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 / Out of position penalty too low? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:04:34 (ID: 71838) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
It's not just the OOP penalties that would need to be addressed. You would also need to look at ACs and how they work if CBs were allowed to play SF with smaller penalties. Pete set positions up to tie in with ACs, and therefore this part of the game is different to real life. I do not see big problem here, of course if CB playing SF he will be affected by SF AC and not by CB AC. When we are speaking about coaches, according me, bigger non logic think is, that you can not have all ACs and that HC does not effect performance during game  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:05:37 (ID: 71839) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
....and there is another potential issue here, especially for DBs. If you intend to play the 3-3 (3 SFs) then you need a min of 5 SFs on the roster (1 for potential in-game Inj and another for general Inj). And if you intend to use the dime then you need a min of 6 CBs. So that means you need 11 DBs which is a bit high. 11 DBs a bit high??? Take a look at any NFL team roster, and every single one of them will have 10 to 11 DBs in a roster of 53. I am not saying the current OOP penalty is right, but to change it we need to address ALL the related parts of the game such as ACs |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:07:59 (ID: 71840) Report Abuse |
|
I actually play 5 CB and 5 SF in my depth chart. I have a 6th CB who is a development player, and is therefore on the depth chart as a Gunner.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:17:00 (ID: 71843) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
....and there is another potential issue here, especially for DBs. If you intend to play the 3-3 (3 SFs) then you need a min of 5 SFs on the roster (1 for potential in-game Inj and another for general Inj). And if you intend to use the dime then you need a min of 6 CBs. So that means you need 11 DBs which is a bit high. 11 DBs a bit high??? Take a look at any NFL team roster, and every single one of them will have 10 to 11 DBs in a roster of 53. You're right ptossell, 10+ DBs in a roster of 53 is pretty standard and we have 55 spots so I disagree with hosh here, there's no issue with the number of DBs a team needs on its roster imo. Check this out for proof hosh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NFL_team_rosters I am not saying the current OOP penalty is right, but to change it we need to address ALL the related parts of the game such as ACs I'm not convinced ACs need to be changed but I've no issue with some tweaks being done if it means the OOP penalty is made more realistic. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Nogard
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:21:44 (ID: 71845) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
....and there is another potential issue here, especially for DBs. If you intend to play the 3-3 (3 SFs) then you need a min of 5 SFs on the roster (1 for potential in-game Inj and another for general Inj). And if you intend to use the dime then you need a min of 6 CBs. So that means you need 11 DBs which is a bit high. So if you play much 3-3-5 and dime you don´t need so much DL or LB and have spots free for your 335/dime. What´s the problem? Last edited on 2012-12-11 14:21:57 by Nogard |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:27:25 (ID: 71846) Report Abuse |
|
I am not saying the current OOP penalty is right, but to change it we need to address ALL the related parts of the game such as ACs I'm not convinced ACs need to be changed but I've no issue with some tweaks being done if it means the OOP penalty is made more realistic. ACs would need to change. If there is a smaller penalty for CB playing as SF or vice versa, then all of us would have all DBs on our rosters listed as just one of this positions and therefore only need an AC for one of the two positions. Pete's intention was that we would have to make personal decisions as managers around which positions we didn't have ACs for, but this would eliminate one of the positions to chose from |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:29:54 (ID: 71848) Report Abuse |
|
Nogard wrote:
So if you play much 3-3-5 and dime you don´t need so much DL or LB and have spots free for your 335/dime. What´s the problem? There isn't a problem ..... if a Manager can't create a balanced team with 70 available Senior Roster slots , 55 available Depth Chart slots, and 22 available YA slots then you're really not smart enough to be even attempting to play this game.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:30:57 (ID: 71850) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
Nogard wrote:
So if you play much 3-3-5 and dime you don´t need so much DL or LB and have spots free for your 335/dime. What´s the problem? There isn't a problem ..... if a Manager can't create a balanced team with 70 available Senior Roster slots , 55 available Depth Chart slots, and 22 available YA slots then you're really not smart enough to be even attempting to play this game.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:31:41 (ID: 71851) Report Abuse |
|
Panthers and Rams have 8, about 2/3 have 9 and the rest 10.
The point is, you need no more than 8 in the NFL but RZA forces 11 on a smart manager. I see no reason why CBs and SFs can't be generalized to DBs (programming aside). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:33:21 (ID: 71852) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
Panthers and Rams have 8, about 2/3 have 9 and the rest 10. The point is, you need no more than 8 in the NFL but RZA forces 11 on a smart manager. I see no reason why CBs and SFs can't be generalized to DBs (programming aside). In the NFL you have a roster of 53, we have 70. There is NO issue here hosh |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Out of position penalty too low? | |
