It would be great to change blitzing directions for d-line dots so you could for example close slams or dives gaps more effectivelly because in peewee inside rush plays can win a game without any other plays.
Forum > Suggestions > D-line blitz options
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
whodey08
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
fogie55
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Originally posted by evileyez
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
SikoraP13 DTD
offline
offline
+1, has been suggested dozens of times before. Would love to see this implemented along with twists/stunts. Essentially, just allow us to pick the gaps we want the lineman to run through. Linebackers too, ideally.
Originally posted by T2
Originally posted by evileyez
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Originally posted by evileyez
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
why is this always used as an excuse?
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
why is this always used as an excuse?
jetsown09
offline
offline
Originally posted by SikoraP13 DTD
+1, has been suggested dozens of times before. Would love to see this implemented along with twists/stunts. Essentially, just allow us to pick the gaps we want the lineman to run through. Linebackers too, ideally.
+1, has been suggested dozens of times before. Would love to see this implemented along with twists/stunts. Essentially, just allow us to pick the gaps we want the lineman to run through. Linebackers too, ideally.
BadgerPhil
offline
offline
Originally posted by joe
why is this always used as an excuse?
Not so much an excuse, but a reason. The blocking logic would need an overhaul for this to happen, which probably ain't going to happen.
why is this always used as an excuse?
Not so much an excuse, but a reason. The blocking logic would need an overhaul for this to happen, which probably ain't going to happen.
Originally posted by joe
why is this always used as an excuse?
Originally posted by BadgerPhil
Not so much an excuse, but a reason. The blocking logic would need an overhaul for this to happen, which probably ain't going to happen.
Obviously you weren't here for the myriad of suggestions begging GLB to fix the blocking pathing for fullbacks, wr's, te's, o-linemen, and hb's. Not to mention the vast array of posts about the poor pathing of ST's and returners. It'd be sweet if it was a simple fix... but (GLB) history has shown that it is anything but simple. Don't get me wrong... I'd love to see this happen. I just don't think it will for a long time... if ever.
why is this always used as an excuse?
Originally posted by BadgerPhil
Not so much an excuse, but a reason. The blocking logic would need an overhaul for this to happen, which probably ain't going to happen.
Obviously you weren't here for the myriad of suggestions begging GLB to fix the blocking pathing for fullbacks, wr's, te's, o-linemen, and hb's. Not to mention the vast array of posts about the poor pathing of ST's and returners. It'd be sweet if it was a simple fix... but (GLB) history has shown that it is anything but simple. Don't get me wrong... I'd love to see this happen. I just don't think it will for a long time... if ever.
jimmiejoe
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Kinda like custom slots for every position..... too good of an idea apparently, or too "difficult" to implement.
As a defensive guy, I love this idea.
Seeing that blocking, in general, has been troublesome since the beginning, I suspect this won't come to be.
Kinda like custom slots for every position..... too good of an idea apparently, or too "difficult" to implement.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
