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 / Lopsided tactics Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-11-16 23:38:43 (ID: 100013695) Report Abuse |
|
Templer wrote:
I am interested if the colleagues now come to the conclusion that your "expansion", your described "improvment" for the issue was successful and that now lopsided teams are easier to handle. 1/ It has had the desired effect a little but I don't like it. 2/ I think most teams have worked out that you need to use a min of 4 basic formations and the single back formations (and especially SG4WR) are thus not getting penalized at all and are still dominant when in use (again, esp SG4WR). It is too easy to run in RZA with a FB and without blocking by FBs and TEs. Not sure what the experience of others has been like, but the idea of using the I and Pro has disappeared for me - they seem clearly comparatively weak to the single back formations. Last edited on 2013-11-16 23:40:35 by hosh13 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
notsch
|
posted: 2013-11-17 09:25:33 (ID: 100013719) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
2/ I think most teams have worked out that you need to use a min of 4 basic formations and the single back formations (and especially SG4WR) are thus not getting penalized at all and are still dominant when in use (again, esp SG4WR). Not sure what the experience of others has been like, but the idea of using the I and Pro has disappeared for me - they seem clearly comparatively weak to the single back formations. +1  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gtjohn
|
posted: 2013-11-17 09:54:46 (ID: 100013722) Report Abuse |
|
Since the changes I have noticed that runs for me from the ProSet have increased massively, as have passes from Big I.....quite bizarre
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
alexshans84
|
posted: 2013-12-18 15:51:20 (ID: 100016711) Report Abuse |
|
From Thunder 1.1 Bowl match: Mantyla (WR) - 66 plays, 16 receptions, 155 yds, 1 TD, 1 dropped pass. Is it what they call "finding favourable matchups and exploiting it" or is it a lopsided tactic
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-12-18 16:05:28 (ID: 100016714) Report Abuse | |
|
alexshans84 wrote:
From Thunder 1.1 Bowl match: Mantyla (WR) - 66 plays, 16 receptions, 155 yds, 1 TD, 1 dropped pass. Is it what they call "finding favourable matchups and exploiting it" or is it a lopsided tactic Jean-Noel Dalecký has 9 receptions and 5 drops. It wasn't like Mantyla was the only receiver being targeted (like G*I dark wing tactic). Steve SD Blitz |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-12-18 20:32:29 (ID: 100016741) Report Abuse |
|
That's all from the SG formations with pass outside on every play, so those 2 WRs get the bulk of the action.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-12-19 00:48:22 (ID: 100016764) Report Abuse | |
|
hosh13 wrote:
That's all from the SG formations with pass outside on every play, so those 2 WRs get the bulk of the action. He's using several different formations, he's running and passing - - obviously he's got some directional settings selected. I guess there is a fine line between game strategy and lopsided tactics. Perhaps its in the eye of the beholder? Steve SD Blitz |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-12-19 01:43:50 (ID: 100016769) Report Abuse |
|
I'd say it's ok, as until the issues with MLBs being over powered in pass coverage, and pass catching RBs are sorted, the main 2 wideouts in any of the single back formations are likely to be the targets for most passes.
Even without specifying passing to both flanks, I would assume they get more targets, as they will be the best receivers on the team and intelligent QBs are supposed to try to target open receivers - they are more likely to be open (unless the opposition has 2 extremely good corners) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-12-19 02:37:28 (ID: 100016772) Report Abuse |
|
Not sure if it's only my team and I'm doing something wrong with my WRs but I find the targets to be pretty evenly distributed, maybe even too well.
Adding catches and drops (which should give targets, right?) the numbers in the league for my team are like this. WR1: 485 plays - 66 targets = 13.6% WR2: 510 plays - 70 targets = 13.7% WR3: 498 plays - 58 targets = 11.6% WR4: 492 plays - 69 targets = 14.0% WR5: 402 plays - 67 targets = 16.7% WR6: 327 plays - 40 targets = 12.2% If I had it my way #1 & 2 would be targeted more, probably #3 too but #5 is targetted way too often, ditto #6, they're more here for depth than anything and clearly aren't as good as the top 4 guys. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-12-19 02:46:31 (ID: 100016775) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Not sure if it's only my team and I'm doing something wrong with my WRs but I find the targets to be pretty evenly distributed, maybe even too well. Adding catches and drops (which should give targets, right?) the numbers in the league for my team are like this. WR1: 485 plays - 66 targets = 13.6% WR2: 510 plays - 70 targets = 13.7% WR3: 498 plays - 58 targets = 11.6% WR4: 492 plays - 69 targets = 14.0% WR5: 402 plays - 67 targets = 16.7% WR6: 327 plays - 40 targets = 12.2% If I had it my way #1 & 2 would be targeted more, probably #3 too but #5 is targetted way too often, ditto #6, they're more here for depth than anything and clearly aren't as good as the top 4 guys. Not sure here, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that you don't let them play the whole game and replace them? Perhaps the teams that are able to target their #1 & #2 WR more are simply not substituiting them, and thus they have alot more chances to catch the ball. Just a guess. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Lopsided tactics | |
