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 / Formation Rebalancing Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
panoramix
|
posted: 2013-04-19 18:49:18 (ID: 92182) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
With a decent set of DBs you could pretty much stifle the SG4WR using 3-4-4. My own results using 3-4-4 were very good against the pass. Yes, you would give up an occasional breakaway TD, but isn't that realistic? No Jonny, it's simply no realistic to defend a 4WR with only two CBs. 4 WRs = 4 CBs Everytime. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-04-19 19:00:53 (ID: 92185) Report Abuse |
|
I think, and I may be wrong, that the secondary works more like a zone defense than a man to man. That being the case the safeties will help to cover the wr's just as much as the cb's. Right?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-04-19 19:04:25 (ID: 92186) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
I think, and I may be wrong, that the secondary works more like a zone defense than a man to man. That being the case the safeties will help to cover the wr's just as much as the cb's. Right? Yes it's zone defense. But I'm not sure on the routes or types of routes the offense would run |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2013-04-19 21:42:27 (ID: 92200) Report Abuse |
|
panoramix wrote:
JonnyP wrote:
With a decent set of DBs you could pretty much stifle the SG4WR using 3-4-4. My own results using 3-4-4 were very good against the pass. Yes, you would give up an occasional breakaway TD, but isn't that realistic? No Jonny, it's simply no realistic to defend a 4WR with only two CBs. 4 WRs = 4 CBs Everytime. Lol... in R/L if the Off comes out with 4 Wrs and OC sees the DEF come out in anything other than 4CBs.... I dont care what the play is originally you can bet the OFF will audible to take advantage of that matchup opportunity. Of course in this game this all depends on the skill levels of the players involved but all things being equal, If a team comes out in a SG4W and the DEF comes out in anything other than some sort of heavy coverage package... Advantage should be to the OFF pass all of the time. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-04-19 21:52:54 (ID: 92201) Report Abuse |
|
Swordpriest1 wrote:
panoramix wrote:
JonnyP wrote:
With a decent set of DBs you could pretty much stifle the SG4WR using 3-4-4. My own results using 3-4-4 were very good against the pass. Yes, you would give up an occasional breakaway TD, but isn't that realistic? No Jonny, it's simply no realistic to defend a 4WR with only two CBs. 4 WRs = 4 CBs Everytime. Lol... in R/L if the Off comes out with 4 Wrs and OC sees the DEF come out in anything other than 4CBs.... I dont care what the play is originally you can bet the OFF will audible to take advantage of that matchup opportunity. Of course in this game this all depends on the skill levels of the players involved but all things being equal, If a team comes out in a SG4W and the DEF comes out in anything other than some sort of heavy coverage package... Advantage should be to the OFF pass all of the time.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
mikemike778
|
posted: 2013-04-19 22:35:13 (ID: 92206) Report Abuse |
|
holmeboy wrote:
If a FB has high carrying and agility there's no reason he can't be as successful as a RB with the same skills. The only issue I had was with FBs with <10 blocking being too good at stopping blitzers. I share a lot of the same sentiments as JonnyP here. Imo not sure improving the Dime v the run was the way to go (if thats what happened). Yep, FB seem to always have a 100% block success rate regardless of blocking skill. Did wonder whether the failed blocks were just not being reported. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-19 23:16:05 (ID: 92208) Report Abuse |
|
mikemike778 wrote:
Yep, FB seem to always have a 100% block success rate regardless of blocking skill. Did wonder whether the failed blocks were just not being reported. I can't believe you haven't worked that out yet. How do you think there can be sacks yet never a reported missed block by a FB? 
Just about every time there's a sack, that's a FB missed block if it was a formation with a FB in it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
scottishbronco
|
posted: 2013-04-19 23:36:18 (ID: 92214) Report Abuse |
|
i'm 99% sure that Admin has stated that FB's cannot miss blocks because they just slow down the defender they block, rather than stopping them from progressing.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-19 23:42:25 (ID: 92217) Report Abuse |
|
scottishbronco wrote:
i'm 99% sure that Admin has stated that FB's cannot miss blocks because they just slow down the defender they block, rather than stopping them from progressing. That begs the question - can anyone show a play where it says the FB blocked but the QB gets sacked anyway? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-04-20 00:46:06 (ID: 92221) Report Abuse |
|
i have plenty of examples
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Formation Rebalancing | |
