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 / engine v3 bashing goes here Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 6 7 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-04-02 14:43:51 (ID: 89431) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
are you stupid?? FIRST 3 QUARTERS big I run 10
E Logic wrote:
i can tell you are just looking at the summary but you need to look at the first 3 quarters when he only had 6 or 7 runs and the rest were passes from the big- I formation and he was stiil able to get 4 TD against a 3-3-5. I said it in my post about the first 3 quarters play by play because if you look at the summary it looks like he was playing well balenced yet it couldnt be more wrong. so until you examine the game closely i would prefer you not to comment as you are undermining my arguement when you have not looked at the game play by play. I've looked at the whole game. The stats don't lie :- are you stupid?? frist 3 quarters big I run 10 big I pass 38 Rush from Big I :- 28 Pass from Big-I :- 34 The 4 TD's were from 4,5,2 & 1 yards ... so where's the problem with that ? ...... the 3-3-5 is a good pass defense, but it's not invincible. big I pass 38 in the secound quarter alone he passed 15 times from the big I and only had 3 runs yet by doing this he was able to score 2 TD in the secound quarter. by only using the big Ii formation in this way. yes he scored at close range but how did he get there. by consistantly completeting passes from the big I against a mainly 3-3-5 defence. so take in to account my tactics in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS my players vs his, my coaches, my players better experiecne and homefield advantage do you think he should have been leading 28-27 by the 4th quarter condidering he was passing from the big I 80% of the time in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS. considering all the facts if your answer is yes he should have been leading then you really are stupid. i should have had the game well wrapped up and his offensive should have been no where near as successful as it was meaning he would have had far less possesion in those FIRST 3 QUARTERS and his defence would have been the one tiring by the 4th quarter as i was the one running the ball and he should have had a lot more incompletions but apparently the 3-3-5 is useless at stopping the pass in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS. as i said look play by play in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS and not at the summary which makes his offence look well balenced when in fact in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS it was far from well balenced yet he was able to put up 4 TD against me and be leading. ive repeated myself many times now so i hope it has finally got though to you. Last edited on 2013-04-02 15:00:02 by E Logic |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-04-02 14:59:16 (ID: 89434) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:
sh8888 wrote:
are you stupid?? FIRST 3 QUARTERS big I run 10
E Logic wrote:
i can tell you are just looking at the summary but you need to look at the first 3 quarters when he only had 6 or 7 runs and the rest were passes from the big- I formation and he was stiil able to get 4 TD against a 3-3-5. I said it in my post about the first 3 quarters play by play because if you look at the summary it looks like he was playing well balenced yet it couldnt be more wrong. so until you examine the game closely i would prefer you not to comment as you are undermining my arguement when you have not looked at the game play by play. I've looked at the whole game. The stats don't lie :- are you stupid?? frist 3 quarters big I run 10 big I pass 38 Rush from Big I :- 28 Pass from Big-I :- 34 The 4 TD's were from 4,5,2 & 1 yards ... so where's the problem with that ? ...... the 3-3-5 is a good pass defense, but it's not invincible. big I pass 38 in the secound quarter alone he passed 15 times from the big I and only had 3 runs yet by doing this he was able to score 2 TD in the secound quarter. by only using the big ji formation is this way. yes he scored at close range but how did he get there. by consistantly completeting passes from the big I against a mainly 3-3-5 defence. so take in to account my tactics in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS my players vs his my coaches my players better experiecne and homefield advantage do you think he should have been leading 28-27 by the 4th quarter condidering he was passing from the big I 80% of the time in the FIRST 3 QUARTERS. considering all the facts if your answer is yes he should have been leading then you really are stupid. 15-3 Well, E Logic, im sorry that you did lose a game where you should have won since on paper you where stronger, but this kind of games happends to everybody. Maybe more to some and a little less to others, but they do happend.. Its just that you had the engine against you this game while your opponent had it in his favour. Like you had bad luck while he had good luck and that did result the outcome. (i havent checked the game, only read in this thread) I myselt is thinking how teams can score 30,40,50,60+ TD against me even tho my defense players on the field is far superior then my opponent offensive players and the same way why i dont score those long TD when my fielded offensive players is also far superior to my opponents fielded players. Me and the other one is usually having the same def formation vs the same off formation aswell on those plays.. But owell 
Shit happends, and in some games there isent anything you can do really xD it just what it is  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-04-02 15:08:37 (ID: 89438) Report Abuse |
|
Wouldn't 3-4-4 be better at defending the pass against Big I than 3-3-5?
If the defence is generally zonal, wouldn't it be better to have more LBs to cover the TEs? Than to drop one back to play FS? I think it kind of shows with the stats too... (I haven't looked at play by play) edit: So dropping a LB back created some room for the TEs to get open and make catches. So you gave up high completion and lots of small yardage gains to avoid a big TD. Which would mean he saw a weakness in your D and got his tactics right... Imo edit 2: Don't shoot me I'm just trying to come up with an explanation lol. I agree it sucks that people can get away with using 1 formation for >80% of the game (although I'm guilty of that too - but I don't have the squad depth to play other formations). Last edited on 2013-04-02 15:15:49 by holmeboy |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-02 16:53:24 (ID: 89464) Report Abuse |
|
holmeboy wrote:
Wouldn't 3-4-4 be better at defending the pass against Big I than 3-3-5? I have changed my PB to that after my game where both the SG2WR and Big-I passed way too well vs my 3-3 - not to mention ran all over it! 
It seems that the 3-3 is maybe more of a prevent D than the Dime even. My thinking was that the middle SS would be a huge help vs the TEs but the reception is made b4 he even comes into play. Far better to have a LB there or the extra pass rush (theoretically) from the 4-3. What I did like about the 3-4run/3-3pass combo I was using is that I could blitz LBs 15% all the time without fear of getting smoked. Using the 4-3 that way is risky imo. I am thinking of changing most of my PB to 4-3 vs run and 3-4 vs pass.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 6 7 >| | |
| Main / Discussions / engine v3 bashing goes here | |
