Originally posted by shull
It's a tough comparison to Duck Beard, who certainly has the skins on the wall. I wouldn't pass up having him on my offense, and would be happy with both.
I only compared them to make a point. Duck Beard is not a FB that is built on speed, while he is not slow, he is not exceptionally fast either. Yet he still does quite well as a receiver and the level of competition is identical. That was my point... I was trying to show that a FB can be a good receiving option even without sacrificing any ability to break tackles.
Originally posted by shull
I'm the OC, so I've seen how defenses adjust to cover Impractical and try to use it to my advantage. For that game in particular, Impractical intentionally went out on a low amount of routes...5 or 6, and I'll often choose routes where he's not the primary receiver, hoping to draw double coverage to him so others get one-on-one. In our first game we ran a lot of strong-I weakside dives for a decent degree of success. The second meeting you can see where I went, although obviously not enough. He's also had very few receptions since that game as I haven't change the AI.
I didn't go into it too deeply, again I was merely illustrating a point... a good defense can shut down a good receiving FB. Impractical is nasty, don't get me wrong. The more one dimensional a player is though, the easier they are to shut down... this is why I prefer an offensive build over a specialized build (such as a receiving FB). That's not to say that a specialized build cannot be successful, it's just to say that I prefer the threat of "that FB breaks a tackles every touch on average, I'm boned if I do not have a second tackler around him pretty much all of the time". It really changes how a team has to game plan... not just going to a nickel formation and putting the 3rd CB on the tagged receiving FB... but more like actually having to change positioning of the defense (such as moving LBs back so they can take good angles or using defensive shifts).
Originally posted by shull
It may be adjusted...may not. Too speculative.
Yes, it's merely my speculation. Although, the passing game needs work in-general. Things like route design, coverages and QB decision making are problems that scat back is a band-aid for atm (when it comes to RB passes anyways). Time will tell, but if QB decision making gets fixed and agents continue to build better specialized receiving backs, that +30% boost to speed and agility will make scat backs better than WRs in the passing game... I just cannot see that being cool with Bort, based on his previous track record.
It's a tough comparison to Duck Beard, who certainly has the skins on the wall. I wouldn't pass up having him on my offense, and would be happy with both.
I only compared them to make a point. Duck Beard is not a FB that is built on speed, while he is not slow, he is not exceptionally fast either. Yet he still does quite well as a receiver and the level of competition is identical. That was my point... I was trying to show that a FB can be a good receiving option even without sacrificing any ability to break tackles.
Originally posted by shull
I'm the OC, so I've seen how defenses adjust to cover Impractical and try to use it to my advantage. For that game in particular, Impractical intentionally went out on a low amount of routes...5 or 6, and I'll often choose routes where he's not the primary receiver, hoping to draw double coverage to him so others get one-on-one. In our first game we ran a lot of strong-I weakside dives for a decent degree of success. The second meeting you can see where I went, although obviously not enough. He's also had very few receptions since that game as I haven't change the AI.
I didn't go into it too deeply, again I was merely illustrating a point... a good defense can shut down a good receiving FB. Impractical is nasty, don't get me wrong. The more one dimensional a player is though, the easier they are to shut down... this is why I prefer an offensive build over a specialized build (such as a receiving FB). That's not to say that a specialized build cannot be successful, it's just to say that I prefer the threat of "that FB breaks a tackles every touch on average, I'm boned if I do not have a second tackler around him pretty much all of the time". It really changes how a team has to game plan... not just going to a nickel formation and putting the 3rd CB on the tagged receiving FB... but more like actually having to change positioning of the defense (such as moving LBs back so they can take good angles or using defensive shifts).
Originally posted by shull
It may be adjusted...may not. Too speculative.
Yes, it's merely my speculation. Although, the passing game needs work in-general. Things like route design, coverages and QB decision making are problems that scat back is a band-aid for atm (when it comes to RB passes anyways). Time will tell, but if QB decision making gets fixed and agents continue to build better specialized receiving backs, that +30% boost to speed and agility will make scat backs better than WRs in the passing game... I just cannot see that being cool with Bort, based on his previous track record.
