Warrior General Games

I was thinking since an O-lineman typically has 90+ strength and 70+ blocking, + most of their other stats such as agil, speed, vision soft capped by level 40s, if they'd be able to play at FB. If you'd have a power HB as a starter you wouldn't need that quick of a FB as the HB will most likely not run him over. Anyone tried it yet? If not what do you guys think? Are the pos. penalties worth it?

if the idea is to have a really strong guy there, it would be best to do a center as opposed to a tackle or guard.

for automatic leveling gains, FBs get more than an OT in str/agi/blk. so if the FB built himself for the same attributes(avoiding carrying/catching), he'll be higher in those than the OT. but a center would certainly be higher than that. a center could also get run block and get low SAs without wasting points in the FB's Hands SA

That's what I was thinking. The idea here is to get a O-lineman who is specially built for the purpose of run blocking. He would also be blocking for a power back. IMO it might actually work.

We have FB 1 as an offensive FB and FB 2 as a blocking Full Back.......so i am sure it will work.

I will put the least use O-Lineman in as a backup, and we'll see how he does. Bet it works a treat!

Guess it really depends on the position swap hit taken by o-line playing out of position in FB slot.

Why not just have a blocking FB instead of an O-lineman? There really isn't that much of a benefit.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Why not just have a blocking FB instead of an O-lineman? There really isn't that much of a benefit.

Agree.

A pure blocking FB will be a better blocker than an OL with the out of position penalty.

Originally posted by 4th Quarter
Originally posted by Deathblade

Why not just have a blocking FB instead of an O-lineman? There really isn't that much of a benefit.

Agree.

A pure blocking FB will be a better blocker than an OL with the out of position penalty.

Yes but I was thinking that the OL will be better as an OL typically has more strength + blocking and less agil/speed than a blocking FB. If you can find me an FB that is built like a O-lineman then I will gladly do that instead. The O-lineman gets .67 str + blocking each level where as FB will get .5. Consider that as well.

Most OL aren't fast enough to lead block even without the OOP penaly.

Originally posted by harshmellow
Most OL aren't fast enough to lead block even without the OOP penaly.

My RG has capped speed and agil. Since the HB would be a Power Back I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Originally posted by vladd148
Originally posted by harshmellow

Most OL aren't fast enough to lead block even without the OOP penaly.

My RG has capped speed and agil. Since the HB would be a Power Back I don't see why that wouldn't work.

But the question is....WHY?

You can build a FB exactly the same, without the OOP penalty.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by vladd148

Originally posted by harshmellow


Most OL aren't fast enough to lead block even without the OOP penaly.

My RG has capped speed and agil. Since the HB would be a Power Back I don't see why that wouldn't work.

But the question is....WHY?

You can build a FB exactly the same, without the OOP penalty.

I've tried it BTW, with my own beastly RG back on my old team. It was a complete fail of a plan.

Originally posted by vladd148
That's what I was thinking. The idea here is to get a O-lineman who is specially built for the purpose of run blocking. He would also be blocking for a power back. IMO it might actually work.

Nope, see my post right above ^^^^

at least insofar as goal line formation went. I didn't try it conventionally speaking, then again, I think there are benefits to having an actual Fullback over say a RG/RT.