Originally posted by mwoods07
Kanaan, I'm with you where you are coming from. I can't say whether you were trying to exploit anything or not cause I'm not in your head! The only problem I see with the argument is this:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=979871&pbp_id=8714573
You lineup the NT, DT, MLB and LE (and the ROLB, sort of but he never even engages into the play, so I won't count him) against the C, LG, LT and ultimately the HB since he stayed in (and didn't do his job). This WOULD be a very good overload argument, especially had the ROLB had a chance to get into the action. However, since you dropped the NT into coverage, you essentially took that overload away. Now, what it LOOKS like is you took advantage of the "somewhat documented and fairly well know" poor blocking code of the LG...who in this case ignored the blitzing MLB in favor of double teaming the DT with the C...in real life..real football, that play would NEVER work, it only works with the broken code.
Now with all that said, maybe you got lucky with an inventive play call and didn't know about the broken code, but with as much messaging has been going around, it looked like it was intentional. And in my personal opinion, seeing as you didn't cover WR3 (except with a small zone), you completely expected that play to get a sack everytime, since you ran it a ton on 3rd down...just my opinion
Either way, if you say you didn't dod it as an exploit, I can do nothing but believe you...besides EE for life
Yea, there is no doubt that is not overloading. Anyone who knows and plays Football can tell you that but who cares if he's using exploit blitzes, just admit to it. It's not like it matters, back when the screens were uber strong, people including Hali exploited the crap out of them.
Kanaan, I'm with you where you are coming from. I can't say whether you were trying to exploit anything or not cause I'm not in your head! The only problem I see with the argument is this:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=979871&pbp_id=8714573
You lineup the NT, DT, MLB and LE (and the ROLB, sort of but he never even engages into the play, so I won't count him) against the C, LG, LT and ultimately the HB since he stayed in (and didn't do his job). This WOULD be a very good overload argument, especially had the ROLB had a chance to get into the action. However, since you dropped the NT into coverage, you essentially took that overload away. Now, what it LOOKS like is you took advantage of the "somewhat documented and fairly well know" poor blocking code of the LG...who in this case ignored the blitzing MLB in favor of double teaming the DT with the C...in real life..real football, that play would NEVER work, it only works with the broken code.
Now with all that said, maybe you got lucky with an inventive play call and didn't know about the broken code, but with as much messaging has been going around, it looked like it was intentional. And in my personal opinion, seeing as you didn't cover WR3 (except with a small zone), you completely expected that play to get a sack everytime, since you ran it a ton on 3rd down...just my opinion
Either way, if you say you didn't dod it as an exploit, I can do nothing but believe you...besides EE for life Yea, there is no doubt that is not overloading. Anyone who knows and plays Football can tell you that but who cares if he's using exploit blitzes, just admit to it. It's not like it matters, back when the screens were uber strong, people including Hali exploited the crap out of them.
.
