User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Position Talk > TE Club > Which build would be the most effective?
Link
 
Level 39 Receiving TE

Build one:
Speed: 72.27
Agility: 61.25
Catching: 73.66
Carrying: 48.25
Vision: 63.67
Strength: 40.66
Jumping: 12

Build two:
Speed: 70.27
Agility: 61.26
Catching: 74.66
Carrying: 48.27
Vision: 63.67
Strength: 46.66
Jumping: 14

Build three:
Speed: 75.27
Agility: 61.25
Catching: 74.66
Carrying: 40.27
Vision: 62.67
Strength: 39.66
Jumping: 10

Build four:
Speed: 75.27
Agility: 63.25
Catching: 74.66
Carrying: 34.27
Vision: 62.67
Strength: 39.66
Jumping: 10

I currently have a PeeWee TE, and are trying to find the most effective way to build him. Any opinions or comments will be much appreciated.
Edited by redhawksfootball89 on Dec 12, 2009 12:41:20
 
andrewtabs
offline
Link
 
2, but agility should be 3rd capped and strength should be capped.
 
dashman
offline
Link
 
Build 3
but i think that catching doesnt need to be that high at lvl 39
60-68 should be sufficient
the points you save you could dump into strength/carrying/agility
I think speed and agility are really key for a receiving TE
 
immagonnawin
offline
Link
 
four.


but needs agility asap.
 
LostPeon
offline
Link
 
I'm going to say 1, just for the lulz.
 
Jack Del Rio
offline
Link
 
they're all the fucking same
 
boognish
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Jack Del Rio
they're all the fucking same


QFT.
 
Ibucks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Jack Del Rio
they're all the fucking same


They are not the same, actually look at the builds.

Build two is the best, but instead of getting catching to 74 I would get it to the 68 cap and also get agility to 68 cap.
 
CTX
offline
Link
 
If you are building a receiving TE, just go to the wide receiver forums and look up to build a wide receiver. Trust me, you will gain much better results when you build your "receiving TE" like a wide receiver and not a TE that catches. Those points you would put into strength are better served in carrying/agility/speed
Edited by CTX on Dec 17, 2009 12:03:47
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.