Powerhouse OD - General Discussion Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

E & I talked and we're all good. No worries between us.

That said, if anyone does have any kind of a problem with my punting, I am all ears. There are ways to defend it and some have had legitimate success against it (I believe ryby is one) but you do have to prepare for it.

---

I've kind of figured out some things to do, based on who I have returning kicks. If it's Thomas I'll try and cut the angle and switch off of him but if I have someone else back deep I'll either play a Quarters Man 3 deep and fair catch the ball but I also know that I'll be susceptible to fakes on 4th and 8 or less so I need to be unpredictable with the special teams calling which as many know plays right into something I want anyways. I want other users to have to guess or be forced into making a questionable play choice as much as the next user.

Having defended it like I have, I still wish they had the 2 returners back for a punt this year. Not sure why that was removed when some NCAA teams still deploy this punt coverage.

I've never had a problem with G's punting. When Justin Tucker (current Ravens kicker) was a freshman at Texas....he did the rugby style punts....I figured that's what G attempting to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

E & I talked and we're all good. No worries between us.

---

:up:

Yeah when g came to me about the issue it was never an attack on Eric, he even put the blame squarely on EA's shoulders due to the alignment issues. But I wanted to present it to everyone so we could collectively come up with a solution that would work for all of us instead of just dictating here's the problem, this is what we have to do. I've always run this OD as a collaborative effort as in the end its basically a time waster for all of us, so we better make sure everyone is on the same page and having fun.

I have no problem with what USC did and I'm on his side. As a 4-2-5 user I say that play was your fault because you called base align before you saw the formation which is what caused your problem. There was no way he would have known that the guy moving was supposed to cover the wide receiver.

As far as the punting, it irritates me but I don't play you that often...

Honestly, Ive never noticed lol.

Anyhoo...A happy league is a good league :nod:

G's punting never bothered me because I never could force him to punt :D :( :fp:

ND-Oregon from yr 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syybd...&feature=inbox

For whatever reason, Im absolutely incapable of playing defense all of a sudden.

Time to study the ole depth chart, bench dudes who are wigging out...and get back to basics...BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Random question but I thought I would post it here instead of starting a thread for it on the main board.

When using custom playbooks, can you not set the audibles for each formation specifically?

I've been using a custom playbook for the last two years but I'm not a big audible guy so I've never paid it much attention and have usually been satisfied with what the cpu provided. However, I am trying to condense my book and created a new one yesterday with less plays. The audibles in this one are massively screwed up though. Some formations trying to audible just flips the formation while others work but have different run plays as the audibles than the other book.

Any tips on how to correct this?

TIA!

No. You can't change your formation audibles. It's better this year than last, but still an issue. Unfortunately until they let us manually change our formation audibles, it will continue to be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Are we allowed to line a TE up as the fullback like many teams do now? I'm not sure if it's a package substitution is why I ask. If we are allowed or it is a package substitution, are we allowed to motion them out of the backfield into a route?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

I wouldn't have a problem if you were putting one back there to block but if you're going to motion him out and throw to him somewhat often then I would want to get more specifics.

---

Just a follow up on this. I haven't played with it too much but in the I formation I did notice their is a package substitution for TE in the Backfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

No. You can't change your formation audibles. It's better this year than last, but still an issue. Unfortunately until they let us manually change our formation audibles, it will continue to be an issue.

---

Hmm well that sucks. I guess I will need to dig back in to it and find the problem. I can get used to the different plays but it's the flipping of the formation without changing plays that is the biggest issue.

Thanks for the info!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Just a follow up on this. I haven't played with it too much but in the I formation I did notice their is a package substitution for TE in the Backfield.

---

I use this package substitution with the H I-Form sets that I have in my playbook.

I still can't figure out why they make special H-Back formations but then leave the FB in as the player at that spot. Completely defeats the purpose imo.

My issue wasn't so much with putting a TE (I use it myself in SBCOL) in the I-Form but rather you mentioned you planned to motion him out & throw to him. I don't know that it would be an issue but also never know considering issues in the past.

Again, not saying I have an issue with the idea at all, I would just caution using it too often, especially if you see that it's too easy to complete that pass.

I recruit extra TEs to fill my FB slots. I don't recruit FBs.

What criteria does the game use when determining whether on not to switch off in man? Playing the 34 one of the LB's will always switch his assignment to the guy I am covering(MLB) causing someone to be WIDE open. It is really starting to piss me off and also starting to make the 34 tough to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryby6969

What criteria does the game use when determining whether on not to switch off in man? Playing the 34 one of the LB's will always switch his assignment to the guy I am covering(MLB) causing someone to be WIDE open. It is really starting to piss me off and also starting to make the 34 tough to use.

---

Oneback will be disappointed but I can't remember the term but it's a legit defensive style. Essentially, you and your fellow LB will have combo coverage on the two receivers... depending on where the receivers release determines your coverage. Say for example you are the MLB and the LOLB has man. You're assigned to the HB and he's assigned to the TE. If the TE releases underneath towards you (the MLB) and the HB releases to the flats towards the OLB, then you would pick up the TE and the OLB would take the HB. Essentially whomever is in better position to coverage a receiver would take them.

The unfortunate thing is that the game does not relay this information to you at all pre-snap. In diagramming defensive plays, Oneback shows me that essentially as a player you should have a dotted line to both the HB & TE (and so would the LOLB) to tell you that you have the combo coverage. As well, teams will do this with outside receiver coverage with a safety over the top & the CB. Depending on the receiver's release will determine which player will cover. He's also encouraged EA to do more of this but so far they haven't done anything with the outside players. That said, before they do, they need to make sure that there's an indicator of such.

Again, I can't remember the term for the life of me but I know Oneback will know it.

I know it is a legit defensive adjustment, it is just frustrating because like you said there is no communication. It is bad in the 34 and 43 over/under. In the game vs Razor, it happened to me on multiple occasions and it was crazy. I would be assigned to the HB and the LOLB to the TE and the OLB leaves the TE wide open over the middle while going to the HB when I was almost there already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryby6969

I know it is a legit defensive adjustment, it is just frustrating because like you said there is no communication. It is bad in the 34 and 43 over/under. In the game vs Razor, it happened to me on multiple occasions and it was crazy. I would be assigned to the HB and the LOLB to the TE and the OLB leaves the TE wide open over the middle while going to the HB when I was almost there already.

---

Yeah... that's a small part of the reason why I rarely use MLB anymore. That said, you just have to be ready to read it... it's essentially on anytime two linebackers are near each other and their receivers could go either way. I learned the hard way just to not control either of those players in a situation like that... that or control the LOLB and just make sure you first read his flat and who's headed that way of the two receivers.