User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > Whats the ideal pass blocking OT build
Page:
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
I remember drewd21 had these Gs who if I remember correctly only had 150-155 strength but 90 blocking, agility and speed, and they led WL in pancakes. They were only 3 AEQ though so I instructed my guys to try to build something similar but with 4 AEQ and more strength. So what they ended up with was 160 strength and low 90s blocking and agility but only 80 speed. That seemed like good enough speed though IMO. The one guy actually ended up leading WL in pancakes, just like drewed21's guys did. So it seems like that is a good range to be around. Also it seems I suck as an offensive coordinator if I'm just now realizing we had a guy who led World League in pancakes and I never even thought to run the ball more...
Edited by Bash E. Bull on Aug 6, 2022 20:17:31
 
WiSeIVIaN
online
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
50 is too low. But I think 90 is too high... UNLESS... unless you run a LOT of plays with pulling linemen. Then it's ok. Too much speed causes your O-linemen to collapse the pocket too quickly and that pressures your QB when passing. 70 is almost a perfect speed. And, when combined with some VA's and/or 1st step (if applicable), you can then run those sweeps and screens and other pulling lineman plays just as good. Also, 80-90 on the L OT is good anytime but worthless without high agility. (IMHO)


No, DO NOT put first step on OT's, this is what causes the kick out glitch and free pressure/sacks.

Having higher speed on an olinemen absolutely does not make them backpedal faster and cause more pressure. It just helps them stick in front of the dlinemen which is huge for the quality of their hold block scores and decreasing pressure on the QB.

 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
No, DO NOT put first step on OT's, this is what causes the kick out glitch and free pressure/sacks.

Having higher speed on an olinemen absolutely does not make them backpedal faster and cause more pressure. It just helps them stick in front of the dlinemen which is huge for the quality of their hold block scores and decreasing pressure on the QB.



Sorry... wasn't clear. If you're a heavy, or all run team, then yes... 1st step helps. If you pass significantly at all, then you're100% spot on. I didn't clarify that. My bad. For pulling linemen, on running plays, it helps. So if you're on a very heavy or all run style team it has a use. 1st step absolutely hurts in the passing game. FWIW, if you build your O-linemen right you won't need 1st step anyways. I don't ever get it... however I have been on a few 'all run' teams that asked me to get it to help with pulling plays.
 
WiSeIVIaN
online
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Sorry... wasn't clear. If you're a heavy, or all run team, then yes... 1st step helps. If you pass significantly at all, then you're100% spot on. I didn't clarify that. My bad. For pulling linemen, on running plays, it helps. So if you're on a very heavy or all run style team it has a use. 1st step absolutely hurts in the passing game. FWIW, if you build your O-linemen right you won't need 1st step anyways. I don't ever get it... however I have been on a few 'all run' teams that asked me to get it to help with pulling plays.


Thanks Theo.

Just curious, have you ever seen first step issues on interior olinemen pass blocking? Still pumps them too far back? At least without horizontal movement it won't create the OT gap.

I agree first step is secret overpowered on DT's, and likely would be a big help on run blocking as well.
 
Dr. E
offline
Link
 
Ahh, back from GenCon. As for those trying to convince you their opinion on o line is worth anything, the stats on that dot build I posted.
Blocking/Other
Season G Pnck Pnkd RevPnck RevPnkd HryAlw SackAlw Fum FumL Plays Plays/G
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 16 2 0 0 16 1 1 0 0 786 49.1
33 16 35 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 751 46.9
34 16 14 0 0 1 7 4 0 0 789 49.3
35 16 17 0 1 5 8 4 0 0 632 39.5
36 16 17 0 0 9 2 2 0 0 774 48.4
37 16 9 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 553 34.6
38 16 9 0 0 20 3 4 0 0 628 39.3
39 16 2 0 0 12 2 4 0 0 884 55.3
40 16 2 0 0 24 5 7 0 0 825 51.6
41 16 4 0 0 17 6 1 0 0 570 35.6
42 16 11 0 1 7 3 0 0 0 797 49.8
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Career 176 122 0 2 128 41 29 0 0 7,989 45.4
P
 
Jeff Williams
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bash E. Bull
I remember drewd21 had these Gs who if I remember correctly only had 150-155 strength but 90 blocking, agility and speed, and they led WL in pancakes. They were only 3 AEQ though so I instructed my guys to try to build something similar but with 4 AEQ and more strength. So what they ended up with was 160 strength and low 90s blocking and agility but only 80 speed. That seemed like good enough speed though IMO. The one guy actually ended up leading WL in pancakes, just like drewed21's guys did. So it seems like that is a good range to be around. Also it seems I suck as an offensive coordinator if I'm just now realizing we had a guy who led World League in pancakes and I never even thought to run the ball more...


Oh, that was my guard!
https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/player_awards.pl?player_id=4760014

But drewd21 put the First Step on the G's, not the OT's. That's why I put first step on both my G's too. Right afterwards I read Bort said they tested First Step on the G's and 8 of it made them the total bomb. Next time I better get it all the way to 8 then. WiSeIVIaN is right that First Step can do weird things to an OT or it might glitch out, but it wasn't an OT it was my G's who had First Step. Someone went off topic but it wasn't me. But I don't know who brought up first step in the first place. It was the guards who had it. Bad for tackles
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Thanks Theo.

Just curious, have you ever seen first step issues on interior olinemen pass blocking? Still pumps them too far back? At least without horizontal movement it won't create the OT gap.

I agree first step is secret overpowered on DT's, and likely would be a big help on run blocking as well.


Actually? No. I've used it very seldom, but with my own builds I never saw a difference. Sometimes I think what you see in the videos doesn't reflect what many think is that 'jump back' based off of 1st step. Both O and D linemen have abilities to 'shunt' a dot... either aside or backwards. Plus there are interaction rolls where one dot is trying to pancake/revcake it's opposite number... loses the roll... but makes a 'balance save' which has the exact same look as a dot 'jumping back/aside'. Since there's no info bubbles to let you know when that occurs you're left to guess. I recently watched one of my DT's shove a poor ol' Center aside several times in a game, flattening the QB before he ever had a chance to even read his 1st progression (I know because it was my poor QB he was flattening!). For all intents and purposes someone might think the Center had 1st step but he didn't... but it sure looked like he was 'jumping back/aside'.
I do get it though that it could cause the same result as one of those 'shunt' maneuvers... or a failed 'cake/revcake' but passed the 'balance' save. All in all, I just say this... there are better uses for SP's and other good SA's out there that I would get before 1st step for any O-lineman.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Aug 8, 2022 12:57:51
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Aug 8, 2022 12:56:21
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Actually? No. I've used it very seldom, but with my own builds I never saw a difference. Sometimes I think what you see in the videos doesn't reflect what many think is that 'jump back' based off of 1st step. Both O and D linemen have abilities to 'shunt' a dot... either aside or backwards. Plus there are interaction rolls where one dot is trying to pancake/revcake it's opposite number... loses the roll... but makes a 'balance save' which has the exact same look as a dot 'jumping back/aside'. Since there's no info bubbles to let you know when that occurs you're left to guess. I recently watched one of my DT's shove a poor ol' Center aside several times in a game, flattening the QB before he ever had a chance to even read his 1st progression (I know because it was my poor QB he was flattening!). For all intents and purposes someone might think the Center had 1st step but he didn't... but it sure looked like he was 'jumping back/aside'.
I do get it though that it could cause the same result as one of those 'shunt' maneuvers... or a failed 'cake/revcake' but passed the 'balance' save. All in all, I just say this... there are better uses for SP's and other good SA's out there that I would get before 1st step for any O-lineman.


I've always been skeptical of the supposed "OT first step curse" but I've never used it myself. Basically, I don't think it is that useful for OT since they don't have to pull as far as the Guards so I haven't used it- plus I was afraid of the glitch everyone talks about. Now, however, I'm guessing its probably not a really a thing per se. I'm guessing its more to do with the OT not being agile enough to handle the DEs speed, and like you said, he lost a roll, I'm guessing its usually one that allows the DE to cut back to the inside- and it just looks worse visually because of the Fist Step, but the exact same thing would have happened with or without first step. When the CB over runs the WR as the WR makes his break, is it because the CB has first step? No its because the CB lost the roll to cut when he needed to. I'm guessing that is really what is happening with the OTs and the First Step only makes it look worse.

First step is actually great for Guards though, especially if you use pulling Guards, which you really should if you want to run outside the tackles. Also it greatly increases their push off the snap, because of how GLB measures velocity (mass times speed travelling plus strength, more or less) and because of that, though you can't see it- they are actually travelling faster in the tiny space between the snap and when they hit the D-lineman, and that extra speed means extra velocity which means more power. Now its not like it'll make them hit twice as hard, but its still makes a positive difference at something they do every time you run the ball.
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
In defense of Wise's take I will say I have seen times when an O-lineman drops back so fast you have to wonder why. I mean, our coach always said "meet them at the point of attack and win the battle there". I kinda agree? I mean, watching NFL games I see where some D-linemen are so quick and fast that if you don't win RIGHT then and there, you're gonna get beat and beat badly. So you see O-line give a bit to create a pocket... but never give so much as to collapse that pocket themselves. I've sent that happen here. Thing is I don't have access to look at all the dots in the game so I couldn't tell you why that happens. It could well be 1st step... especially if combined with high agility and speed. I think there's a difference in a O-lineman with 1st step and 50 speed vs an O-lineman with 1st step and 80+ speed. Could well be likely to combine the two things gets you a really bad result.
Again... in the end I just believe there are both better ways to build your O-lineman so he doesn't need 1st step... and better SA's out there that he can use with better effect to his overall success.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Aug 8, 2022 16:50:23
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
In defense of Wise's take I will say I have seen times when an O-lineman drops back so fast you have to wonder why. I mean, our coach always said "meet them at the point of attack and win the battle there". I kinda agree? I mean, watching NFL games I see where some D-linemen are so quick and fast that if you don't win RIGHT then and there, you're gonna get beat and beat badly. So you see O-line give a bit to create a pocket... but never give so much as to collapse that pocket themselves. I've sent that happen here. Thing is I don't have access to look at all the dots in the game so I couldn't tell you why that happens. It could well be 1st step... especially if combined with high agility and speed. I think there's a difference in a O-lineman with 1st step and 50 speed vs an O-lineman with 1st step and 80+ speed. Could well be likely to combine the two things gets you a really bad result.
Again... in the end I just believe there are both better ways to build your O-lineman so he doesn't need 1st step... and better SA's out there that he can use with better effect to his overall success.


Everyone says its because they are 'too fast' the same way they would say the CB is 'too fast' when he overruns the WR on a hitch route in rookie ball. The truth is, its most likely nothing to do with speed or first step. If player passes his vision and agility checks, he stops in time to try to make a play. If he fails those checks, he can't make the play, regardless of slow or fast he is.
 
WiSeIVIaN
online
Link
 
Originally posted by Bash E. Bull
Everyone says its because they are 'too fast' the same way they would say the CB is 'too fast' when he overruns the WR on a hitch route in rookie ball. The truth is, its most likely nothing to do with speed or first step. If player passes his vision and agility checks, he stops in time to try to make a play. If he fails those checks, he can't make the play, regardless of slow or fast he is.


There definitely was an OT First Step glitch thing back in the day. No idea if it got fixed though.
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
I guess I don't know. I've never had a player on any of my teams use it on an OT or a C before, just Guards.
Edited by Bash E. Bull on Aug 8, 2022 20:42:25
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Dr. E
Ahh, back from GenCon. As for those trying to convince you their opinion on o line is worth anything, the stats on that dot build I posted.


I'm sorry if I'm harping on it and its possible I missed something... but he seems to have given up as many or more sacks and hurries than a LOT with 150 strength. I'm not talking about a 160+ strength ROT as they get run right past by a prDE. However the slightly more balanced 150 strength type LOTs tend to give up less sacks and hurries than that. Maybe there are extenuating circumstances but those numbers aren't all that low to my eyes. Actually they are much higher than any LOT I've had on my team tbh, including the LOT who had 50 pancakes in WL and only gave up one sack while we (due to my play calls) inexplicably passed the ball on 2/3 of the plays. That is why I am skeptical of a need to make an O-lineman with less than 140 strength, at the very least.

 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bash E. Bull
I'm sorry if I'm harping on it and its possible I missed something... but he seems to have given up as many or more sacks and hurries than a LOT with 150 strength. I'm not talking about a 160+ strength ROT as they get run right past by a prDE. However the slightly more balanced 150 strength type LOTs tend to give up less sacks and hurries than that. Maybe there are extenuating circumstances but those numbers aren't all that low to my eyes. Actually they are much higher than any LOT I've had on my team tbh, including the LOT who had 50 pancakes in WL and only gave up one sack while we (due to my play calls) inexplicably passed the ball on 2/3 of the plays. That is why I am skeptical of a need to make an O-lineman with less than 140 strength, at the very least.



That guy I listed on page 1... he was a specific 'ask for' build for a team that passes a lot. I admit, skeptical about doing a Pass block Arch Guard... fully get it for Tackles but Guards? I wasn't as sure. Still, built him for the job and his stats bear out his quality as a pass blocker... and also point out his limitations as a run blocker. In his (regular season) career (so far) he's allowed only 1 sack and 32 hurries, never more than 6 in any season. However... he's only given out 40 pancakes while being revcaked himself 140 times. I can guarantee you most of those came from trying to run block. Hence the limitations of the archetype. His strength is 142 total (you can view the skill numbers on page 1) so he comes pretty close to your cut off number of 140. https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/full_player_stats.pl?player_id=4779807&playoffs=0
 
Bash E. Bull
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
That guy I listed on page 1... he was a specific 'ask for' build for a team that passes a lot. I admit, skeptical about doing a Pass block Arch Guard... fully get it for Tackles but Guards? I wasn't as sure. Still, built him for the job and his stats bear out his quality as a pass blocker... and also point out his limitations as a run blocker. In his (regular season) career (so far) he's allowed only 1 sack and 32 hurries, never more than 6 in any season. However... he's only given out 40 pancakes while being revcaked himself 140 times. I can guarantee you most of those came from trying to run block. Hence the limitations of the archetype. His strength is 142 total (you can view the skill numbers on page 1) so he comes pretty close to your cut off number of 140. https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/full_player_stats.pl?player_id=4779807&playoffs=0


Yeah, that's the low end which is why he suffered so many reverse pancakes compared to pancakes I assume. Still, that is less than 1 revcake per game in his career. Obviously his strength is not in the running game, but if the team passes a lot, and if he's usually helping the C with double teams when they run, it can work. IMO if passing is at all a main part of your offense (and usually, it is) its good to have G like that IMO, because otherwise when you face a team with a prNT you end up with a lot of problems in the pass game.

Most recently we had a guy like that, he was the 'twin' of the run blocking G who led WL in pancakes. Against those prNTs he was a necessity because no other G or C we had could pass protect against them. The thing is, I'm not so sure he was actually a better pass blocker against the typical DTs. Over his career the stronger run stopping G who led WL in pancakes gave up way less sacks and hurries than the pass block arch G did. Maybe it was because the run blocker had the easier pass blocking assignments? Part of me thinks it was because the pass blocker was easier bull-rushed by the big guys. I should do more research on that. On the other hand, the pass arch G is great when it comes to screen plays and outside runs. So I do find a player like that useful on just about any team.

EDIT: I meant to clarify though, the pass blocking G I'm talking about had 150 strength, and was actually good at getting pancakes, averaging 100 most seasons- most of which I assume were from him pulling on run and screen plays.
Edited by Bash E. Bull on Aug 8, 2022 23:19:43
Edited by Bash E. Bull on Aug 8, 2022 23:16:32
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.