Warrior General Games

Has anyone tried this? I wondered if GLB would limit formations to single back or shotgun that way. Or would it sub in a player from another position?

why would you not want a fullback first of all?


If you do not have a fullback on the roster a computer one will be generated

I believe it would put your backup HB in at FB.

I have a great FB. I would just slide him over to the HB depth chart.

I was attempting to manupulate the play calling more than anything. Force single back sets where a defense would consider it a passing situation. Then run all over them.

I was hoping to hear it would default to sets that only had a single back in them.

If your current FB is good rusher, sign a full blocking FB. Then put your blocking FB as the #1 and the rushing FB as the #2, on the FB depth chart. Also put your rushing FB as the #2 on the HB depth chart. Next set the run play-calling to limit the FB carries in favor of more HB runs. You could also put the rushing FB as the #1 HB and play with the sub settings (I wouldn't though, you don't want the FB in on those single back pitch plays).

This is if you don't have a power back and want one. My FB has been averaging ~4 YPC his entire career. That's with-out a lead blocker and using the craptastic FB run plays. He's also not a rushing FB, he's more of a balanced build with a focus on blocking. I could only imagine if he had a lead blocker and good running plays, on 10-15 carries a game... it seems to be working for the NY Giants, this system would be very much like what they do with Brandon Jacobs (who IMHO is a perfect example of a rushing FB, even if he's actually considered a HB).

Originally posted by majech
I believe it would put your backup HB in at FB.

I would think so to. At least that's what happens in a goal-line 3 TE formation when you only have 1 FB and 2 TEs on the roster. The FB will play TE and a HB will play FB. Although it was a couple of seasons back that I was in that situation, so don't know if it's still the same.

My FB fits the brandon jacobs model nicely. he more or less is a north-south rushing FB that breaks tackles for extra yards instead of jukes. I have a scat back too so its a bit of thunder and lightening with those two.

Here's my favorite highlight from last season with my FB. This was to win the game with only 38 seconds left on the clock.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=120067&pbp_id=4597081

Originally posted by M_Dub
My FB fits the brandon jacobs model nicely. he more or less is a north-south rushing FB that breaks tackles for extra yards instead of jukes. I have a scat back too so its a bit of thunder and lightening with those two.

Here's my favorite highlight from last season with my FB. This was to win the game with only 38 seconds left on the clock.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=120067&pbp_id=4597081

Nice run, but I was referring to having the FB play HB... not having a FB built like a HB (although that can be part of the equation too).

Originally posted by Lathund
Originally posted by majech

I believe it would put your backup HB in at FB.

I would think so to. At least that's what happens in a goal-line 3 TE formation when you only have 1 FB and 2 TEs on the roster. The FB will play TE and a HB will play FB. Although it was a couple of seasons back that I was in that situation, so don't know if it's still the same.

So far as I know, it still works that way. It did last season on my team, because until we fiddled with the depth chart to put our backup FB in as 3rd TE, it would default to me as third TE and the backup FB as the primary FB. And clearly, that was not what we wanted.

So I'm pretty sure that a FB will still sun for the third TE if you don't have one, and it only makes sense that a HB would sub for a FB in that situation.