Warrior General Games

Thread moved by moderator.

Here's the thing. Before you decide on what height/weight to make your CB, decide on HOW you want him to cover. If you want him all about speed, then he needs to be light and small as possible (give or take a few pounds/inches). This kind of CB is good against his own kind in the passing game (small, light weight WR's built for max speed). But if you want to be able to cover possession WR's (who are more likely to be bigger and taller), then having a pure speed CB means you'll always be at a disadvantage against those type of players because they can out-jump and out-muscle you for possession. I purposely built a WR with that very thought in mind. He was a power WR as tall and as big as I could make him. No... he couldn't outrun a lot of "coverage CB's"... but he usually caught in double... even triple coverages simply because they couldn't out jump or out muscle him. He was a fun build. SOooo... now knowing what I learned, I built my CB with that thought in mind. He is 6'3" and 190 pounds. He intercepts and bats down passes very well... even when behind the receiver by a couple of yards... because he can jump like a butt-shot coney. As long as the DC doesn't put him in DEEP man-2-man coverage against super speedy WR's with a D-line that couldn't pass rush a dead squirrel, he works just fine.
But before you decide on a height and weight of any dot, have planed out exactly what you want with his build. Then you'll know what height and weight numbers will best help you achieve that goal.

I like tallest and lightest.

Originally posted by T♠2♠
I like tallest and lightest.

I have had quite a bit of lolsuccess with low level CBs,

I recommend tallest/lightest. I'm not sure how this translates into the big leagues,
but at low level, tallest/lightest has worked well for me.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5021775

the CB here is 6'3" and 170lbs

Big corners have their place.

Small, fast-as-possible corners are great at keeping pace with similar WRs. They would outperform your proposed build in that scenario. But CBs cannot be subbed in or out depending on situation or formation. So IMHO, its good to be able to be a two-way player.

Big corners are better defenders at every run play. They can outmuscle and wear down small WRs for the ball, or when those WRs try to block they may find they are the ones getting pancaked. And a straight blocking WR won't be able to often pancake YOU. That's nice to see when its the elusive back or the rushing Q on a sweep or pitch. Your CB will maul the little WR assigned to block him and move in for the open-field tackle quite a lot. It's good to set that guy up as specifically CB2.

There are always 2 CBs are on the field against sets that don't even use 2 WRs, the 2-TE sets everyone uses -- especially the best strategic teams -- the Goal Line and the Big I.

So, in my view, big CBs are really useful.

As for what they said about them being a little sluggish, I won't dispute that. You definitely want to go with that natural 90 speed and really focus on getting agility up to a high number.

As long as you're going with size, do take the "Jack" archetype. You have the option of making a guy strong enough to make the whole thing worthwhile.

Originally posted by JB99
I want to build a 6'3 200lb Man Coverage Corner for next season. I have never built a cb before so I am curious how I build him.

You'll want to focus on Speed and Agility if he will be a man Coverage guy, perhaps want him to be smaller and weigh less too for the archetype that you're suggesting

Originally posted by jbrowning14
Big corners have their place.

Small, fast-as-possible corners are great at keeping pace with similar WRs. They would outperform your proposed build in that scenario. But CBs cannot be subbed in or out depending on situation or formation. So IMHO, its good to be able to be a two-way player.

Big corners are better defenders at every run play. They can outmuscle and wear down small WRs for the ball, or when those WRs try to block they may find they are the ones getting pancaked. And a straight blocking WR won't be able to often pancake YOU. That's nice to see when its the elusive back or the rushing Q on a sweep or pitch. Your CB will maul the little WR assigned to block him and move in for the open-field tackle quite a lot. It's good to set that guy up as specifically CB2.

There are always 2 CBs are on the field against sets that don't even use 2 WRs, the 2-TE sets everyone uses -- especially the best strategic teams -- the Goal Line and the Big I.

So, in my view, big CBs are really useful.

As for what they said about them being a little sluggish, I won't dispute that. You definitely want to go with that natural 90 speed and really focus on getting agility up to a high number.

As long as you're going with size, do take the "Jack" archetype. You have the option of making a guy strong enough to make the whole thing worthwhile.


You don't need weight (or be bigger or whatever) to tackle at the CB position, so I pretty much disagree with this entire post. Also, 90 natural speed at CB for a level 79 dot would be a total disaster.

If the DC was willing to do alot of zone defense with the CBs, a group of pwoerful heavy hitter CBs would be interesting. Have yet to meet a DC willing to do that though (self included)

Originally posted by TehKyou
If the DC was willing to do alot of zone defense with the CBs, a group of pwoerful heavy hitter CBs would be interesting. Have yet to meet a DC willing to do that though (self included)

10 jackhammer

Originally posted by jampysos
10 jackhammer

Of course was thinking of this when I mentioned it. It'd be interesting to see how that defense fared against the run too as well as screens, they could be tough for WRs to block.
If the CB's were all high weight heavy hitters the Safeties would have to make up for it on the deep stuff. Or have to be very dependent on your safeties/LBs to play man. Would work (sorta) against Iforms and Single back big, but you would have trouble vs. multiple WR sets

Yes, he would be tough for WR to block.

I think this pays off more on the strong side, where screens usually go and where the TE is.