Is there a way the fullback could have plays that would have him as the singleback in run and pass plays in both Shotgun and Ace formations? That would allow for the creation of a run&shoot playbook.
Forum > Suggestions > More Fullback plays
While I like the idea for some Fullback love, as far as I know there are no such plays even in real life football. 99.9% positive (no "fullback ONLY" style plays) for Pro Football... 95% positive for College. And, as such, I wouldn't want them here. -1
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Dec 17, 2012 00:44:00
fogie55
offline
offline
you could just suggest that the OOPP be dropped completely between HB and FB, so any RB could line up at any RB slot... this would be both realistic and pretty useful.
implement the suggestion to allow H-backs, too, while we're at it
implement the suggestion to allow H-backs, too, while we're at it
JRoy15
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
While I like the idea for some Fullback love, as far as I know there are no such plays even in real life football. 99.9% positive (no "fullback ONLY" style plays) for Pro Football... 95% positive for College. And, as such, I wouldn't want them here. -1
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
The Run&Shoot offense did exist in pros in the 90s. The biggest reason I really want it is to allow me to put my fb into shotgun and single back. Doing that would allow me to work both my suggestions. If there were plays for the fb like that, then I could put those shotgun plays into my list and fulfill the game's demands that I have a play for each type (inside fb run, outside fb run, etc.) while still keeping the integrity of an all formation specific playbook.
While I like the idea for some Fullback love, as far as I know there are no such plays even in real life football. 99.9% positive (no "fullback ONLY" style plays) for Pro Football... 95% positive for College. And, as such, I wouldn't want them here. -1
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
The Run&Shoot offense did exist in pros in the 90s. The biggest reason I really want it is to allow me to put my fb into shotgun and single back. Doing that would allow me to work both my suggestions. If there were plays for the fb like that, then I could put those shotgun plays into my list and fulfill the game's demands that I have a play for each type (inside fb run, outside fb run, etc.) while still keeping the integrity of an all formation specific playbook.
JRoy15
offline
offline
Originally posted by fogie55
you could just suggest that the OOPP be dropped completely between HB and FB, so any RB could line up at any RB slot... this would be both realistic and pretty useful.
implement the suggestion to allow H-backs, too, while we're at it
That could work too...
you could just suggest that the OOPP be dropped completely between HB and FB, so any RB could line up at any RB slot... this would be both realistic and pretty useful.
implement the suggestion to allow H-backs, too, while we're at it
That could work too...
Still think this is a NGTH. I mean we don't have the flexbone, wishbone, maryland-I, or other similar style offenses... and we don't have the 5-2 defense either. Some things just ain't likely. :shrug: (still no new smileys either. 
)
)Originally posted by JRoy15
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
While I like the idea for some Fullback love, as far as I know there are no such plays even in real life football. 99.9% positive (no "fullback ONLY" style plays) for Pro Football... 95% positive for College. And, as such, I wouldn't want them here. -1
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
The Run&Shoot offense did exist in pros in the 90s. The biggest reason I really want it is to allow me to put my fb into shotgun and single back. Doing that would allow me to work both my suggestions. If there were plays for the fb like that, then I could put those shotgun plays into my list and fulfill the game's demands that I have a play for each type (inside fb run, outside fb run, etc.) while still keeping the integrity of an all formation specific playbook.
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
While I like the idea for some Fullback love, as far as I know there are no such plays even in real life football. 99.9% positive (no "fullback ONLY" style plays) for Pro Football... 95% positive for College. And, as such, I wouldn't want them here. -1
But having more normal plays for FB's is cool.
The Run&Shoot offense did exist in pros in the 90s. The biggest reason I really want it is to allow me to put my fb into shotgun and single back. Doing that would allow me to work both my suggestions. If there were plays for the fb like that, then I could put those shotgun plays into my list and fulfill the game's demands that I have a play for each type (inside fb run, outside fb run, etc.) while still keeping the integrity of an all formation specific playbook.
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
XtremeTony
offline
offline
I'll go +1 on this one because in a West Coast Offense, the FB can also be 1 of the 5 eligible receivers on any given play if the Offense is in a Regular Personnel.
And also, some teams line up their HB, FB or TE in the Slot on a few plays
And also, some teams line up their HB, FB or TE in the Slot on a few plays
JRoy15
offline
offline
Originally posted by hatchman
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
I could, but that still means I have to put a non-shotgun play in an exclusively shotgun playbook because the playbook editor will not allow NOT having a fullback inside run, outside run, short pass, medium pass, long pass, and goal line play in the playbook. If I wanted a strong I play in a shotgun playbook (or ace formation playbook for that matter) then I wouldn't be making a formation exclusive playbook. Now, how I have attempted to circumvent this is actually putting specific plays into the playbook, then making adjustments in the custom slots, then turning the percentage bias to 0% in hopes the AI won't call those plays.
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
I could, but that still means I have to put a non-shotgun play in an exclusively shotgun playbook because the playbook editor will not allow NOT having a fullback inside run, outside run, short pass, medium pass, long pass, and goal line play in the playbook. If I wanted a strong I play in a shotgun playbook (or ace formation playbook for that matter) then I wouldn't be making a formation exclusive playbook. Now, how I have attempted to circumvent this is actually putting specific plays into the playbook, then making adjustments in the custom slots, then turning the percentage bias to 0% in hopes the AI won't call those plays.
Edited by JRoy15 on Dec 17, 2012 22:20:57
Originally posted by hatchman
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
10% OOP sux
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
10% OOP sux
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by hatchman
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
10% OOP sux
post where it stats there is a 10% OOP for a FB being in a HB slot
Originally posted by hatchman
why not just use your custom slots for the HB's and put your FB in say HB2 and use that situationally in the AI?
10% OOP sux
post where it stats there is a 10% OOP for a FB being in a HB slot
fogie55
offline
offline
Originally posted by hatchman
post where it stats there is a 10% OOP for a FB being in a HB slot
i imagine its no more than 5%, but still too much...they should be 100% interchangable.
post where it stats there is a 10% OOP for a FB being in a HB slot
i imagine its no more than 5%, but still too much...they should be 100% interchangable.
Originally posted by fogie55
i imagine its no more than 5%, but still too much...they should be 100% interchangable.
if I am not mistaken it is around 5% OOP for them to interchange. I just wanted to see if Yello1 actually knew what he was talking about or if he was just spouting out numbers to try to help a argument.
i imagine its no more than 5%, but still too much...they should be 100% interchangable.
if I am not mistaken it is around 5% OOP for them to interchange. I just wanted to see if Yello1 actually knew what he was talking about or if he was just spouting out numbers to try to help a argument.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
