Do we already have a thread where we discuss the pros and cons of leaving them as ATH or switching them to a specific position.
Printable View
Do we already have a thread where we discuss the pros and cons of leaving them as ATH or switching them to a specific position.
During position changes, you have to move them to a position. You don't have an option to keep them as an ATH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohica1010
( Beaten by G )
If you don't manually move the ATH, the CPU will do it for you.
Thanks for the info guys! I have always changed them so I have never seen the computer do it for me. But I have always been curious.
Here's the thing: We should be able to keep them as ATH, and line them up in appropriate positions for their talents. I think that we should also have an option to move them to a specific position to maximize their potential, but if we want to move a WR to ATH, so that we can also line him up at HB and another user in a user game can see "exactly" what you have on the field, we should be able too. Now if we do move the player to that position, his ratings at any position you put him at should take a hit. But he should be rated at multiple positions and you should be able to line him up in multiple positions.
You can line anybody up at multiple positions, and, yes, their ratings do take a hit. Is it more of a hit than you get if you declare that player for that position? Maybe, I don't know. But I don't know of any practical difference an ATH staying at ATH versus moving to his best position would give you. The OVR is the same (sometimes better), so I assume that their "best"/"default" position gives the best AWR rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
I agree with you that in the ideal circumstance, an ATH would be an ATH would be an ATH. However, there are some things that would have to be significantly re-worked (position minimums and CPU depth charts, for example), and I don't think that trade-off is worth it. Especially since, off the top of my head, I'm not sure there's a true disadvantage to moving an ATH to his best position.
I know you can do it but another user can't see exactly what you have on the field. It's mostly important for OD. When you line a WR up at RB, it still shows the guy as a on the Offensive players list while you're choosing defense. It's confusing and other users don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
I don't follow. In that case you'd rather he show up as an RB (the position he's lined up at), or be able for it to just say "ATH" (which would be even more generic and confusing). I can agree with the former, except that when I see Percy Harvin break the huddle, I don't know where he's going to line up on the field. There's no strategy if the Gators (or Vikings) had to declare "He's going to be at RB this play!". That said, I can see the frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
You don't necessarily know where he's going to line up but you can make an educated guess based on the other players in the package as a D-coordinator. In game you don't have the luxury of seeing the actual players in the package, so all you can see is what type of players there are. It's only fair to bring him in as an "RB" in a 3 wide set (for example) so that the defense can line up in the proper or corresponding package. There are still offensive sets that allow you to take advantage of personnel groupings by odd alignments, but if you see a 4 wide set with a TE (as it is currently if you take a wr and line him up at rb) you're defense is gonna go dime or quarter when in reality it's a 3 wide set with your "ath" as your RB. The way the game depicts your awareness as a D-coordinator, it's the only way to fairly move players from their position without switching multiple players to "show" the correct personnel package.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
To me though... the Dexter McClusters and the Aaron Hernandez that line up in different positions should indeed be a question mark that you have to account for as a defense coordinator. I do this all the time in ODs... find that guy that can play multiple positions and then build my playbook with some stuff based on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
For example, in Powerhouse, I have a TE that plays more like a receiver. He's my 2nd TE and my 3rd WR so if I go Ace - Big, he's on the field with a hand in the dirt and it shows 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 HB. If I call Shotgun - Normal, he's lined in the slot but it still shows the defense at play call 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 HB. I intentionally call plays so that the defense doesn't know where he'll be until we line up, and then they have to adjust. That forces them to make a decision... do they want to always go 4-3 against that personnel or do they want to worry about him as a WR and call Nickel more often.
Same thing, in SBCOL, I have a WR that also has very good runningback skills. He's my 3rd WR and my 2nd HB. Sometimes I line him up at HB/FB in Shotgun - Split so the defense sees 3WR, 1 TE, 1 HB but they'll be surprised to see a more powerful formation than they expected. Other times, I'll pull the HB and put him in during Shotgun - Spread so again, the defense sees 5WR (0 HB) so they assume an Air Raid style play but instead he takes it up the gut.
Assuming we're on the same page, I don't see why the defense needs to be told where he's lining up seeing as how with the same exact personnel, he could be lined up in any number of places. It's one of those small mind games that happens in real life that keeps you guessing and forcing you to adjust on the fly.
Can't you make that same educated guess based on the other players on the field in NCAA? If I see 4 WRs + Percy Harvin, I can make a pretty good guess that he's either going to be in the backfield or a fifth WR. That doesn't make a significant difference to my play call. Yes, because of some of the limitations of NCAA you're sometimes screwed on alignment, but, in this example, I need to plan for 5 WRs, regardless of whether one of them is actually lined up at RB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Similarly, the difference between Shotgun - Normal and Shotgun - Y-Slot is 4 WR versus 3 WR/1 TE. I have to make a judgement call based on that package whether to treat 3 WR/1 TE as 4 WR threats, or as 3 WRs plus a TE that my LB can cover. Whether that TE is Aaron Hernandez, Gronk, or Jake Ballard probably will influence that decision. Whether Gronk shows up as a TE or a 4th WR is probably less important to that decision. In my opinion.
these are good points. However i would argue that if I know an "ath" is in the game I can manage some sort of guess better than if I think he's coming in for a wr set. Maybe not an "ath" position even, but a pulse around his # in the play call screen whenever he's in the game to alert the defense that this player (ala Harvin from your example) is a moving piece within the offense so be aware he could be a rb. The limitations of time in the play call screen doesn't allow users the luxury of gandering over the # of every player and then pick an educated defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
TEs are different imo based on who they are and their skill set because the #1 TE is generally the guy out there so whether he's flanked or not is basically irrelevant to "seeing" who's in the game. Even if they're in a tight form, if they're a featured wr you can plan for that, or not.
Now that I understand better what you're asking for... it does already tell you who is in the huddle (ie who's participating in the next play). If you notice, on the screen that lists 1QB 3WR 1HB 1TE (or whatever order it's in), it also lists the players' numbers below each grouping. So if you know your opponent's WR #14 is a slash-type player, you can see that he is indeed on the field so you need to account for him as a possibility of being at either position.
I'm not at home so I can't give you a screenshot of what I'm talking about but the next time you play the CPU, look at that screen that lists the personnel for the offense's playcall.
Yes I know that the #s are there but the time goes so fast you can't find it unless it stands out in time to make an educated play call. There needs to be a "give away" that he's on the field so that it's easy to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
i dont think the game does this, but for that statement, i think an easy thing would be to have the stars for the impact players show up in the personnel listing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
You mean the :1star: around their number? I actually thought it did that already.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
No not quite. Impact players aren't necessarily the "ath" players that line up at different positions. I mean for any player that is in any personnel grouping outside of his natural position (say for example in a formation sub) there needs to be a show all the time. I want to know that he's on the field. Impact players show up but I want to know is this a guy that might be in a different formation than his normal? I had my 3rd WR as my rb in select pistol sets a couple years back because of his speed. Since we don't get true scouting, the game should show my opponent that he will be on the field (and therefore could be a wr or rb) so that they can guess while knowing they're guessing, as opposed to assuming that he is a wr and unfairly picking a corresponding package.
But you do know he's on the field. It shows you exactly who is on the field (which, I have to point out, is more information than a D-coordinator will necessarily get in time to choose their own defensive personnel). No, it doesn't show where they're lining up, but there has to be some strategy at play here, doesn't there? There is nothing to stop me from lining up an Empty Set formation with 3 TEs, 1 FB, and 1 HB. Yes, when the playcall screen shows you that, it's going to look like Goalline (or I-Form Heavy). But that's no different from if you saw them breaking the huddle (or coming onto the field). You aren't going to know where they're going to lineup until they do lineup. And, in my opinion, that's how it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
And, FWIW, there is really no difference between lining up an "ATH" at different positions and any other skill player. Packages allow a lot of different combinations that result in players being out of their "natural" positions. RBs at WR, TEs at FB, WRs at RB.
The only "giveaway" I'm aware of is that there used to be a different order to how the positions were shown for a Wildcat formation versus a traditional formation. And, personally, I thought that even that was tipping the offensive hand a tad too much.
As for scouting, I assume you're talking Random Online or Play Now? Because in an OD, that's pretty much on you...
Jeff, how am I supposed to know that my opponent is going to line this guy up at different positions? I have no game tape to review or anything like that. I can't "scout" formations, just stats, which don't necessarily tell you anything.
And a real life DC DOES know who's on the field. That's why they stay in their press box.
But I do get your point a little bit. I think I'll have to have a conversation with my OD players and see if we can't come to an understanding about it. The reason I bring it up at all is because a couple seasons ago I was using an "ath" Wr in the backfield in some of my pistol and SG formations and the argument against it was exactly what I'm arguing for right now. I actually agree with you guys, but I'm making the argument because it's come up as an issue within my OD. I felt it was fair to line up the Wr at Rb only if I lined up my Rb at Wr, that way the other team can at least truly see that it's a rb formation.
My general point, which I think you got, was that there's nothing to preclude anyone from lining up anywhere, thanks to packages, formation subs, and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
And, to your point about ODs, unless it's Week 1, chances are there is some indication, statistically, of how I use my superstars.
Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, that's one of the things I've always wondered ... how closely they can tell who's on the field/off the field. Though I guess binoculars would help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Speaking solely from a strategic standpoint, I see no incentive to tip my hand like that. But, it should probably be mentioned that I love the mind games aspect of football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
I love the minds game too. I think the major problem is the inability to truely "match up" with any one player, regardless of where he goes in the set. Match up stick (at least I think that's what this is for?) would really be great and nullify the argument altogether. Also the inability to move a single player and control another on defense doesn't help either.
They need to fix the wildcat plays so that it's not obvious that they're in the wildcat from the playcall screen.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill