http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1170977 will have 114 strength at level 40 with EQ and 15 WW. Also, that's without touching strength since level 13.
Last edited Feb 18, 2009 11:15:54
coach
offline
offline
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
RMiller517
offline
offline
Originally posted by coach
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
i completely see your point.
My 2c: you only break so many tackles. A great power back only breaks, what, like 35-40%? If he broke 100% of tackles on DBs, then it would be a different story, since you can run through them regardless. but even so, more strength will equal more broken tackles.
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
i completely see your point.
My 2c: you only break so many tackles. A great power back only breaks, what, like 35-40%? If he broke 100% of tackles on DBs, then it would be a different story, since you can run through them regardless. but even so, more strength will equal more broken tackles.
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Last edited Feb 18, 2009 12:12:17
Viscount
offline
offline
Originally posted by coach
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
But how does anyone know if or where the point of diminishing returns is, unless they actually try higher strength?
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by coach
Top speed HBs and WRs are attempting to break away from DBs and LBs who have speed in the 90s. So that's only a 10 point gap. Meanwhile, the strength gap you're talking about is going to be around 40.
Well doesn't higher strength mean you'll break more tackles? When HBs play against lower level teams they break lot's of tackles due to the vast difference between their own strength and the weaker defenders, so wouldn't it be good to keep that difference in strength against similarly levelled players?
Possibly. The question here though was how much strength is too much? Or more accurately, how much strength is enough? Sure obscenely high strength will lead to even more broken tackles, but does it reach a point of diminishing returns?
I'm just saying that it can't really be compared to speed, since 100+ is necessary there to have an advantage over the defender. You hit that tipping point a lot sooner in strength.
But how does anyone know if or where the point of diminishing returns is, unless they actually try higher strength?
Viscount
offline
offline
Originally posted by rmiller517
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
McGrady56
offline
offline
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by rmiller517
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
150/1/1 FTW
takes 10 minutes to get down the field, but you got 100 str NT's bouncing off you like bunny rabbits
State Line:
6 Carries - 378 Yards - 6 TDs 63.0 ypc 84 broken tackles (yes thats 14 broken tackles per carry, 3 guys got back up, chased him down again and missed again)
=P
now thats a power back.
Originally posted by rmiller517
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
150/1/1 FTW
takes 10 minutes to get down the field, but you got 100 str NT's bouncing off you like bunny rabbits
State Line:
6 Carries - 378 Yards - 6 TDs 63.0 ypc 84 broken tackles (yes thats 14 broken tackles per carry, 3 guys got back up, chased him down again and missed again)
=P
now thats a power back.
RMiller517
offline
offline
Originally posted by Viscount
Originally posted by rmiller517
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
touche, i guess.
Originally posted by rmiller517
Overall, i'd say a healthy amount of strength is good, as long as your speed is high too. Personally, I'd rather a 100/70/60 back than a 110/60/60.
Have you ever even seen a 110/60/60 to say what you'd prefer?
touche, i guess.
Llyranwyar
offline
offline
I tend to think of lower shoulder and Stiff Arm like small additions to your base chance to break a tackle. Then Power through is a big random bonus. With the first two you get a smaller consistent bonus to your base chance (why you don't see a 'proc' of those two). The power through may be a multiplier of your chance to break a tackle and since it is not lumped into the static increases of lower shoulder and stiff arm you have the opportunity to see it applied in the replay.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
