PDA

View Full Version : No Huddle = Cheese?



TheShockDoctor
08-17-2010, 10:24 AM
So recently I started playing NCAA 11 online again and I generally use Michigan or Auburn or another up-tempo no huddle team because that is my favorite style to play. But recently people have been telling me I'm cheesing because its unstoppable. I'm fairly certain it is though seeing how I have been stopped before and how I have stopped people who have ran the no huddle.

So what do you guys think? Is the no huddle over powered or have I just been facing sore losers?

Roy38
08-17-2010, 10:38 AM
I think it depends on how you no-huddle. If you no-huddle from an Ace: Big > Corner Strike to I-Form: Normal > HB Toss, it's not cheesy. However, if you're no-huddling to a play to expose the A.I., like Ace: Trips TE (which moves your #1 WR to TE and #2 WR to the inside slot giving you two WR's matched up on LB's or maybe a S), there could be a problem. I think the question then becomes when you do it. If you're no-huddling to said play a few times a game, then no - but if you're moving to that play during crucial moments (3rd and long, needing a TD, etc.), then you're cheating the game in your favor.

Jayrah
08-17-2010, 11:56 AM
I think Roy brings up a good point, especially at the end. Personally if I am making a big change in my formation where a personnel change would be necessary, I go to a huddle. 2-3 times a game getting a matchup advantage in the no huddle is normal though I'd say. The cpu runs the no huddle pretty effectively and it's pretty fun to try and stop a drive. To be honest the problem for people online is that they are probably going to blitz a lot trying to stop the no huddle faster, but the key is to play base defense and defensive key on the guy that's killing you, along with mixing base zone and base man to keep the offense off balance. And switching formations is a no go for defense during no huddle, you self destruct any matchups you may have. Maybe blitz one guy from a different spot a couple of plays, but the more you blitz the more tired your defense gets.

The other thing is that teams need more speed on the field during a no huddle, so recognizing that they need to call more nickel and dime defenses to start the drive, even if they only see you in a 2-3 wr set.

TheShockDoctor
08-17-2010, 10:11 PM
Unless I'm missing it I am fairly certain that I am not making any mismatches (at least not intentional). When I go no huddle i stay in a 4 WR set just move it around from Spread Flex to a Trips or something around those lines. Or occasionally 3 WR and 1 TE to 3 WR with me TE spread out (which doesn't seem like a mismatch but if it is i will stop)

morsdraconis
08-17-2010, 10:50 PM
It's not cheese at all. Even going from 4WRs to a goalline formation wouldn't be cheese. WRs can't block worth shit and if you have ones that actually can, then GREAT. Take advantage of them all you can.

Otherwise, the WHOLE point of going no huddle is to create mismatches by having players that are multi-talented and moving them around through changing formations (along with preventing the defense from subbing out players).

ram29jackson
08-18-2010, 01:00 AM
IF YOURE A TRUSTED STRAIGHT PLAYER I KNOW, I will try to learn and tolerate it.

if your some win at all costs stranger- I assume online you can still no huddle on a dead ball-bad AI- out of bounds etc. Thats cheese haha

Jayrah
08-18-2010, 03:09 AM
Unless I'm missing it I am fairly certain that I am not making any mismatches (at least not intentional). When I go no huddle i stay in a 4 WR set just move it around from Spread Flex to a Trips or something around those lines. Or occasionally 3 WR and 1 TE to 3 WR with me TE spread out (which doesn't seem like a mismatch but if it is i will stop)

Based on that comment alone I would say that you are not cheating the system. No Cheese. And the thing is, if you are asking whether it is considered cheese or not because you don't want to be a "cheezy" player, then you probably aren't cheesing at all. If you can't be stopped, then you can't be stopped. :) Some players are just good at some things, and you gotta adjust as a defense.

CLW
08-18-2010, 11:07 AM
As previously mentioned above, its about whether or not you are changing formations to abuse matchups. The CPU absolutely drives me nuts coming out in 4 wide sets then going down to power running formations and creating ridiculous miss matches with no downsides as apparently 6'0" 100 and something pound WR block just as well as 6'5" 250 pound TEs.

Who knew???

morsdraconis
08-18-2010, 12:17 PM
As previously mentioned above, its about whether or not you are changing formations to abuse matchups. The CPU absolutely drives me nuts coming out in 4 wide sets then going down to power running formations and creating ridiculous miss matches with no downsides as apparently 6'0" 100 and something pound WR block just as well as 6'5" 250 pound TEs.

Who knew???

I disagree. I've seen numerous times WRs unable to block as well as a TE or even a HB would be able to do, or at least, for me they haven't been. I guess it's just more CPU cheese.

Jayrah
08-18-2010, 11:19 PM
I disagree. I've seen numerous times WRs unable to block as well as a TE or even a HB would be able to do, or at least, for me they haven't been. I guess it's just more CPU cheese.

TOTALLY CORRECT! There is TONS of downside to having wr's and rb's block. This year has really changed that area, as my bad blocking wr's constantly and consistently get tossed aside like ragdolls to reveal my rb to harm. Even my te's get abused on the line. And I know where my good linemen are and are not, because I'm constantly getting rushed from one side, and the other side is generally solid, including running the ball. Granted I have sliders set off of "default", but I see a huge difference even so. Weight is definately a huge factor for blocking, as well as ability. IMO at least....

Roy38
08-19-2010, 02:19 AM
It's not cheese at all. Even going from 4WRs to a goalline formation wouldn't be cheese. WRs can't block worth shit and if you have ones that actually can, then GREAT. Take advantage of them all you can.

Otherwise, the WHOLE point of going no huddle is to create mismatches by having players that are multi-talented and moving them around through changing formations (along with preventing the defense from subbing out players).

So, from my example above, you wouldn't have a problem with my #1 WR covered by your LOLB and my #2 WR covered by your ROLB? I'm sure not worried about running the football if I get that matchup all day. Then, I decide to ease off no-huddle to see what you do. I show the same personnel, do you go Nickel or Dime? If so, now I'm set to run the football. You may have speed on the field, but I'll take my 5 yards a carry and grind on you.

morsdraconis
08-19-2010, 03:00 AM
So, from my example above, you wouldn't have a problem with my #1 WR covered by your LOLB and my #2 WR covered by your ROLB? I'm sure not worried about running the football if I get that matchup all day. Then, I decide to ease off no-huddle to see what you do. I show the same personnel, do you go Nickel or Dime? If so, now I'm set to run the football. You may have speed on the field, but I'll take my 5 yards a carry and grind on you.

I have absolutely no problem with that. That's football man. You catch me like that and no huddle down the field to take advantage of that, good for you.

I have no problem with WRs against my LBs cause I normally play the 3-4 set against 3 WR sets anyway so I'm used to dealing with it. Comes with the territory you could say.

The no huddle definitely causes some headaches defensively but it's not unstoppable (though I'm sure a talented play caller could shred most anyone).

But hell, I'm so out of practice against humans (my shitty internet basically prevents me from playing online at all) I don't really know what I'd do anymore since I rarely have to worry about the no huddle against the CPU.

But, just for conversation's sake, let's say you're going 4WRs down the field on me no huddle style. Well, first off, I'm going to go with the 3 down lineman Dime formation (can't remember the name of it right now) the whole way so you're going to have your 5 in the box, but that's not a problem for me. I say that because I've used the defense for so long, there are a few nuances to it that make it a bit more effective against the run that normal Dime. Mainly though, I'm going to bring my FS down into the box and probably read run quite a bit. Again, not really an issue because of the formation and some of the great plays in it. Seams are sometimes a problem, but that's what reading tendencies is for.

And, even if stopping the run does become a problem and you continue to no huddle, well that's going to work to my advantage because I'll have CBs playing LBs by switching back to the 3-4 defense so I get my 7 in the box and still have superior coverage abilities.

So again, I have no problem with drastic formation changes in no huddle even if it isn't exactly the most realistic thing.

Roy38
08-19-2010, 10:23 AM
I have absolutely no problem with that. That's football man. You catch me like that and no huddle down the field to take advantage of that, good for you.

I have no problem with WRs against my LBs cause I normally play the 3-4 set against 3 WR sets anyway so I'm used to dealing with it. Comes with the territory you could say.

The no huddle definitely causes some headaches defensively but it's not unstoppable (though I'm sure a talented play caller could shred most anyone).

But hell, I'm so out of practice against humans (my shitty internet basically prevents me from playing online at all) I don't really know what I'd do anymore since I rarely have to worry about the no huddle against the CPU.

But, just for conversation's sake, let's say you're going 4WRs down the field on me no huddle style. Well, first off, I'm going to go with the 3 down lineman Dime formation (can't remember the name of it right now) the whole way so you're going to have your 5 in the box, but that's not a problem for me. I say that because I've used the defense for so long, there are a few nuances to it that make it a bit more effective against the run that normal Dime. Mainly though, I'm going to bring my FS down into the box and probably read run quite a bit. Again, not really an issue because of the formation and some of the great plays in it. Seams are sometimes a problem, but that's what reading tendencies is for.

And, even if stopping the run does become a problem and you continue to no huddle, well that's going to work to my advantage because I'll have CBs playing LBs by switching back to the 3-4 defense so I get my 7 in the box and still have superior coverage abilities.

So again, I have no problem with drastic formation changes in no huddle even if it isn't exactly the most realistic thing.

Interesting. I suppose if your LB's had Speed, Acceleration, and Agility with good coverage skills, it wouldn't be much of an issue - but this normally isn't the case. Obviously, if you're playing zone, I'm forced to read the zone and attack the gaps accordingly. With zone, I have the advantage because now my TE's are more viable receiving threats against your corners since they aren't in their hip pocket. My concern about audibling to formations like this is if you're in man coverage. In most cases, your LB's can't cover my primary WR's. If you user your Safety to help shut down one, the other is open. Now, you could blitz giving me less time to throw, but simple quick routes (Drags, Quick Ins-Outs, Slants) are going to expose you. I guess my point is - it's not cheese if I use it sparingly against you in non-critical situations (1st and 10, 2nd and 3, etc.) when I don't NEED a first down or a TD to win. However, if my whole offense is geared to abusing this mismatch, then its cheese.

JeffHCross
08-22-2010, 08:07 PM
Even if you're no-huddling from 4 WR Shotgun sets to Ace Big, I fail to see a problem. If the first play of a drive was 4 WR, I'd come out in Dime. If he went to Ace Big on the next play ... I'd still be in Dime. He gets no advantage from having 2 WRs at TE positions, as far as I know, and my CBs are still manned up on those two inside WRs.

Now, yes, there are certainly some routes that the TEs can run that expose some AI problems ... but that's just as true for slot receivers as it is for TEs.

Roy38
08-22-2010, 09:57 PM
Even if you're no-huddling from 4 WR Shotgun sets to Ace Big, I fail to see a problem. If the first play of a drive was 4 WR, I'd come out in Dime. If he went to Ace Big on the next play ... I'd still be in Dime. He gets no advantage from having 2 WRs at TE positions, as far as I know, and my CBs are still manned up on those two inside WRs.

Now, yes, there are certainly some routes that the TEs can run that expose some AI problems ... but that's just as true for slot receivers as it is for TEs.

Moving from 4 WR sets to an Ace: Big, Ace: Big Twins, etc. yields no advantage as you're most likely in Dime coverage to begin with. The potential issue I see is moving from the opposite direction. If I'm lined up in Ace: Big, Ace: Big Twins, etc. and then no-huddle to Shotgun: Trips TE (for one example), both TE's shift outside while the two WR's shift inside and will look something like this:

TE1 TE2 WR2 T G C G T WR1

Since I came out in Ace: Big showing a 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 HB set, you're most likely in your base defense (4-3, 3-4, etc.) to play the run and pass equally. When I no-huddle to the above, I now have your LB's or S's covering my WR's and your CB's covering my TE's in Man Coverage which is a huge mismatch. Obviously, Zone Coverage eliminates the problem somewhat as your LB's won't have immediate responsibility on them other than when they enter their zone. However, if you're in Zone Coverage, my TE's become more viable receiving options as the defense is playing much softer. Then it boils down to my ability to read the defense and make the appropriate throw. However, using a play like this, I could dictate what kind of coverage you play. Here would be a coverage issue in Man:

Using my formation above, I run a Shallow Cross concept. WR1 running a Quick-In, Inside Slant, or Dig route, WR2 running a Drag route in front of the offensive line, HB hot routed to block or run a Drag away from WR2 Drag route. I now have WR2, being covered by your LB, running to the vacated area allowing me a huge play. To counter this, you could user the SS to close down this gap in which case I check to WR1, being covered by your other LB, over the middle. If I see you become dependent on shutting down the Drag route, I show the same look, but run a play where WR1 is running a Streak or Corner route. With no safety help over the top, your LB is toast.

morsdraconis
08-22-2010, 10:58 PM
Moving from 4 WR sets to an Ace: Big, Ace: Big Twins, etc. yields no advantage as you're most likely in Dime coverage to begin with. The potential issue I see is moving from the opposite direction. If I'm lined up in Ace: Big, Ace: Big Twins, etc. and then no-huddle to Shotgun: Trips TE (for one example), both TE's shift outside while the two WR's shift inside and will look something like this:

TE1 TE2 WR2 T G C G T WR1

Since I came out in Ace: Big showing a 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 HB set, you're most likely in your base defense (4-3, 3-4, etc.) to play the run and pass equally. When I no-huddle to the above, I now have your LB's or S's covering my WR's and your CB's covering my TE's in Man Coverage which is a huge mismatch. Obviously, Zone Coverage eliminates the problem somewhat as your LB's won't have immediate responsibility on them other than when they enter their zone. However, if you're in Zone Coverage, my TE's become more viable receiving options as the defense is playing much softer. Then it boils down to my ability to read the defense and make the appropriate throw. However, using a play like this, I could dictate what kind of coverage you play. Here would be a coverage issue in Man:

Using my formation above, I run a Shallow Cross concept. WR1 running a Quick-In, Inside Slant, or Dig route, WR2 running a Drag route in front of the offensive line, HB hot routed to block or run a Drag away from WR2 Drag route. I now have WR2, being covered by your LB, running to the vacated area allowing me a huge play. To counter this, you could user the SS to close down this gap in which case I check to WR1, being covered by your other LB, over the middle. If I see you become dependent on shutting down the Drag route, I show the same look, but run a play where WR1 is running a Streak or Corner route. With no safety help over the top, your LB is toast.

And, as I said before, that's just good gameplanning/playcalling on your part. That's taking advantage of stupid formation setups by EA (A HUGE problem that not enough people complain about) and by doing so getting good matchups for your players. In real life, that's no different than having a TE like Tony Gonzalez being a slot receiver in a 3 WR set for a team and taking advantage of his ability to catch the ball and run against either a LB in space, a safety in space, or a corner in space.

Roy38
08-23-2010, 10:22 AM
And, as I said before, that's just good gameplanning/playcalling on your part. That's taking advantage of stupid formation setups by EA (A HUGE problem that not enough people complain about) and by doing so getting good matchups for your players. In real life, that's no different than having a TE like Tony Gonzalez being a slot receiver in a 3 WR set for a team and taking advantage of his ability to catch the ball and run against either a LB in space, a safety in space, or a corner in space.

It's strange how some some of the formations get butchered like this. I could kind of understand this problem happening if you were using formation packages to move personnel around then no-huddling to another set. - but you'd think they'd have it programmed for players to move to base positions. From my example, TE1 stays next to the RT and TE2 lines up at the inside slot position.

Since you feel like this play is "legal" - what makes this play acceptable compared to running a 5 WR set using a primary WR at the inside slot position? I have a thread located here talking about a problem:

http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?820-Cheese-Discussion

I feel this exposes the same kind of problems. If you guys don't think this is cheese, I have no problem using it because it's extremely effective. I like to think of myself as a straight player and don't want there to be any question in my play calling or style of play. I guess that's why I keep stressing the issue! :D If everyone feels this is "legal", I'll update my Southern Miss scheme to include this as a potential audible.

morsdraconis
08-23-2010, 06:09 PM
The 5WR thing is different. If the CPU defensive logic wasn't so incredibly terrible (thus forcing the player to HAVE to manually cover the 5th receiver on those formations), it truly wouldn't be a problem. Again, that's just like real life and trying to get a matchup to exploit.

The difference between real life and this game though is, I'm absolutely STUCK having to cover your best WR with my LB/5th CB instead of being able to always force my #1 CB to follow your #1 WR around to whatever location on the field he decides to lineup. If they would implement that ability again, I'd have absolutely no problem with the best receiver being lined up at the #5 spot (though I would have a problem if you abused that by always going back to it and shit - that's lame playcalling and that makes it cheese bullshit).