oh....well duh on my part. ya, that makes a lot more sense.Originally Posted by JeffHCross
thanks
oh....well duh on my part. ya, that makes a lot more sense.
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.oh....well duh on my part. ya, that makes a lot more sense.
thanks
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.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
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.
Thirded.
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.
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.
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).
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.
THIS!
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).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks