oh....well duh on my part. ya, that makes a lot more sense. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
thanks
Printable View
oh....well duh on my part. ya, that makes a lot more sense. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
thanks
I'm honestly not 100% sure. I was able to find a youtube of Nevada actually running it, and it looked like a tackle on the end. Which would mean he'd be eligible, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
So either it's a Tackle Over formation, or it'd probably be a formation where the RT is eligible but rarely goes out for a pass.
I REALLY like this play. Although I rarely, if ever, run with the pistol set, I still love the versatility.
Shotgun Wild Tiger Trey Fight Song – Auburn’s offense features a wide variety of unique and imaginative plays. One of the more interesting plays in their offense is Shotgun Wild Tiger Trey Fight Song. In this play the left tackle aligns on the ball on the right side of the formation in a receiver position. The left tackle is used as a decoy to throw off the defensive recognition of the play.
That play is pretty sick!
This is an example of a play that I don't really understand why it was chosen to be put into the game. I understand that Auburn fans will love and appreciate this detail however I feel that there are enough plays that don't work correctly or are plain missing from the game to be putting in these types of plays that are one offs and a dead give away (game-wise) because of the odd alignment.
Now perhaps I'm way off base here and this took almost no time to incorporate and there are several plays that play off of it however that is my first thought when I read that description. It is a very neat concept for a play however I'm just unsure of why this would be incorporated before more common plays or before other plays currently in the game work correctly. Just my honest opinion.
I just hope (like others have mentioned for other plays) that there is enough corresponding plays so that it's not easy to see what you're running. I imagine that will be the case but still have that concern.
I second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
Thirded.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
Cool play, needs to have some others from the same alignment.
Anyone know if the tackle is/can be an eligible receiver in that formation/package?
No... he's ineligible because he's covered by the receiver on the outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
In the game, I highly doubt it. You'd have to make the A receiver an ineligible receiver somehow and I doubt you'll have that ability.
Truthfully, I understand the concept from a real life standpoint, but I don't see how this play is going to be used in a gameplay standpoint. Obviously, you're losing a blocker to the outside for a SMALL amount of confusion. Is the CPU actually going to be stupid enough to cover the RT outside in man coverage instead of the A receiver? I HIGHLY doubt that. If they do, that's a free receiver every time. Talk about a money play (against the CPU, of course).
The CPU won't cover the RT... they only pay attention to eligible receivers. It's basically like a half emory & henry formation. The one thing I hope that is included is a screen to B receiver.
That's what I thought but I'm not a rules expert by any stretch of the imagination. LOL was envisioning screen passes to OTs and a scene from Varsity Blues where Billy Bob charges into the endzone with 3 people jumping on him attempting a tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
That with a Jet Sweep from LB or X would be great. Or a quick screen to Y (since the RT won't be covered by anyone, putting him in the best spot possible for a solid block on Y's coverage man).Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
I just don't see how a verticals play is going to be useful with one less blocker in the game... The blocking is already poor with a very simple overload, imagine the sieve that 4 blockers would leave?
Kwizzy and crew, it's quite possible that this was one of the last plays/formations they added, but are not showing us in order of play creation. Also, it has been mentioned that there are more than 25 new plays that have/are being added. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that these new formations will have several plays in their package, just as all the other formations do. I don't ever remember a formation being added to ncaa without at least 3-5 plays minimum in its pack. But even if it is a "one off" play, it's still a great addition to the playbook, and shows me that they were looking to spice it up around the spectrum of college football, as opposed to finding one style (like a few years ago with option), and therefore minimizing the amount of playbooks to work with, and leaving the rest for next year. Furthermore, they've now offensively touched on several different team styles of offense, including Hawaii, Nevada, Auburn, Oregon State, and others. This is very encouraging to me, although we don't all feel this way, and that's ok.
Now as for the creation time, how much time in create-a-play did we spend throwing route combos together back in the day? Not a ton if we knew what play we were putting together. Basically you had to set each assignment and that was that. For EA, the new formation itself might have taken a bit of time though, But once that was set the plays were prolly fairly easy. The plays that are currently "broken" are mostly "broken" due to (a) a wrong assignment or a couple within the play or (b) the act of the fundamental play design not working well with the fundamental physics of interaction within the AI. Since the AI is being tweaked each year, they are working on fixing some plays by default (such as the option last season with fundamental blocking changes), and hopefully those wrong assignments get fixed as well. I think we would all, in fact, love to see the "fixed" plays, along with the new plays.
it's all about realism. will it work most of the time? no. But this isn't a staple play, it's a wrinkle, and as long this wrinkle has a few extra looks, then that's all it needs. we do need more staple pays and formations, but we also need to have the playbook specific wrinkles that separate it from others as well.
THIS is the problem. However, maybe more often than not, we would see a 3 down coverage defense against the 5 wide spread set, in which case you may get away with it a fair amount of time. And since it's a "unique" design/wrinkle, it's not necessarily meant to be used more than a couple times a game maximum, so combined with a screen and like a jet sweep, it would be like a Wildcat type play just to create more balance for you and less for the defense. It's designed to work big due to poor defensive alignment, and if not it's going to get demolished, so it's a great risk/reward play design, both IRL and in the game imo. If it's a $ play, that'll be sad though, cuz ppl will overuse it, but I don't see why it wouldn't be defend-able (assuming zones have been worked on). It's just a trips left/slot right play design when all is said and done.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
THIS!Quote:
Originally Posted by xMrHitStickx904
I think I am completely on the same page with everyone else but I was merely trying to point out one concern I have with plays like this. If this play is well incorporated in to the formation/playbook & there are several plays that play off it (and it took little time to add) then I withdraw my concerns for the most part.
As far as uniqueness of individual playbooks goes, I completely agree that they need to try to incorporate as much of that stuff as possible. I just tend to believe that there are some fairly basic plays, especially in playbooks that involve spread formations (like Auburn), that don't currently work properly and could benefit from the time. I guess what I'm really saying is, why try to get the specifics of Auburn's spread attack right when there are still core elements of EVERY spread that don't currently function as they should.
Again, perhaps the two things are unrelated, and adding this play took absolutely no time away from troubleshooting other plays (or better yet, they already addressed those concerns).
Not True. I use the flexbone playbook exclusively. In the Flexbone Twins formation, the slot receiver is covered and ineligible but gets covered when the defense playing m/m defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
+1, this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keontez
Ooo Ooo, I have a thing that I just remembered looking at the playart of some of these plays, and talking flexbone. I would like to see EA implement into their plays, the length of the flat route by my rbs or wrs. If it is stopping at the hash, I want to see a ----| OR ----O OR a curl pattern, instead of a ----> in the playart. I am sick of overthrowing my rb because he is supposed to be running a flat route to the sideline according to the playart, but stops short because his actual route is to the hash marks. My qb throws the playart route, not the intended route. I imagine in flexbone that the flat route is a key component to the pass game.
I-Form Twin TE Badger Power – A staple of the Wisconsin power running game, I-Form Twin TE Badger Power is a play that combines elements of both a counter and power play. The Badgers like to send the wing tight end in motion to the weak side and at the snap he becomes the second “puller” on the play. Factor in the fullback and Wisconsin can get three lead blockers at the point of attack.
Like this play a lot! Nebraska did some similar stuff last year with their pistol formations & it really worked out well (see opening play from scrimmage vs Mizzou). Motioning that TE presnap definitely decieves the defense as to where the strength of the formation will end up being. Hopefully this works out similarly in the game.
that is a NICE power running play
oh my gosh. That's awesome right thure!
Thure or Thurrrrr?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Oh hell yeah!!
As somebody who loves employing the Power run game, I'm very excited about what this play can do to help supplement my playcalling. Really digging the TE motion pre-snap as well, could definitely be useful in conjunction with "flipping" the play to go to the left instead.
Generally you can't flip plays that have automotion included in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paakaa10
Good thing. The RG would run into the "pulling" TE if you did, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
I didn't mean the right-stick "flip" once you come to the line of scrimmage, because that would--as steelerfan says--screw up the play fundamentally; I mean just "flipping" it in the playbook and throwing a wrinkle because more often than not "Power" run plays go to the right side of the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
Yea out of all the plays that have been released, this is by far my favorite! I mean look at this play.....it's beautiful! I'm a power running type of guy so seeing this only gives me goosebumps! We're now talking about being able to have a lead blocker(FB), a pulling Guard as well as a motioning TE to pick up the scraps backside......Wooo....then add in if you have a explosive RB!! Loving it!!! :drool:
yup, this is the third and 1 play right here.
Looks like another money play to me.
All plays are money plays in design, thats why defense is formed against them. However, Wisconsin led the nation in rushing last season, so yes, I'd say this play is money "mr skeptical".Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Until they fix the defense to where it's not impossible to stop a running play unless you know EXACTLY what's coming at you, and power formation like that is pretty much a guaranteed 3+ yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Mmmmhmmm. That's Wisconsin's staple running play. They averaged 5.5 yds a carry and had 48 touchdowns on the ground last season. Yup, that's supposed to get 3+ yds a play. In fact a mere total of 17 schools last season average less than 3.5 yds a carry. Against a Wisconsin type rushing attack, you have to load the box all the time. That's how you give yourself a chance to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
It's not impossible to stop a run play this season, nor is it impossible to stop a great rushing offense for an entire game. Just like in Real Life, you need the players to do it against your particular opponent, and the play call has to be somewhat aggressive. I don't understand why people here have such an issue with offenses working. College football is a generally high scoring game. Could the defense be better? Especially in play variety (already being upgraded significantly), coverage and coverage animations that only end in ints or catches instead of a clean breakup, yes. In fact those last 2 things being improved would eliminate so many completions, which would bring more drives to an end and across the board create lower scoring games. But offenses work, they're designed too. It seems we are getting more tools to stop it more often, so the complaints at this point are unwarranted, especially considering that for 10 we were all disgruntled about how terrible the run game was, remember that?
Thurrrrr!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers