Seems like world league passing is like the Patriots. All TE's with a little WR help. But really top 10 receivers in World League and none are WR's. Like 8 out of the top 10 are TE's.
ANumber1Roy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mob-6
People don't know how to build WL WRs.
XD
Or the sim doesn't support WR's but your somewhat right about most not knowing how to build WR's.
People don't know how to build WL WRs.
XD
Or the sim doesn't support WR's but your somewhat right about most not knowing how to build WR's.
Sellars
offline
offline
Sim is broken, diff between WR and TE/backs being most CB's built to stop passes and most LB's are not built soley for that purpose. Still its a passing league atm.
Time Trial
offline
offline
6WRs on a team, usually given extra coverage.
1-2rTEs on a team, sometimes given extra coverage, but not always.
HBs are probably screens and the occasional go route or YAC attack.
1-2rTEs on a team, sometimes given extra coverage, but not always.
HBs are probably screens and the occasional go route or YAC attack.
Midknight
offline
offline
It’s a complex question and it’s easy for some to blame the sim, but there are of lot of reasons why WR don’t tend to be successful. The underlying reasons that contribute to it though is group think and that there are more variables required for coordinators to conduct for a successful passing game.
SunshineMan89
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
6WRs on a team, usually given extra coverage.
1-2rTEs on a team, sometimes given extra coverage, but not always.
HBs are probably screens and the occasional go route or YAC attack.
This, plus it's much easier, as an OC, to force it to a TE/HB/FB if you see a mismatch to attack. WRs can still be efficient at the WL level, it's just difficult to be both efficient and high volume.
6WRs on a team, usually given extra coverage.
1-2rTEs on a team, sometimes given extra coverage, but not always.
HBs are probably screens and the occasional go route or YAC attack.
This, plus it's much easier, as an OC, to force it to a TE/HB/FB if you see a mismatch to attack. WRs can still be efficient at the WL level, it's just difficult to be both efficient and high volume.
LQQK
offline
offline
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
TE Coverage is much weaker than WR cverage for some reason
To me, it mostly has to do with the ALG disparity between WR's and CB's.
All WR archetypes - including speedsters - only get a 0.4 alg for majors (most importantly speed/agility, which is what creates separation) whereas CB's get a 0.5 alg for their majors.
Over 79 levels, that's a 7.9 difference in majors between the two.
In addition to that, I think builders of WRs have a tough time in general because they have 5 majors versus a CBs 4. There is more gray area and thus more questioning as to which majors should take precedence over others.
At this point in time, WRs seem to get the shit end of the stick. I think the tendency right now is to build smaller/lighter man-specialist CBs (5'8, 170). Since there is no way to beat a CB that is built properly (which most are at the top levels) with speed/agility, I believe the way to go is towards large possession WR's that can beat these hobbit-sized CBs with a 6'6 frame and jumping ability. Since every CB is going to cap speed first, the possession WR needs to combat that by owning them in agility. Quick slants, crosses, dig routes and curls are routes that should bode well for the possession WRs big frame and (possible) agility advantage, IMO.
TE Coverage is much weaker than WR cverage for some reason
To me, it mostly has to do with the ALG disparity between WR's and CB's.
All WR archetypes - including speedsters - only get a 0.4 alg for majors (most importantly speed/agility, which is what creates separation) whereas CB's get a 0.5 alg for their majors.
Over 79 levels, that's a 7.9 difference in majors between the two.
In addition to that, I think builders of WRs have a tough time in general because they have 5 majors versus a CBs 4. There is more gray area and thus more questioning as to which majors should take precedence over others.
At this point in time, WRs seem to get the shit end of the stick. I think the tendency right now is to build smaller/lighter man-specialist CBs (5'8, 170). Since there is no way to beat a CB that is built properly (which most are at the top levels) with speed/agility, I believe the way to go is towards large possession WR's that can beat these hobbit-sized CBs with a 6'6 frame and jumping ability. Since every CB is going to cap speed first, the possession WR needs to combat that by owning them in agility. Quick slants, crosses, dig routes and curls are routes that should bode well for the possession WRs big frame and (possible) agility advantage, IMO.
Edited by LQQK on Feb 11, 2012 23:31:39
Edited by LQQK on Feb 11, 2012 23:30:44
Edited by LQQK on Feb 11, 2012 23:29:11
Edited by LQQK on Feb 11, 2012 23:28:24
Edited by LQQK on Feb 11, 2012 23:23:26
ANumber1Roy
offline
offline
Originally posted by LQQK
To me, it mostly has to do with the ALG disparity between WR's and CB's.
All WR archetypes - including speedsters - only get a 0.4 alg for majors (most importantly speed/agility, which is what creates separation) whereas CB's get a 0.5 alg for their majors.
Over 79 levels, that's a 7.9 difference in majors between the two.
In addition to that, I think builders of WRs have a tough time in general because they have 5 majors versus a CBs 4. There is more gray area and thus more questioning as to which majors should take precedence over others.
At this point in time, WRs seem to get the shit end of the stick. I think the tendency right now is to build smaller/lighter man-specialist CBs (5'8, 170). Since there is no way to beat a CB that is built properly (which most are at the top levels) with speed/agility, I believe the way to go is towards large possession WR's that can beat these hobbit-sized CBs with a 6'6 frame and jumping ability. Since every CB is going to cap speed first, the possession WR needs to combat that by owning them in agility. Quick slants, crosses, dig routes and curls are routes that should bode well for the possession WRs big frame and (possible) agility advantage, IMO.
You still need to make taller CB's cause they will get thrown on with taller WR's. I have a 5'8' CB blitzer with 140+ speed and 90+ agility and he gets passes completed on him much more than my similar tall CB at the same level. Height makes a big difference in coverage.
To me, it mostly has to do with the ALG disparity between WR's and CB's.
All WR archetypes - including speedsters - only get a 0.4 alg for majors (most importantly speed/agility, which is what creates separation) whereas CB's get a 0.5 alg for their majors.
Over 79 levels, that's a 7.9 difference in majors between the two.
In addition to that, I think builders of WRs have a tough time in general because they have 5 majors versus a CBs 4. There is more gray area and thus more questioning as to which majors should take precedence over others.
At this point in time, WRs seem to get the shit end of the stick. I think the tendency right now is to build smaller/lighter man-specialist CBs (5'8, 170). Since there is no way to beat a CB that is built properly (which most are at the top levels) with speed/agility, I believe the way to go is towards large possession WR's that can beat these hobbit-sized CBs with a 6'6 frame and jumping ability. Since every CB is going to cap speed first, the possession WR needs to combat that by owning them in agility. Quick slants, crosses, dig routes and curls are routes that should bode well for the possession WRs big frame and (possible) agility advantage, IMO.
You still need to make taller CB's cause they will get thrown on with taller WR's. I have a 5'8' CB blitzer with 140+ speed and 90+ agility and he gets passes completed on him much more than my similar tall CB at the same level. Height makes a big difference in coverage.
LQQK
offline
offline
Originally posted by ANumber1Roy
You still need to make taller CB's cause they will get thrown on with taller WR's. I have a 5'8' CB blitzer with 140+ speed and 90+ agility and he gets passes completed on him much more than my similar tall CB at the same level. Height makes a big difference in coverage.
That wasn't the point.
I'm not saying I advocate every CB being 5'8 170 lbs. I'm only saying that I think many people might be going in that direction for the sake of speed and agility. Even if a CB is on the taller side and is 6'0", 6'1", or even 6'3", the point remains that a 6'6" possession WR should still be able to win on the majority of routes to where he can use his body to box out the CB from making a play on the ball (slants, crosses, digs, curls). Since the sim isn't in favor of WRs beating CB with speed/agility right now, that may and should be the best way to beat them.
You still need to make taller CB's cause they will get thrown on with taller WR's. I have a 5'8' CB blitzer with 140+ speed and 90+ agility and he gets passes completed on him much more than my similar tall CB at the same level. Height makes a big difference in coverage.
That wasn't the point.
I'm not saying I advocate every CB being 5'8 170 lbs. I'm only saying that I think many people might be going in that direction for the sake of speed and agility. Even if a CB is on the taller side and is 6'0", 6'1", or even 6'3", the point remains that a 6'6" possession WR should still be able to win on the majority of routes to where he can use his body to box out the CB from making a play on the ball (slants, crosses, digs, curls). Since the sim isn't in favor of WRs beating CB with speed/agility right now, that may and should be the best way to beat them.
Edited by LQQK on Feb 12, 2012 01:10:41
Edited by LQQK on Feb 12, 2012 01:09:42
IIAMLEGEND
offline
offline
You answered your own question TBH TE's usually have the better match up, just like IRL
ANumber1Roy
offline
offline
People would be making a mistake making short CB's for coverage. Only advantage to short CB's is better balance for break block rolls and fumble recovery. You get the +2 agility but most people start capping speed 1st anyway so you have time to train up agility before capping it.
Homage
offline
offline
Originally posted by ANumber1Roy
People would be making a mistake making short CB's for coverage. Only advantage to short CB's is better balance for break block rolls and fumble recovery. You get the +2 agility but most people start capping speed 1st anyway so you have time to train up agility before capping it.
It's best to actually go speed them vision, and then work your way back to agility.
People would be making a mistake making short CB's for coverage. Only advantage to short CB's is better balance for break block rolls and fumble recovery. You get the +2 agility but most people start capping speed 1st anyway so you have time to train up agility before capping it.
It's best to actually go speed them vision, and then work your way back to agility.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
