Warrior General Games

Originally posted by blazzinken
Shouldn't that be fixed with the new ALGs though?

Once dots that have had the new ALGs for their entire career (or even all but the first season) get to WL. Right now the C/G all had higher ALG for the vast majority of their careers.

The room to maneuver will still be in play though.

Not sure why this is even an issue.

DT/NT aren't made for sacks, they pressure up the middle and provide interior run-support. You're never going to [or shouldn't would be a better phrase] get DT/NT that are 20+ sacks players. You would be extremely lucky to get a DT with 10 sacks over the course of a season. There is far too much congestion inside for them to effectively get to the QB on most plays. They engage the G and C on every play, break one block and the hit the other OL, or the HB/FB kept in for pass blocking.

They should be non-glamor positions because they do as much for the defense in terms of stats, as the OL does for the offense.

Originally posted by risico
Originally posted by Mightyhalo

Who really builds a pass rushing DT, and who would even want one?

DT was an interesting position to build until people whined and bort nerfed them into oblivion.

IB4 "but they get revcakes..."

qft!

Originally posted by peadawg
Not sure why this is even an issue.

DT/NT aren't made for sacks, they pressure up the middle and provide interior run-support. You're never going to [or shouldn't would be a better phrase] get DT/NT that are 20+ sacks players. You would be extremely lucky to get a DT with 10 sacks over the course of a season. There is far too much congestion inside for them to effectively get to the QB on most plays. They engage the G and C on every play, break one block and the hit the other OL, or the HB/FB kept in for pass blocking.

They should be non-glamor positions because they do as much for the defense in terms of stats, as the OL does for the offense.

Nobody is suggesting they should get 20. The top pass rushing DTs should be getting at least 8-10 though (especially when most teams play a 4-3 as their base defense). You act like there has never been a DT that got 15 sacks in a season in the NFL.

DTs definitely get a lot more sacks than CBs and safeties do IRL.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
Originally posted by peadawg

Not sure why this is even an issue.

DT/NT aren't made for sacks, they pressure up the middle and provide interior run-support. You're never going to [or shouldn't would be a better phrase] get DT/NT that are 20+ sacks players. You would be extremely lucky to get a DT with 10 sacks over the course of a season. There is far too much congestion inside for them to effectively get to the QB on most plays. They engage the G and C on every play, break one block and the hit the other OL, or the HB/FB kept in for pass blocking.

They should be non-glamor positions because they do as much for the defense in terms of stats, as the OL does for the offense.

Nobody is suggesting they should get 20. The top pass rushing DTs should be getting at least 8-10 though (especially when most teams play a 4-3 as their base defense). You act like there has never been a DT that got 15 sacks in a season in the NFL.

DTs definitely get a lot more sacks than CBs and safeties do IRL.



FACT!

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
Nobody is suggesting they should get 20. The top pass rushing DTs should be getting at least 8-10 though (especially when most teams play a 4-3 as their base defense). You act like there has never been a DT that got 15 sacks in a season in the NFL.

DTs definitely get a lot more sacks than CBs and safeties do IRL.



If you want to compare to RL, there are 5 DT's in the top 50 in 2010 sacks....SUH had 10 and the rest had from 5-7.

You act like the only good dots are on the defense and that the OL builders aren't building great dots to stop the sacks.

I agree that they should get more than CB's and SS, but then again, IRL that happens...GLB which is a game...it does not. The problem is that most teams blitz the CB's and safeties constantly....not typical IRL.

Never said anything to the fact the DT's have never gotten 15 sacks - John Randle, arguably the best interior DT to play the game did it once...Warren Sapp I think did it once as well.

Originally posted by peadawg
Originally posted by Rage Kinard

Nobody is suggesting they should get 20. The top pass rushing DTs should be getting at least 8-10 though (especially when most teams play a 4-3 as their base defense). You act like there has never been a DT that got 15 sacks in a season in the NFL.

DTs definitely get a lot more sacks than CBs and safeties do IRL.



If you want to compare to RL, there are 5 DT's in the top 50 in 2010 sacks....SUH had 10 and the rest had from 5-7.

You act like the only good dots are on the defense and that the OL builders aren't building great dots to stop the sacks.

I agree that they should get more than CB's and SS, but then again, IRL that happens...GLB which is a game...it does not. The problem is that most teams blitz the CB's and safeties constantly....not typical IRL.

Never said anything to the fact the DT's have never gotten 15 sacks - John Randle, arguably the best interior DT to play the game did it once...Warren Sapp I think did it once as well.

Your points would be valid but look at the fact that there are exactly 2 DT with 11 sacks at the Pro level and 1 with 8. 3 DT's out of dozens. Yet they have a CB with 86 sacks and a LB with 112. You want to talk realism but ignore facts. Pass rushing DT's do not exist in this game. I know for a fact there are builds that should dominate interior O-linemen yet do absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by peadawg
Not sure why this is even an issue.

DT/NT aren't made for sacks, they pressure up the middle and provide interior run-support. You're never going to [or shouldn't would be a better phrase] get DT/NT that are 20+ sacks players. You would be extremely lucky to get a DT with 10 sacks over the course of a season. There is far too much congestion inside for them to effectively get to the QB on most plays. They engage the G and C on every play, break one block and the hit the other OL, or the HB/FB kept in for pass blocking.

They should be non-glamor positions because they do as much for the defense in terms of stats, as the OL does for the offense.

What if you DO build them for sacks? You'd expect them to get pushed down a lot more, but youd also expect to see them get double digit sacks, or at least close to that, wouldnt you? The problem is that the game is so tightly controlled that builds dont matter a whole lot anymore. DTs with 100 str 110 spd will still revcake interior OL with 130 strength no problem, but wont get anywhere near the QB. Your idea of what a DT *should* be and what Rage is talking about are 2 different issues

I'm not disputing facts, just trying to temper expectations of what DT's should behave like in GLB. If you compare to RL, they just don't get the numbers, nor are they supposed to. On the other hand, CB's and safeties get ridiculous numbers in GLB but not in RL.

The problem that should be addressed should be to reduce the amount of easy sacks by the other positions rather than find a way to increase sack for yet another position on the defense.

A total TEAM sack number should be hovering around 50-60 IMO. The numbers that some dots pt up for sacks are just insane.

Originally posted by Snakebite99
Originally posted by peadawg

Not sure why this is even an issue.

DT/NT aren't made for sacks, they pressure up the middle and provide interior run-support. You're never going to [or shouldn't would be a better phrase] get DT/NT that are 20+ sacks players. You would be extremely lucky to get a DT with 10 sacks over the course of a season. There is far too much congestion inside for them to effectively get to the QB on most plays. They engage the G and C on every play, break one block and the hit the other OL, or the HB/FB kept in for pass blocking.

They should be non-glamor positions because they do as much for the defense in terms of stats, as the OL does for the offense.

What if you DO build them for sacks? You'd expect them to get pushed down a lot more, but youd also expect to see them get double digit sacks, or at least close to that, wouldnt you? The problem is that the game is so tightly controlled that builds dont matter a whole lot anymore. DTs with 100 str 110 spd will still revcake interior OL with 130 strength no problem, but wont get anywhere near the QB. Your idea of what a DT *should* be and what Rage is talking about are 2 different issues

EXACTLY.

Originally posted by Snakebite99
What if you DO build them for sacks? You'd expect them to get pushed down a lot more, but youd also expect to see them get double digit sacks, or at least close to that, wouldnt you? The problem is that the game is so tightly controlled that builds dont matter a whole lot anymore. DTs with 100 str 110 spd will still revcake interior OL with 130 strength no problem, but wont get anywhere near the QB. Your idea of what a DT *should* be and what Rage is talking about are 2 different issues

I would "like" to see them get double digit sacks for sure, but it's not something that realistically or GLbistically should happen.

I also expect that the interior offensive line is built to STOP the DT's from getting sacks without being revcaked 50% of the time. I would imagine that the revcakes will drop with the off season "tweaks", the sack numbers will increase "somewhat" after the tweak, and then the people building OL and QB's will again start complaining about having to keep the HB/FB and TE in to pass block to stop all the sacks.

It's a sticky-wicket for sure.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I heard that jdbolick has been saying for a while now that the importance of agility needed to be boosted in both breaking and holding pass blocks.

Agreed 100%. Blocking should be all about the ability to hold a block, not how fast you can knock over the opponent. You probably should see 2 or 3 knockdowns (from both sides of the ball) a game at the WL level. Not 40+ like you see now

They could probably get a sack if there was some concept of space in the pocket, it seems like you can have 8 guys (Offensive and Defense) piled up into a space that should be occupied by 2 or 3 dots.

Originally posted by peadawg


You act like the only good dots are on the defense and that the OL builders aren't building great dots to stop the sacks.


You act like there is no diversity of builds between DTs and interior OL. There is very large diversity even at the WL level though.



A big part of the problem is in how OL decides who to block though. Many times DTs are double teamed even when a LB or DE on the team has several sacks and the DT has none.

IMO - each defensive player should start the season with a "threat" or "danger" score based on position. So something like

DT - 75
DE - 70
LB - 65
DB - 50

Unaccounted for pass rushers (outside blitzers not a blocker is not directly assigned to- get 30 pts added to their danger score)

If a player gets a sack in a game, his danger score goes up 5 pts for the game and 1 pt for the season.
If a player gets a hurry, his danger score goes up 1 pt for the game.

If a player doesn't get a sack in a game his danger score goes down 1 pt for each game in a row he has gone without a sack up to 5. (so if it is the 5th game in a row, it goes down 5 pts and the total it would have gone down is 15). The 6th game the total would be 20. After 7 - 25.

Once a player gets a sack, all the negative pts are removed. So, if a player was at -20 for going 6 games without a sack, then gets a sack in game 7, that player would have 25 pts added to danger score (5 for the sack, 20 for the removal of the negative modifier)

When a LB or DB has a high danger score, it would also make QB more likely to audible in extra blockers, whether or not the defense was blitzing. For each time a QB audibles and a blitz doesn't come, the in game danger score for that player would go down.

The VA disguise blitz could artificially lower a player's danger score.

Then any extra OL (those not blocking a defender directly in front of them) pick out who to block randomly, weighted toward players with higher danger scores.

So if 3 DL are pass rushing from a standard 3-4

A NT with a danger score of 50
A RDE with a danger score of 135
A LDE with a danger score of 80

The LG would be much more likely to help block the RDE than the NT
The RG would be slightly more likely to help block the LDE than the NT

Looks like a good post to add to the suggestion thread.