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 Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 12 13 14 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-02-18 14:13:54 (ID: 83672) Report Abuse |
|
I play without RBs for 1 reason:
- I had intended to use only 1-back formations in my offense, and there are none of those which use RBs Since the nerfing of the SG4WR as a running formation, I have mixed formations into my gameplan which use RBs... my FBs cover as RBs when I have to use these and don't do a bad job because I have trained them primarily in ball-carrying skills. FBs don't runblock, I have a decent line and a fast agile QB, so why do my FBs need blocking skill? The skill sets for both positions are nearly identical, so to create variation the range of desired skills needs to widen, but also we would need 1 back formations which use an RB, not a FB. We also need improved roles for the players to make use of different skillset - pass catching for example, RBs who passblock, and FBs who runblock. In engine 3.0, the formation specific +/- that have been added seem to hurt the Gun 4WR quite a lot, so I'm now thinking of moving all my FBs to RBs, changing coaches, and running my offense from the pro-set and I formations. Last edited on 2013-02-18 14:17:29 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-02-18 14:18:51 (ID: 83673) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
but also we would need 1 back formations which use an RB, not a FB. I suggested it yonks ago ....... my idea was a formation similar to Goalline-O but with a RB/C instead of a FB/C. Last edited on 2013-02-18 14:22:00 by sh8888 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-02-18 14:38:47 (ID: 83674) Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
panoramix
|
posted: 2013-02-18 16:33:26 (ID: 83682) Report Abuse |
|
I think I'm one of the teams involved.
The 4WR is my prevalent attacking formation and without a FB assistant coach I'm forced to use my RBs (despite the OPP) to have a good weekly upgrade of my backs and a good performance on running plays. Especially now, with the new engine and his downgrade to the efficience on passing plays. EDIT: the work of a FB on RZA is...only running the ball. This is a role for a RB, despite the manual call him "FB" on the SG4WR. Last edited on 2013-02-18 17:49:37 by panoramix |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sneaky_minotaur
|
posted: 2013-02-18 20:15:23 (ID: 83709) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
In engine 3.0, the formation specific +/- that have been added seem to hurt the Gun 4WR quite a lot, so I'm now thinking of moving all my FBs to RBs, changing coaches, and running my offense from the pro-set and I formations. Last season I played a "single-back offense" using primarily Goaline, SG2WR and SG4WR, with two draft RB's I converted to FB. It worked farily well although even then I had a very hard time running the ball. Still, I was looking forward to the day when we get running QB so I could have a real college spread type feel to my offense. Unfortunately the single back offense just didn't seem to work for me with the switch to 3.0 and I felt I had to change to a more standard Pro Set and I-Form based offense. 
Edit: Btw... While I think the OOPP could be higher, I'd think this focus on people using single back formations is not helpful. I played last season with FB (converted draft RB) and a 84 CP FB coach. IMO the main reason there is now the formation specific +/- is because some people complained about how unfair it was that some managers used the shotgun formations as their base offense. Lazy managers didn't want to have to scout their opponent and adjust their playbooks and instead wanted the game to do it for them. Last edited on 2013-02-18 20:50:06 by sneaky_minotaur |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-02-18 22:23:03 (ID: 83721) Report Abuse |
|
(formation specific +/- ) ive seen it mentioned a couple of times but i dont get what it means.
can someone enlighten me plaese to this change? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2013-02-19 00:03:01 (ID: 83729) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:
(formation specific +/- ) ive seen it mentioned a couple of times but i dont get what it means. can someone enlighten me plaese to this change? yeah i'd like further explanation here too... But in regards to the whole FB/RB thing... I dont think there should be any OOP for positions that share similar traits. There both ball-carriers that line up in the back field... how the manager trains their skill set should determine how they perform at a given roll. That'll kill this whole argument and make it as simple as possible. and we went over this when the coaches were first introduced. There are no FB coaches... just like there is no separate coach for SF/CB. The distinction just fuels discussions like the one we are having. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2013-02-19 08:10:57 (ID: 83747) Report Abuse |
|
I think here is to much black and white, but the reality is grey. The success of FBs is only a small part of the OOP. FBs are mostly so successful, because they often run against a Dime defense. With no OLBs it is easy to break through over both end. Is this the fault of a to low OOP? NO, this is the fault of the managers and a wrong defense strategy. Managers have to learn, how to handle such situations.
I think the OOP of -25% is fair. A higher OOP is only a punishment for "OOP-cheaters" and far from realism. And I think in many cases the "OOP-cheaters" do use players in other positions not to cheat - it is more a lack of roster depth. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2013-02-19 08:20:29 (ID: 83750) Report Abuse |
|
I looks like we will have this discussion each two months. Please search forum. This was here at least five times before
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-02-19 09:48:10 (ID: 83772) Report Abuse |
|
Buffalo wrote:
I think the OOP of -25% is fair. A higher OOP is only a punishment for "OOP-cheaters" and far from realism. And I think in many cases the "OOP-cheaters" do use players in other positions not to cheat - it is more a lack of roster depth. But why was OOP penalty introduced in Season 3 ? Presumably to make the restrictions on Coaching Strategy workable. With no OOP penalty or with a very low OOP penalty, what happens ? My guess is that the current restriction of 550 Coaching Points spread across 11 Coaching Positions is vulnerable to an exploit ....the FB coach becomes semi-obselete, just use your FB coaching points on a super-expensive RB coach, put all your 'offensive backs' as RB's, take the minimal/non-existant OOP penalty for playing RB's as FB's ....easy. Then do the same with CB's vs SF's......and probably more positions too, maybe DL vs LB ? , if your TE's as used mainly as Receivers, why not WR vs TE ?? So, at the moment, I think it is black and white .......... Is the current OOP penalty doing it's job , Yes or No ? If Yes, everything is OK, nothing to worry about, take a beer out of the fridge, and put your feet up ....might be worth asking yourself why Teams have few FB's and are succesfully using base FB formations (e.g. Shotgun) though if the OOP does truly work. If No, then again the choice is black and white .......... Two choices (1) Either fix the OOP penalty so that it does work, which probably means raising the level of the current OOP penalty or (2) Just scrap the OOP penalty completely. However, only my opinion, but I think if you scrap the OOP then the current Coaching Restrictions will collapse as it would be so easy to exploit the system if no OOP penalties exist. btw .... Buffalo, please don't take this personally, but this quote of yours "And I think in many cases the "OOP-cheaters" do use players in other positions not to cheat - it is more a lack of roster depth." Surely you can't be serious ? I've already highlighted 2 cases of Managers using the RB/FB dodge .... and we're talking Managers who have been here since 2011, so hardly short of time/money to add depth to their Roster. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could probably find Managers using a CB/Safety dodge too. Last edited on 2013-02-19 09:57:29 by sh8888 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 12 13 14 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Out of Position Penalty | |
