As a DC before and after the DPC limits were put into place I can tell you that all that did was further nerf a position that had already been hit hard by the nerf hammer.
Forum > Suggestions > make blitzing LBs useful again
bamastrac
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dub J
As a DC before and after the DPC limits were put into place I can tell you that all that did was further nerf a position that had already been hit hard by the nerf hammer.
agreed.
As a DC before and after the DPC limits were put into place I can tell you that all that did was further nerf a position that had already been hit hard by the nerf hammer.
agreed.
Time Trial
offline
offline
You can get more pressure by sending more dots, but many people are happy blitzing 2 or 3 dots because:
a) the QB doesn't sense the pressure and won't throw the ball into single coverage early; and
b) there are more dots playing coverage in general, so the QB hesitates longer, resulting in the sack when you send 2-3 dots.
I hate how easy it is for DEs to get to the QB in a rush 3 situation, but I think a lot of that is because people aren't building their OTs to pass block nearly as well as people are building their DEs to pass rush.
a) the QB doesn't sense the pressure and won't throw the ball into single coverage early; and
b) there are more dots playing coverage in general, so the QB hesitates longer, resulting in the sack when you send 2-3 dots.
I hate how easy it is for DEs to get to the QB in a rush 3 situation, but I think a lot of that is because people aren't building their OTs to pass block nearly as well as people are building their DEs to pass rush.
Dr. E
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
You can get more pressure by sending more dots, but many people are happy blitzing 2 or 3 dots because:
a) the QB doesn't sense the pressure and won't throw the ball into single coverage early; and
b) there are more dots playing coverage in general, so the QB hesitates longer, resulting in the sack when you send 2-3 dots.
I hate how easy it is for DEs to get to the QB in a rush 3 situation, but I think a lot of that is because people aren't building their OTs to pass block nearly as well as people are building their DEs to pass rush.
They get to the QB mostly because the Guards tend to move inside to assist with the center when there are only 3 on the pass rush. I'm thinking Bort's code has their way point in the middle. The guards don't always do that, but mostly, not sure what the game condition/build particulars in effect that have the guard go outside to assist with the DE instead of inside. Probably a combination of a lot of things, tactics, build, threat of the pass rusher as interpreted by Bort's code.
You can get more pressure by sending more dots, but many people are happy blitzing 2 or 3 dots because:
a) the QB doesn't sense the pressure and won't throw the ball into single coverage early; and
b) there are more dots playing coverage in general, so the QB hesitates longer, resulting in the sack when you send 2-3 dots.
I hate how easy it is for DEs to get to the QB in a rush 3 situation, but I think a lot of that is because people aren't building their OTs to pass block nearly as well as people are building their DEs to pass rush.
They get to the QB mostly because the Guards tend to move inside to assist with the center when there are only 3 on the pass rush. I'm thinking Bort's code has their way point in the middle. The guards don't always do that, but mostly, not sure what the game condition/build particulars in effect that have the guard go outside to assist with the DE instead of inside. Probably a combination of a lot of things, tactics, build, threat of the pass rusher as interpreted by Bort's code.
Sellars
offline
offline
TBH LBers are kind of terrible in comparison to other D slots at rushing, GLB could not find a middle ground so they chose the non OP route
threadkiller
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dub J
DEs are actually almost getting kinda decent stats. I'm surprised people haven't been screaming for a nerf.
One type of DE is getting very good stats. The str and agi based builds are not. I would bet if all the builds were opened, the vast majority of those with the ridiculous sack totals are straight speed builds. Again though, I would guess that has a lot to do with how the vast majority of LTs are built. And the fact that low str doesn't have the negative impact it should (imo) once a block is engaged (160 str oline v. 90 str DE should result in the DE being thrown down or tossed aside when the block roll is successful imo).
Originally posted by Dub J
Reg Pro Elite:
Top 34: 29 DEs, 4 CBs, 1 LB (LB is tied for 29th)... Top DE: 43 sacks, Top CB: 48 sacks, Top LB 19 sacks
Reg Pro #2:
Top 31: 27 DEs, 3 LBs, 1 DT .... Top DE: 197 sacks, Top LB: 48 sacks, Top DT: 36 sacks
Reg Pro #3
Top 30: 29 DEs, 1 DT, 0 LBs ...Top DE: 89 sacks, Top DT: 22 sacks, Top LB: 17 sacks
Reg Pro #4
Top 36: 32 DEs, 3 LBs, 1 DT .... Top DE: 78 sacks, Top LB: 27 sacks, Top DT: 21 sacks
Reg Pro #5
Top 33: 30 DEs, 2 LBs, 1 DT ... Top DE: 119 sacks, Top LB: 33 sacks, Top DT: 20 sacks
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
DEs are actually almost getting kinda decent stats. I'm surprised people haven't been screaming for a nerf.
One type of DE is getting very good stats. The str and agi based builds are not. I would bet if all the builds were opened, the vast majority of those with the ridiculous sack totals are straight speed builds. Again though, I would guess that has a lot to do with how the vast majority of LTs are built. And the fact that low str doesn't have the negative impact it should (imo) once a block is engaged (160 str oline v. 90 str DE should result in the DE being thrown down or tossed aside when the block roll is successful imo).
Originally posted by Dub J
Reg Pro Elite:
Top 34: 29 DEs, 4 CBs, 1 LB (LB is tied for 29th)... Top DE: 43 sacks, Top CB: 48 sacks, Top LB 19 sacks
Reg Pro #2:
Top 31: 27 DEs, 3 LBs, 1 DT .... Top DE: 197 sacks, Top LB: 48 sacks, Top DT: 36 sacks
Reg Pro #3
Top 30: 29 DEs, 1 DT, 0 LBs ...Top DE: 89 sacks, Top DT: 22 sacks, Top LB: 17 sacks
Reg Pro #4
Top 36: 32 DEs, 3 LBs, 1 DT .... Top DE: 78 sacks, Top LB: 27 sacks, Top DT: 21 sacks
Reg Pro #5
Top 33: 30 DEs, 2 LBs, 1 DT ... Top DE: 119 sacks, Top LB: 33 sacks, Top DT: 20 sacks
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
Sellars
offline
offline
Originally posted by threadkiller
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
STR/AGL ends are not getting sacks? This is news to the WL
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
STR/AGL ends are not getting sacks? This is news to the WL
threadkiller
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sellars
STR/AGL ends are not getting sacks? This is news to the WL
Is your reading comprehension any better then your quoting ability?
Are you suggesting that strength or agility dominant DE builds are producing sack numbers on par with speed based DE builds in the WL?
STR/AGL ends are not getting sacks? This is news to the WL
Is your reading comprehension any better then your quoting ability?
Are you suggesting that strength or agility dominant DE builds are producing sack numbers on par with speed based DE builds in the WL?
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by threadkiller
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
Yes, I stopped there because the amount of shit teams was increasing. I figured going 5 deep in the reg pro leagues might have been too far, let alone posting all 7.
It is funny how you try to make my argument to appear weak when I posted the results of 6 leagues in this game and all you offered was the link to one dot.
Did you stop there for a reason? Check Reg Pro #6. Top sacker was a LB with 100.
Yes, I stopped there because the amount of shit teams was increasing. I figured going 5 deep in the reg pro leagues might have been too far, let alone posting all 7.
It is funny how you try to make my argument to appear weak when I posted the results of 6 leagues in this game and all you offered was the link to one dot.
Edited by Dub J on Jul 12, 2013 21:18:33
Edited by Dub J on Jul 12, 2013 21:18:18
Dub J
offline
offline
I mean, in Reg Pro #6 11 of the top 20 in sacks are CPU dots. Pretty sure that is why I didn't bother listing that league.
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by threadkiller
Dub, Reg Pro #2 had a DE with 197 sacks...........
Forum > Suggestions > make blitzing LBs useful again
Dub, Reg Pro #2 had a DE with 197 sacks...........
Forum > Suggestions > make blitzing LBs useful again
threadkiller
offline
offline
You're all over the place buddy.
Or maybe you didn't understand my point. To shoot down Reg Pro #6 as being a bad example of a "competitive" league while using Reg Pro 2-5 as examples to "prove" your point doesn't make any sense to me.
But again, my opinion is that a sack per game average by a single player is very useful. We have blitzing LBs at the top level of this game who average that. That (or slightly more I guess) should be what the game is shooting for (again, just my opinion). Not bringing a given position up to what I believe are unrealistic sack (or any statistic you want to look at) numbers that other positions (archetypes, builds, whatever) are garnering at any given time.
Or maybe you didn't understand my point. To shoot down Reg Pro #6 as being a bad example of a "competitive" league while using Reg Pro 2-5 as examples to "prove" your point doesn't make any sense to me.
But again, my opinion is that a sack per game average by a single player is very useful. We have blitzing LBs at the top level of this game who average that. That (or slightly more I guess) should be what the game is shooting for (again, just my opinion). Not bringing a given position up to what I believe are unrealistic sack (or any statistic you want to look at) numbers that other positions (archetypes, builds, whatever) are garnering at any given time.
Edited by threadkiller on Jul 12, 2013 22:58:16
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
