Warrior General Games

+1

Wu-nderful idea!

-1. Set CB2 -> WR1, CB4 -> WR2, and FS -> WR3, and you have the makings of an ugly double-CB overload blitz without the benefit of TE blocking. No thanks.

Originally posted by CDZYO
-1. Set CB2 -> WR1, CB4 -> WR2, and FS -> WR3, and you have the makings of an ugly double-CB overload blitz without the benefit of TE blocking. No thanks.

because you cant overload IRL?

Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
because you cant overload IRL?



There's lots of stuff we can't do in-game that we can do IRL.

first of all, if someone wanted to do an overload they would need 2 corners capeable of blitzing

second of all if they did have those two blitzing CBs, they would have to play them in different positions to do the overload, thus putting them at risk in every other situation

risk/reward imo

Originally posted by CDZYO
-1. Set CB2 -> WR1, CB4 -> WR2, and FS -> WR3, and you have the makings of an ugly double-CB overload blitz without the benefit of TE blocking. No thanks.

can do the same thing now with the ROLB

but what I'd rather see is the CB3 be movable. that way you could use him to cover a receiving TE.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes
can do the same thing now with the ROLB

but what I'd rather see is the CB3 be movable. that way you could use him to cover a receiving TE.

I probably use dime more than any nickle variation though, and especially against trips, I would like to move CB4

Just don't use Cover w/o Move

+1

Originally posted by RyanCane26
Just don't use Cover w/o Move

the whole reasoning for being able to move them is because the default alignments if you set it to cover man make it easy for the CB to get picked on EVERY play from trips

The OC in me wants to say -1

but it really makes good sense. +1

please to be doing this

CB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFY2kJ96jNY