Wondering why a demoralizing VA such as helmet crash doesn't get any mention? Especially if SS blitzes a lot. I've missed any discussions on this one. Thoughts?
SunshineMan89
offline
offline
Originally posted by FatNasty
Wondering why a demoralizing VA such as helmet crash doesn't get any mention? Especially if SS blitzes a lot. I've missed any discussions on this one. Thoughts?
Because it's (IMO) an awful VA. It's not clear what the effects of morale actually are, and it doesn't help you make the tackle in the first place.
It's possible it could act as a kind of fumble-enhancer, but you have to already make a bunch of tackles to make that worthwhile, and the VA has an opportunity cost of something like Jackhammer or Zone Specialist.
If you want to force fumbles, there are better VAs, anyway. (Power Tackler).
Wondering why a demoralizing VA such as helmet crash doesn't get any mention? Especially if SS blitzes a lot. I've missed any discussions on this one. Thoughts?
Because it's (IMO) an awful VA. It's not clear what the effects of morale actually are, and it doesn't help you make the tackle in the first place.
It's possible it could act as a kind of fumble-enhancer, but you have to already make a bunch of tackles to make that worthwhile, and the VA has an opportunity cost of something like Jackhammer or Zone Specialist.
If you want to force fumbles, there are better VAs, anyway. (Power Tackler).
FatNasty
offline
offline
Originally posted by SunshineMan89
Originally posted by FatNasty
Wondering why a demoralizing VA such as helmet crash doesn't get any mention? Especially if SS blitzes a lot. I've missed any discussions on this one. Thoughts?
Because it's (IMO) an awful VA. It's not clear what the effects of morale actually are, and it doesn't help you make the tackle in the first place.
This is my hesitation too. Too bad morale loss can't be signified somehow. In real life you can tell by a players demeanor he's rattled, and have a pretty good idea how much, that is if you can read others analogs. Guess if you had enough time you could scrutinize the before and after numbers of the skill players (QB, HB, TE, WR) to the nth degree and get a pretty good idea. I REALLY like the idea of demoralizing abilities, but they demand nearly 100% faith without any empirical evidence in GLB.
Originally posted by SunshineMan89
It's possible it could act as a kind of fumble-enhancer, but you have to already make a bunch of tackles to make that worthwhile, and the VA has an opportunity cost of something like Jackhammer or Zone Specialist.
If you want to force fumbles, there are better VAs, anyway. (Power Tackler).
Not sure if you were making a separate point, but I wasn't thinking about it for forcing fumbles at all, but more for generally lowering productivity of opposing skill players affected by reducing their morale. A couple seasons ago, for example, it was a widely held game plan to have both DEs disrupt the QB just to lower his confidence which had an obvious impact on the game.
I understand how important turnovers can be, but sometimes I wonder if those abilities are so sought after because they look so good in the player's stat sheet?
Originally posted by FatNasty
Wondering why a demoralizing VA such as helmet crash doesn't get any mention? Especially if SS blitzes a lot. I've missed any discussions on this one. Thoughts?
Because it's (IMO) an awful VA. It's not clear what the effects of morale actually are, and it doesn't help you make the tackle in the first place.
This is my hesitation too. Too bad morale loss can't be signified somehow. In real life you can tell by a players demeanor he's rattled, and have a pretty good idea how much, that is if you can read others analogs. Guess if you had enough time you could scrutinize the before and after numbers of the skill players (QB, HB, TE, WR) to the nth degree and get a pretty good idea. I REALLY like the idea of demoralizing abilities, but they demand nearly 100% faith without any empirical evidence in GLB.
Originally posted by SunshineMan89
It's possible it could act as a kind of fumble-enhancer, but you have to already make a bunch of tackles to make that worthwhile, and the VA has an opportunity cost of something like Jackhammer or Zone Specialist.
If you want to force fumbles, there are better VAs, anyway. (Power Tackler).
Not sure if you were making a separate point, but I wasn't thinking about it for forcing fumbles at all, but more for generally lowering productivity of opposing skill players affected by reducing their morale. A couple seasons ago, for example, it was a widely held game plan to have both DEs disrupt the QB just to lower his confidence which had an obvious impact on the game.
I understand how important turnovers can be, but sometimes I wonder if those abilities are so sought after because they look so good in the player's stat sheet?
SunshineMan89
offline
offline
I was making a separate point, although I'm not sure whether Helmet Crash actually helps with fumbles (I've heard arguments both ways).
I guess the main problem I see with the "morale-reducing over time" strategy is that you would have to be tackling the same skill player multiple times (or use helmet crash as a team-wide strategy) for it to do anything. With most quality teams running 2-3 HBs and 5+ WRs, this isn't really that likely. It's the same problem as some of the SAs, like Growl/Snarl, that are basically useless--you could pump them high and the net effect might be to sap a few points of morale from a few skill guys.
Even the QB-demoralizing strategy has generally been ineffective (I've seen experiments with LBs in particular trying to do this, and you don't really demoralize the QB much, you just end up with slow, weak LBs), and that has a higher chance of success due to people using only 1-2 QBs to absorb the morale effects.
I guess the main problem I see with the "morale-reducing over time" strategy is that you would have to be tackling the same skill player multiple times (or use helmet crash as a team-wide strategy) for it to do anything. With most quality teams running 2-3 HBs and 5+ WRs, this isn't really that likely. It's the same problem as some of the SAs, like Growl/Snarl, that are basically useless--you could pump them high and the net effect might be to sap a few points of morale from a few skill guys.
Even the QB-demoralizing strategy has generally been ineffective (I've seen experiments with LBs in particular trying to do this, and you don't really demoralize the QB much, you just end up with slow, weak LBs), and that has a higher chance of success due to people using only 1-2 QBs to absorb the morale effects.
nottom
offline
offline
I would consider helmet crash if my guy was getting 6+ tackles consistantly, but I don't have any players that really fit that build.
dabills
offline
offline
I happen to like the concept of helmet crash. Your player may not get the stats but anything that makes the team better as a whole and helps put a W on the board is a good strategy in my book. I play in alot of run support type plays in a run heavy league (USA AAA#2) so anything that hurts the play of the RB makes sense to me. just my opinion though
RAPB
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
SunshineMan89
offline
offline
Originally posted by RAPB
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
Not really . . . a lot of deflections come out of zone, etc . . .
I think Long Reach is definitely a viable SS VA. I like Ballhawk and Jackhammer better, though.
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
Not really . . . a lot of deflections come out of zone, etc . . .
I think Long Reach is definitely a viable SS VA. I like Ballhawk and Jackhammer better, though.
drakeborn
offline
offline
Originally posted by RAPB
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
That's a piss poor understanding of a safety.
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
That's a piss poor understanding of a safety.
RAPB
offline
offline
Originally posted by SunshineMan89
Originally posted by RAPB
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
Not really . . . a lot of deflections come out of zone, etc . . .
I think Long Reach is definitely a viable SS VA. I like Ballhawk and Jackhammer better, though.
"deflections come out of zone" - can you provide an example?
Usually, the safety plays the deepest man on his side - so he's in some sort of "man coverage" after he made his decision and approaches that deep going receiver.
Originally posted by RAPB
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
Not really . . . a lot of deflections come out of zone, etc . . .
I think Long Reach is definitely a viable SS VA. I like Ballhawk and Jackhammer better, though.
"deflections come out of zone" - can you provide an example?
Usually, the safety plays the deepest man on his side - so he's in some sort of "man coverage" after he made his decision and approaches that deep going receiver.
Stone Mason
offline
offline
if you have a very fast Saftey, who is made for coverage more than run stuffing ... u can run with ball hawk, and either Zone Spec., or Long Reach depending on your scheme ... This way u should be already in position to get a PD...
if your Saftey is more of a run stuffer, and a tad slower ... then i would run with Ball Hawk ... and jack hammer... or power tackler ...
personally i believe power tackler works the same way jack hammer works ... hit someone harder increase chance of jarring it loose ... Jack hammer doesn't make you hit harder but it does increase your chance of jarring it loose regardless ...
So in the end you have to know what your safety is good at .... and what scheme he runs in....
My safety is a very quick coverage type SS. And he runs in a zone a decent amount 1/4- 1/3 of the time with a cover 2 type zone,... maybe more. So i run with ball hawk, and zone spec. Sadly this year ... he's been covering so well in zone ... that QBs aren't throwing to his side that often ... i don't know whether i'm happy or sad about it ....
if your Saftey is more of a run stuffer, and a tad slower ... then i would run with Ball Hawk ... and jack hammer... or power tackler ...
personally i believe power tackler works the same way jack hammer works ... hit someone harder increase chance of jarring it loose ... Jack hammer doesn't make you hit harder but it does increase your chance of jarring it loose regardless ...
So in the end you have to know what your safety is good at .... and what scheme he runs in....
My safety is a very quick coverage type SS. And he runs in a zone a decent amount 1/4- 1/3 of the time with a cover 2 type zone,... maybe more. So i run with ball hawk, and zone spec. Sadly this year ... he's been covering so well in zone ... that QBs aren't throwing to his side that often ... i don't know whether i'm happy or sad about it ....
Cactus71
offline
offline
Originally posted by RAPB
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
you know just because you are by the WR it doesn't mean you automatically get a PD, the WR can fight for the ball too
Originally posted by Cactus71
anybody think about long reach/3rd down stopper?
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
you know just because you are by the WR it doesn't mean you automatically get a PD, the WR can fight for the ball too
FatNasty
offline
offline
Originally posted by RAPB
Usually, the safety plays the deepest man on his side so he's in some sort of "man coverage"...
Don't look now but you just described ZONE! LOL
Think Cover Two. Only one example of many.
Originally posted by RAPB
"deflections come out of zone" - can you provide an example?
Here's some zone play with deflections:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383943&pbp_id=16472306
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383943&pbp_id=16474656
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383896&pbp_id=14638981
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383921&pbp_id=13720229
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383937&pbp_id=8120520
Originally posted by RAPB
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
You forget the PRIMARY responsibility of the SS is to stop the run. This is why they're traditionally called run stoppers, and exactly why they don't immediately glue themselves to the deepest WR in their zone . . . they're a little busy making a read. Strong safeties must be guys that can position themselves to make a play without being glued to the WR's hip pocket (he'd get killed by even the most mediocre play caller if he did this), which is precisely why they must have a nose for the ball and have good game speed. Another thing to be aware of is very good safety will cheat out of zones from time to time, which can make it confusing as to what defense is being run.
Usually, the safety plays the deepest man on his side so he's in some sort of "man coverage"...
Don't look now but you just described ZONE! LOL
Think Cover Two. Only one example of many.
Originally posted by RAPB
"deflections come out of zone" - can you provide an example?
Here's some zone play with deflections:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383943&pbp_id=16472306
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383943&pbp_id=16474656
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383896&pbp_id=14638981
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383921&pbp_id=13720229
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=383937&pbp_id=8120520
Originally posted by RAPB
You'd need your SS to be in a position to deflect... which means the guy thrown to was open (or "more open" than any other receiver)... which means your guy was slightly sucking - but then you make up for it.
That's the plan. In case your guy sucks a little too much...
You forget the PRIMARY responsibility of the SS is to stop the run. This is why they're traditionally called run stoppers, and exactly why they don't immediately glue themselves to the deepest WR in their zone . . . they're a little busy making a read. Strong safeties must be guys that can position themselves to make a play without being glued to the WR's hip pocket (he'd get killed by even the most mediocre play caller if he did this), which is precisely why they must have a nose for the ball and have good game speed. Another thing to be aware of is very good safety will cheat out of zones from time to time, which can make it confusing as to what defense is being run.
Last edited Apr 28, 2009 23:19:26
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
