Warrior General Games

It's clear that the Big I Formation is almost unstoppable... I suggest the Defense get a 5-2 Base Formation or the Offense have to give up there Big I Formation!! It's not fair for the Offense to get a 2TE and FB/HB Formation and the Defense not even get a 5 D-Line Set. I know we have 4-4 and Small Goalline but you can ask any DC in this Game and they will tell you those Formations don't Match-Up well against a 1 WR Set like the Big I. It is a Nightmare Match-Up for Defenses and if it wasn't, All the Top Teams in World League wouldn't be running them so much.

I know this suggestion won't be popular but someone needed to say something and stick-up for the Defense in this Game.

LB custom slots

/thread

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
LB custom slots

/thread

Yep....Those are nice, Glad we got those. What I'm talking about isn't a Player Match-Up, Mis-Match, It's a Formation Match-Up, Mis-Match. Where is the Defense's 1 CB Formation?

I was saying the 5-2 is a better Match-Up than what the Defense currently has. I would actually like a 1 CB/4 DL/4LB/2 S Formation against the Big I but I thought that would be asking a little too much, lol.

Bring a LB down to the los = 5-2

The problem is that more DL actually makes it easier to run on a team. You would think that having a goalline formation against an I form would be an effective means of stopping the inside run, because you should have an overpowering of the Oline instead usually allows for significant gains up the middle, while a three man front in a spread formation allows the LBers to very easily stop the run for minimal gain or loss.

Originally posted by regoob2
Bring a LB down to the los = 5-2

I've been doing that since the AI came out and when you put a DE there, He's taking an OOP Penalty that no one will tell me what it is? How is this fair to someone that just wants to DC? I do both OC and DC and that's why I can clearly see the Formation Match-Up Mis-Match with that Formation. Even then though, You have a Mike where a Sam should be, I know...Just put a Sam in MLB1, That is the Jack LB in my Spread Defense. I may not want a Coverage LB in @ Sam where if the OLB1 (DE) get's dropped by the Blocking TE, Then I have a Lead Blocking FB Matched-Up on my Coverage Backer. A "TRUE" 5-2 with a NT/WDT/SDT/ and 2 OLB's is about all you can hope for besides the 4 DL/4 LB/2 S/1 CB Formation I was actually wanting.

Originally posted by Time Trial
The problem is that more DL actually makes it easier to run on a team. You would think that having a goalline formation against an I form would be an effective means of stopping the inside run, because you should have an overpowering of the Oline instead usually allows for significant gains up the middle, while a three man front in a spread formation allows the LBers to very easily stop the run for minimal gain or loss.

I noticed some of this as well...Most NT's can blow through Double Teams like nothing these last 2 Seasons and shut down an Inside Ground Game by hisself. Actually that's a whole other monster in itself,lol.

Originally posted by sehorn31
I noticed some of this as well...Most NT's can blow through Double Teams like nothing these last 2 Seasons and shut down an Inside Ground Game by hisself. Actually that's a whole other monster in itself,lol.

I was running a GL formation with all of the people on the line running 15 points into Goalline Stopper and people were still able to run right up the gut a few seasons ago. I switched to a three man front in goalline situations and gave the LBers the VA instead and the inside runs coughed up a ton of fumbles.

Originally posted by sehorn31
It's clear that the Big I Formation is almost unstoppable

stopped reading here

Originally posted by regoob2
Bring a LB down to the los = 5-2

No. Not really. The 52 used 3 DT's and 2 DE's and 2 LB's. Just moving a LB down to the line does NOT = the 52 defense. As a Bears fan, you should know that. I've wanted the 52 defense added to GLB every since I first got here and realized it wasn't a part of the game. Just about every other defense is... but not the 52. My guess is (since I can see no other logical reason for it NOT being here) that it's too strong a defense against the run and therefore against GLB policy (since the run game tends to dominate GLB usually). And that sucks big green....

46 D +1