Originally posted by Clinton Esquire
Originally posted by PackMan97
datongw and CG, I agree completely.
1) stamina loss for breaking tackles. The better the tackle, the more stamina loss. It should increase morale, decrease stamina. This would really help limit their big runs as well as their every down use. If a team wants to run three-four powerbacks so they can run every play, great...make 'em find those players and keep 'em happy.
2) broken tackles should be very rare in the open field (more likely up the middle when a blocker is on the tackler making things tough). A simple fix to this is to change the broken tackle roll to be VERY high in an open field. However, to combat this make the fight out extra yards increase in the open field. So, if a CB or weak ass FS tries to take down a power back, the power back is gonna fight out 3-5 extra yards instead of 1-2. Make it so the power back is rewarded, but the game isn't completely borked. Really bad tackling CBs would still get blown up with broken tackles.
With #2 I disagree - most of the corners here at GLB are built like Deion Sanders. One time Deion saw a sweep play coming his way where he and the running back were isolated in a one-on-one situation. Sanders took a dive and didn't touch the running back. They were reviewing game film the next week on the play and some of his defensive teammates were giving him a little crap about basically falling down to avoid having to make any contact, he said - "I saw (the running back) coming and I had to make a business decision."
If anything open field broken tackles should happen more often when it's against a CB - and some safeties. Tackling in the open field can be more difficult than tackling in the hole. Especially if someone isn't using proper technique (read: they have low tackling).
I agree players with low tackling should not be able make tackles on a consistent basis. I just think strength shouldn't play so much importance in determining breaking tackles, if anything, carrying should be the #1 factor.
As far as breaking tackles in the open field, I think we've to break it down into 2 areas: 1) the defender is facing the HB head to head and 2) the defender is trying to catch HB from behind. I agree in case one more broken tackles should occur if the defender has low tackling.
In all, I think maybe some combination of tackling + agility vs carrying + agility should be used in determining whether a tackle is made. High agility defenders will likely get into better position for the tackle, where as higher agility HBs will probably likely to have better balance to avoid going down. Strength should be used to determine the amount of YAC, the higher difference the HB has in strength over the defender, they more YAC he will receive. For example, a strong DT will stop a HB on the spot, where as a PB will probably gain 3-5 more in YAC against a weak CB (provided the CB makes the tackle check).
As for stamina, I think the current game the stamina usage is pretty much broken. I just had OL that played around 20 plays ended a game with 100 stamina. That shouldn't be the case, it probably happened because distance run is used as the predominate factor for burning up energy. Energy burning should be different for different positions. For example, DL usually lose more energy in running plays than passing plays. HB's energy loss should be determined by the number of carries rather than number of yards gained. A back that gains 100 tough yards on 30 carries will be much more tired and beat up on Monday than a back that gained 200 yards on 15 carries. Both the runner and the tackler should lose energy after the tackle. The current energy loss calculation is too simple IMO.
Originally posted by PackMan97
datongw and CG, I agree completely.
1) stamina loss for breaking tackles. The better the tackle, the more stamina loss. It should increase morale, decrease stamina. This would really help limit their big runs as well as their every down use. If a team wants to run three-four powerbacks so they can run every play, great...make 'em find those players and keep 'em happy.
2) broken tackles should be very rare in the open field (more likely up the middle when a blocker is on the tackler making things tough). A simple fix to this is to change the broken tackle roll to be VERY high in an open field. However, to combat this make the fight out extra yards increase in the open field. So, if a CB or weak ass FS tries to take down a power back, the power back is gonna fight out 3-5 extra yards instead of 1-2. Make it so the power back is rewarded, but the game isn't completely borked. Really bad tackling CBs would still get blown up with broken tackles.
With #2 I disagree - most of the corners here at GLB are built like Deion Sanders. One time Deion saw a sweep play coming his way where he and the running back were isolated in a one-on-one situation. Sanders took a dive and didn't touch the running back. They were reviewing game film the next week on the play and some of his defensive teammates were giving him a little crap about basically falling down to avoid having to make any contact, he said - "I saw (the running back) coming and I had to make a business decision."
If anything open field broken tackles should happen more often when it's against a CB - and some safeties. Tackling in the open field can be more difficult than tackling in the hole. Especially if someone isn't using proper technique (read: they have low tackling).
I agree players with low tackling should not be able make tackles on a consistent basis. I just think strength shouldn't play so much importance in determining breaking tackles, if anything, carrying should be the #1 factor.
As far as breaking tackles in the open field, I think we've to break it down into 2 areas: 1) the defender is facing the HB head to head and 2) the defender is trying to catch HB from behind. I agree in case one more broken tackles should occur if the defender has low tackling.
In all, I think maybe some combination of tackling + agility vs carrying + agility should be used in determining whether a tackle is made. High agility defenders will likely get into better position for the tackle, where as higher agility HBs will probably likely to have better balance to avoid going down. Strength should be used to determine the amount of YAC, the higher difference the HB has in strength over the defender, they more YAC he will receive. For example, a strong DT will stop a HB on the spot, where as a PB will probably gain 3-5 more in YAC against a weak CB (provided the CB makes the tackle check).
As for stamina, I think the current game the stamina usage is pretty much broken. I just had OL that played around 20 plays ended a game with 100 stamina. That shouldn't be the case, it probably happened because distance run is used as the predominate factor for burning up energy. Energy burning should be different for different positions. For example, DL usually lose more energy in running plays than passing plays. HB's energy loss should be determined by the number of carries rather than number of yards gained. A back that gains 100 tough yards on 30 carries will be much more tired and beat up on Monday than a back that gained 200 yards on 15 carries. Both the runner and the tackler should lose energy after the tackle. The current energy loss calculation is too simple IMO.
Last edited Mar 9, 2009 10:09:31
