+1000000000000
Vinceable
offline
offline
If you want it to be like Middle School football then that's a good idea. But if you want it to be like the NFL then it's a bad idea.
GSUFan513
offline
offline
Originally posted by GG
The use of the term WLB, MLB, SLB is only used in 4-3 formations.
In 3-4, they use LOLB, LILB, RILB, ROLB because it's more of an interchangeable scheme where both LOLB/ROLB are treated the same and LILB/RILB are treated the same.
Well, you could have it to where when you choose a BASE offense you choose the guys you want in there at those positions. For instance when you choose 4-3 you get to assign WLB MLB SLB, and in 3-4 you assign LOLB LILB RILB ROLB. and for the DC, you would have the 2nd slot in the MLB being the RILB if 3-4 is ever run.
The use of the term WLB, MLB, SLB is only used in 4-3 formations.
In 3-4, they use LOLB, LILB, RILB, ROLB because it's more of an interchangeable scheme where both LOLB/ROLB are treated the same and LILB/RILB are treated the same.
Well, you could have it to where when you choose a BASE offense you choose the guys you want in there at those positions. For instance when you choose 4-3 you get to assign WLB MLB SLB, and in 3-4 you assign LOLB LILB RILB ROLB. and for the DC, you would have the 2nd slot in the MLB being the RILB if 3-4 is ever run.
GG
offline
offline
Originally posted by GSUFan513
Originally posted by GG
The use of the term WLB, MLB, SLB is only used in 4-3 formations.
In 3-4, they use LOLB, LILB, RILB, ROLB because it's more of an interchangeable scheme where both LOLB/ROLB are treated the same and LILB/RILB are treated the same.
Well, you could have it to where when you choose a BASE offense you choose the guys you want in there at those positions. For instance when you choose 4-3 you get to assign WLB MLB SLB, and in 3-4 you assign LOLB LILB RILB ROLB. and for the DC, you would have the 2nd slot in the MLB being the RILB if 3-4 is ever run.
Whichever method is used is cool, for Bort to best determine, but the actual depth charts really do need a way where you can set a whole depth chart specific for 3-4 and specific for 4-3. That includes the DT/NT, DE, and OLB positions. Which would all change depending on scheme, and the current all-purpose depth chart gets too messy and difficult to ensure specific players get used in specific positions depending on specific defensive scheme.
The terminology thing is just how they should be named seeing as they're called that in real life. Not LOLB or ROLB in a 4-3 scheme at all. But specifically Will or Sam because it requires different skill-sets than the 3-4's OLBs.
Originally posted by GG
The use of the term WLB, MLB, SLB is only used in 4-3 formations.
In 3-4, they use LOLB, LILB, RILB, ROLB because it's more of an interchangeable scheme where both LOLB/ROLB are treated the same and LILB/RILB are treated the same.
Well, you could have it to where when you choose a BASE offense you choose the guys you want in there at those positions. For instance when you choose 4-3 you get to assign WLB MLB SLB, and in 3-4 you assign LOLB LILB RILB ROLB. and for the DC, you would have the 2nd slot in the MLB being the RILB if 3-4 is ever run.
Whichever method is used is cool, for Bort to best determine, but the actual depth charts really do need a way where you can set a whole depth chart specific for 3-4 and specific for 4-3. That includes the DT/NT, DE, and OLB positions. Which would all change depending on scheme, and the current all-purpose depth chart gets too messy and difficult to ensure specific players get used in specific positions depending on specific defensive scheme.
The terminology thing is just how they should be named seeing as they're called that in real life. Not LOLB or ROLB in a 4-3 scheme at all. But specifically Will or Sam because it requires different skill-sets than the 3-4's OLBs.
Last edited Dec 29, 2008 21:10:22
nomargfan661
offline
offline
I've been following football for almost ten years and I've never heard of the positions WOLB and SOLB...I'm only familiar with the LOLB and ROLB. I honestly don't see what the problem is about switching, though. Aren't they the same thing??
Crawly
offline
offline
Originally posted by nomargfan661
I've been following football for almost ten years and I've never heard of the positions WOLB and SOLB...I'm only familiar with the LOLB and ROLB. I honestly don't see what the problem is about switching, though. Aren't they the same thing??
You've never heard of "Sam", "Mike", and "Will" linebackers? The terminology is regularly used in the NFL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football_positions#Linebackers
The difference is simple - if the offense shifts the TE from left to right, you end up having a different guy needing to cover him and a different side open to blitzing (not to mention strong side and weak side runs flip directions, and so on).
I've been following football for almost ten years and I've never heard of the positions WOLB and SOLB...I'm only familiar with the LOLB and ROLB. I honestly don't see what the problem is about switching, though. Aren't they the same thing??
You've never heard of "Sam", "Mike", and "Will" linebackers? The terminology is regularly used in the NFL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football_positions#Linebackers
The difference is simple - if the offense shifts the TE from left to right, you end up having a different guy needing to cover him and a different side open to blitzing (not to mention strong side and weak side runs flip directions, and so on).
Last edited Jan 13, 2009 07:10:50
weitz15
offline
offline
My team designates a smaller, faster LB to specifically cover the TE on routes, and a stronger OLB to help with the run. The SOLB and WOLB would be very helpful in running my defense.
eshaghoff
offline
offline
+1 but i think a team should be able to choose if it wants a 4-3 defense versus 3-4, and whether or not they prefer W/SLB to R/LLB
DMeide
offline
offline
Makes perfect sense. If a team's two outside linebackers have one who is better suited for coverage of the TE and the other better suited for blitzing/HB containment, there is no reason not to be able to put WLB and SLB, and in a 3-4, you'd have WOLB, WILB, SILB, SOLB...
This would make teams have to make a choice too. Suppose the LT isn't as good as the RT; do you want your blitzing linebacker to be the ROLB then - if that's the case, you trade-off the fact that the TE could line up on either side and you wouldn't get to choose where to line up the LB vis-a-vis the TE.
Basically you'd get the choice - what's more important, that you get the OT/LB blitz matchup you want, or that you get the TE/LB match-up you want.
This would make teams have to make a choice too. Suppose the LT isn't as good as the RT; do you want your blitzing linebacker to be the ROLB then - if that's the case, you trade-off the fact that the TE could line up on either side and you wouldn't get to choose where to line up the LB vis-a-vis the TE.
Basically you'd get the choice - what's more important, that you get the OT/LB blitz matchup you want, or that you get the TE/LB match-up you want.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
