DB, but what´s up with the real coverage? Who covers the TE´s of SG 2, Pro Set, Big I, I Formation? In the current engine TE´s are covered by OLB´s. but in 5-2 there is no OLB. So only the SF´s could cover the TE´s right? No, MLB can do it. And when the TEs do outside patterns? It didn't take me long to realise that the 5-2 was not a good D to use in the new engine - gets smoked all the time. There are no OLBs to cover outside TEs or help the CBs with inside WRs. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dark_wing
|
posted: 2012-10-28 07:04:52 (ID: 63991) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Jonny: correct Dark_wing: yes, of course. But some are more likely for pass and others for rush...You know me long enough - I don't think in black & white I think using of formatins it depends on players. If team have 4 superb WR - SG 4 WR is the right way. If team have 2 superb TE and just 1 good WR - Big-I is the right way. (for passing). And don't forget about play-action passing. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-10-28 07:22:11 (ID: 63992) Report Abuse |
|
dark_wing wrote:
And don't forget about play-action passing. Are you saying there is PA passing already out of the non SG formations, or that you'd like there to be? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dark_wing
|
posted: 2012-10-28 07:25:56 (ID: 63993) Report Abuse |
|
to be
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-10-28 07:41:34 (ID: 63994) Report Abuse |
|
dark_wing wrote:
to be 
And this needs the engine to make LBs/SFs key more on the run when an offence runs a lot. Or on the pass if they pass a lot. So then we can stop the run and PA would also come into play. Now that is simulating the sport properly. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-10-28 11:15:11 (ID: 63998) Report Abuse |
|
dark_wing wrote:
pete wrote:
Jonny: correct Dark_wing: yes, of course. But some are more likely for pass and others for rush...You know me long enough - I don't think in black & white I think using of formatins it depends on players. If team have 4 superb WR - SG 4 WR is the right way. If team have 2 superb TE and just 1 good WR - Big-I is the right way. (for passing). And don't forget about play-action passing. You are clutching at straws somewhat
Of course it depends on precise personnel..... The Patriots have Hernandez and Gronk, so of course they can pass superbly from 2 TE sets. But in general terms, wideouts are better receivers, and TEs are more utility players who can both block and catch. So a formation with more wideouts, for the vast majority of teams, will be a better passing formation. The same goes for runnign from 4 WR sets - no TE either side, no lead blocker, relying on wideouts to do the outside blocking... in most cases WR vs OLB, OLB wins. And who covers the MLB? Especially against 3-4 - there are 2 MLBs who will be following the play, and a SS, if you are somehow blessed with 3 big WRs with blocking skills, then maybe, but in the vast majority of cases, replace the WRs with 1/2 TEs and a lead blocking back and you have a more effective sweep! Comparing formations you have to assume the norm, not the exceptions! Last edited on 2012-10-28 11:16:06 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
slider6
|
posted: 2012-10-30 19:13:06 (ID: 64639) Report Abuse |
|
slider6 wrote:
Another question related to defense vs the pass. Does the Defense play ZONE or MAN? Hey Pete, did you answer this question and I just missed it? Or is the answer somewhere else? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Formations and their way they work | |
