CAGLS: Madden 13 Gentlemen's League - We Finished! Thanks for Playing!

[quote name='staticz']Carolina is looking for a CB, QB, and FS. I'll trade pretty much anyone except Beason and Gamble.[/QUOTE]
All my starting CB's have high 85+ man and zone. I also have Byrd but he'll be for a price.

Check out my rosters and give me an offer.
 
[quote name='Dark Rider']Glad to see I convinced you! There will be four teams available in the offseason.

The Dolphins (Although, I think the guy on the Wait list wanted them)
Chargers (Basically Unchanged)
Giants (Arian Foster, no Eli)
Rams (No idea, no Amendola for sure though. He plays for me)[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I checked the empty teams in the OP before posting, but I didn't state a preference since I saw that there were three people already on the wait list.
 
iamlegend-g1e1atks.jpg
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']2 hours since last post = dead thread? lol...GET MOAR HOBBIEZ ;)[/QUOTE]

No real discussion about anything. Maybe we can discuss how many times you got Maddened this season?
 
[quote name='Blade3D']No real discussion about anything. Maybe we can discuss how many times you got Maddened this season?[/QUOTE]

Lol :rofl:
 
[quote name='Blade3D']No real discussion about anything. Maybe we can discuss how many times you got Maddened this season?[/QUOTE]

zing
 
[quote name='KasterDB']Anyone know about Seattle vs. Philly?[/QUOTE]

Philly can't do the game tonight. Planning for around noon-1 tomorrow.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']No real discussion about anything. Maybe we can discuss how many times you got Maddened this season?[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who picked one of the best teams in the league. Even a squirrel would say "it just isn't worth it for nuts that small."
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Says the guy who picked one of the best teams in the league. Even a squirrel would say "it just isn't worth it for nuts that small."[/QUOTE]

Haha
 
[quote name='Blade3D']Haha[/QUOTE]

Besides "Maddening" is a serious condition, and should not be made fun of. My grandma died of "Maddening".

Also, I think the entire cast of "What's Happening" suffers from "Maddening".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Besides "Maddening" is a serious condition, and should not be made fun of. My grandma died of "Maddening".

Also, I think the entire cast of "What's Happening" suffers from "Maddening".[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's genetic
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Damn...this thread is dead.[/QUOTE]

Killed it.

Got a question, I was scouting some playoff teams and noticed that TEs were in WR positions in the depth chart like #4/5 spots. Are we allowed to do this? Wondering cause ill move one of my TE into the #4 slot.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']Killed it.

Got a question, I was scouting some playoff teams and noticed that TEs were in WR positions in the depth chart like #4/5 spots. Are we allowed to do this? Wondering cause ill move one of my TE into the #4 slot.[/QUOTE]

If I'm giving my gut reaction, I don't like that at all. To me, that seems like a cheap way to get exceptionally hard to cover TEs in on every passing play. I'm open to others giving their opinion on it so I'm just not unilaterally ruling on it. But considering the faults that this game has, I feel like if you want to be using your TE, you need to call plays that involve the TE.
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']If I'm giving my gut reaction, I don't like that at all. To me, that seems like a cheap way to get exceptionally hard to cover TEs in on every passing play. I'm open to others giving their opinion on it so I'm just not unilaterally ruling on it. But considering the faults that this game has, I feel like if you want to be using your TE, you need to call plays that involve the TE.[/QUOTE]

this has me confused...are the tight ends harder to cover than a WR when you put a CB on them? For instance if I had a TE at the #1 or #2 WR spot, is there an actual advantage to that? Does the TE juke the CB's better than a WR? I was under the impression that the "cheap" play was a TE streak with a LB in coverage. I think when you have a TE as a #4 WR, when you call let's say 4WR-1HB, it comes up as 4WR-1HB and not 3WR-1TE-1HB so the defense knows to put in 4 CB's... please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I would definitely say it's cheap if I was to call a 4WR and it came up as 3WR-1TE, but I don't think it does.

I run a ton of 2 TE formations anyways..but I also put Dustin Keller as a WR since Brandon Marshall got hurt and I have no WR that comes close to his OVR as a WR. I was in no way trying to be cheap about it and will definitely change it if it's deemed an exploit.

I'd also like some clarification on the rules of moving around the #1 WR manually or by changing packages via the R-stick... I've noticed in some games the #1 WR will be in the slot on some plays. I know some formations automatically switch the #1 and #2 WR positions from right to left, but I'm unaware of any that put him in the slot.. is this allowed either manually or by changing packages? I think that's a pretty big exploit considering we don't have defensive assignments. I honestly think moving around WR's manually or thru packages should be banned.
 
[quote name='dr0ppinL0adz']this has me confused...are the tight ends harder to cover than a WR when you put a CB on them? For instance if I had a TE at the #1 or #2 WR spot, is there an actual advantage to that? Does the TE juke the CB's better than a WR? I was under the impression that the "cheap" play was a TE streak with a LB in coverage. I think when you have a TE as a #4 WR, when you call let's say 4WR-1HB, it comes up as 4WR-1HB and not 3WR-1TE-1HB so the defense knows to put in 4 CB's... please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I would definitely say it's cheap if I was to call a 4WR and it came up as 3WR-1TE, but I don't think it does.

I run a ton of 2 TE formations anyways..but I also put Dustin Keller as a WR since Brandon Marshall got hurt and I have no WR that comes close to his OVR as a WR. I was in no way trying to be cheap about it and will definitely change it if it's deemed an exploit.

I'd also like some clarification on the rules of moving around the #1 WR manually or by changing packages via the R-stick... I've noticed in some games the #1 WR will be in the slot on some plays. I know some formations automatically switch the #1 and #2 WR positions from right to left, but I'm unaware of any that put him in the slot.. is this allowed either manually or by changing packages? I think that's a pretty big exploit considering we don't have defensive assignments. I honestly think moving around WR's manually or thru packages should be banned.[/QUOTE]

I think if a package changes the #1 to a different WR spot that is ok, but subbing in and out to different positions is not. That's the same as changing their position in the depth chart basically. I don't have as much of a problem with the TEs, cause they could get matched against the 4 or 5 CB anyway. Also though do you want someone like Vernon Davis lining outside against one of them?
 
I was one of the teams with a TE in at my #4 from last game (against the CPU). I was trying him out there to see if I was going to start using a new playbook that uses TE's more, and wanted to see if he was reliable. I don't throw to my TEs a ton, but that is why he was there on my depth chart. I took him off so there wasn't any confusion or issues.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, unless you have someone like Gronk or Hernandez and you are purposely lining them up at the 4 or 5 receiver slot knowing they are infinitely better than the coverage. And looking through it wasn't just playoff teams. Browns, Colts, Jets, Patriots (with gronk in the 5, didn't notice that before I typed the 1st part) Rams, Ravens, Vikings have a TE or HB in the 4 or 5 slot. I would say look at it in a case by case basis, and where the TE is in terms of skill vs your receivers. If the TE or HB that is in the 4th or 5th position on the depth chart is ranked that much higher in their RLS, RTE, CTH, CIT than the 2-3-4 receivers then that isn't right. But if they are relatively close in their attributes I wouldn't think it would be an issue as they would be covered just like anyone else at that spot. You just don't want guys taking advantage of having a highly ranked TE get the lowest CB (though that usually happens if one of your LB lines up against the TE on the line anyways). Again though I don't really use very many 4 wide receiver sets so I'm pretty impartial either way. My two cents.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I was one of the teams with a TE in at my #4 from last game (against the CPU). I was trying him out there to see if I was going to start using a new playbook that uses TE's more, and wanted to see if he was reliable. I don't throw to my TEs a ton, but that is why he was there on my depth chart. I took him off so there wasn't any confusion or issues.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, unless you have someone like Gronk or Hernandez and you are purposely lining them up at the 4 or 5 receiver slot knowing they are infinitely better than the coverage. And looking through it wasn't just playoff teams. Browns, Colts, Jets, Patriots (with gronk in the 5, didn't notice that before I typed the 1st part) Rams, Ravens, Vikings have a TE or HB in the 4 or 5 slot. I would say look at it in a case by case basis, and where the TE is in terms of skill vs your receivers. If the TE or HB that is in the 4th or 5th position on the depth chart is ranked that much higher in their RLS, RTE, CTH, CIT than the 2-3-4 receivers then that isn't right. But if they are relatively close in their attributes I wouldn't think it would be an issue as they would be covered just like anyone else at that spot. You just don't want guys taking advantage of having a highly ranked TE get the lowest CB (though that usually happens if one of your LB lines up against the TE on the line anyways). Again though I don't really use very many 4 wide receiver sets so I'm pretty impartial either way. My two cents.[/QUOTE]

my argument against changing packages to allow WR1 in the slot is explained pretty well in your post. Instead of a highly ranked TE against the lowest CB, a WR1 in the slot puts the best WR against the lowest CB - which I think is much harder to cover for. At least you can see the TE in the depth chart under WR's and will know where he will line up in most formations.... however, with package changes, you have no idea where the WR1/or anybody else will be. I don't think there is a single formation that puts the WR1 in the slot without a package change.

BTW I think I have Dustin Keller in as my #3WR... in no way was I trying to be cheap,and honestly he doesn't get open as often as I'd like since he's still facing the nickel back. Also, if TE's are not allowed to be in the WR depth chart, but package changes are...couldn't I just change the package to put a TE in the slot?
 
[quote name='dr0ppinL0adz']my argument against changing packages to allow WR1 in the slot is explained pretty well in your post. Instead of a highly ranked TE against the lowest CB, a WR1 in the slot puts the best WR against the lowest CB - which I think is much harder to cover for. At least you can see the TE in the depth chart under WR's and will know where he will line up in most formations.... however, with package changes, you have no idea where the WR1/or anybody else will be. I don't think there is a single formation that puts the WR1 in the slot without a package change.

BTW I think I have Dustin Keller in as my #3WR... in no way was I trying to be cheap,and honestly he doesn't get open as often as I'd like since he's still facing the nickel back. Also, if TE's are not allowed to be in the WR depth chart, but package changes are...couldn't I just change the package to put a TE in the slot?[/QUOTE]
I agree with the WR 1 in the slot part of your post. Don't know how to change packages to do that but I'm thinking if someone takes the time to figure that out they probably are doing it purposely to gain that advantage.

And like I said I don't have a problem with him at the 3 i didn't have an issue with that when I played you. The defense treats him like any other receiver. When I played my CPU game my TE never got open when I had him in at the 4 so I don't plan on using him out there when a speedier WR gets open more often for me.
 
the thing i dont like is when trying to call a defense and a TE is lined up as the number 3 WR it looks like this.

2 WRs 2 TEs 1 RB instead of looking like 3 WRs 1 TE 1 RB so when try to call a play u expect one formation and it comes out as another one. i dont like the TE in the WR position. My thoughts on it is you wouldnt put him there if u didnt feel like it gave u a better chance or an advantage.
TEs play TE and WRs play WR.

If i had a horrible TE that couldnt catch. but i had a slow WR that had great hands people wouldnt like it if he played TE still. but its ok to put a faster than normal TE at WR becuz.

my biggest bug about it though is the way after the offense calls it says who is on the field and u have a TE in the Slot but ur expecting a TE on the line becuz of the way the game puts it on the screen so it makes calling the defense difficult and pretty much a guessing game giving the offense the advantage.

also there are a few formations that does put the number 1 WR in the slot ive seen it in a few playbooks. i know falcons playbook thats one shotgun formation where the 1 WR is in the slot. its line up like this

2WR-3WR-1WR------LT LG C RG RT TE

--------------------------QB--RB

thats how it looks on the field and is exactly how the formation sets them up
had to put the dotted spots so cag would keep the spacing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='DVO21']the thing i dont like is when trying to call a defense and a TE is lined up as the number 3 WR it looks like this.

2 WRs 2 TEs 1 RB instead of looking like 3 WRs 1 TE 1 RB so when try to call a play u expect one formation and it comes out as another one. i dont like the TE in the WR position. My thoughts on it is you wouldnt put him there if u didnt feel like it gave u a better chance or an advantage.
TEs play TE and WRs play WR.

If i had a horrible TE that couldnt catch. but i had a slow WR that had great hands people wouldnt like it if he played TE still. but its ok to put a faster than normal TE at WR becuz.

my biggest bug about it though is the way after the offense calls it says who is on the field and u have a TE in the Slot but ur expecting a TE on the line becuz of the way the game puts it on the screen so it makes calling the defense difficult and pretty much a guessing game giving the offense the advantage.

also there are a few formations that does put the number 1 WR in the slot ive seen it in a few playbooks. i know falcons playbook thats one shotgun formation where the 1 WR is in the slot. its line up like this

2WR-3WR-1WR------LT LG C RG RT TE

--------------------------QB--RB

thats how it looks on the field and is exactly how the formation sets them up
had to put the dotted spots so cag would keep the spacing[/QUOTE]

I just checked and you're right... it does show up at 2 TE even if you put him in the WR position. My bad, that is pretty cheap. I thought for sure it would show up as WR. haha now I have to change my stance and say that putting the TE in the WR depth chart should be banned
 
Eagles over Seahawks 19-14 in what ended up a tight one. Was Eagles all the way for the majority of the game--three 1st half turnovers (2 INT, 1 Lynch fumble) hurt quite a bit, but my red zone D was able to hold the Eagles to 5 FG attempts, 4 converted, right up until one of the last drives where the TD was finally scored. I had a pretty bullshit 70+ yd TD with Boldin and then one really good drive with less than 2 minutes, but couldn't stop the running game enough to get one last shot.

GG Eagles. Seahawks O was just too dead in the first half to make it up later--same problem we've had all year, but been lucky enough to mount comebacks often enough to get to that 10 W mark.
 
I don't understand what the problem is. Tight ends are only a problem In this game because of coverage mismatches involving linebackers and safeties. I would much rather have my #4 corner on my opponents tight end than have one of my linebackers on him. In fact, I do that already. Tight ends lined up out wide is part of the game and that is reflected in some teams play books. I know it is in a number of New England packages and I'm pretty sure Baltimore has them also. I would bet other teams have them as well. Are we gonna ban those plays/books?

I know my team was brought up as having tight end in the wide receiver depth chart. Pretty sure anyone I've played can confirm that I don't attempt to make an exploit of this. In my opinion, a tight end is best used at his natural position where I can hope for a match up with a linebacker. My wideouts are my top targets and my stats obviously show that.
 
[quote name='Superstar']The Cowboys playbook also has plays where the tight end is wide out.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem here is when packages have 4 WR and 1 TE, thus say you also had a TE as your number 4 it would show 3 WRs and 2 TEs. Same thing if you had a TE at the #3 slot, you are trying to cause a mismatch by the personnel you are sending out that the other player can see when choosing their defense.

If the playbook/package moves the WR to the slot wouldn't the #1 corner still move with them? The depth hasn't changed which is how I thought the WRs were covered by the CBs.

I feel like if the playbook/package moves any of these players I am fine with it, that's meant to be like that. However, I am not okay with people changing up their depth chart (moving higher rated players lower, TEs, etc), or subbing players in to try and get this advantage.
 
i wouldnt say u exploit the game at konfusion. its more of the game exploits its self. by the way i explained before. and yes i realize there are formation where the TE lines up as WR in the formation by nature thats not my issue at thats perfectly fine. my problem is when is see this.

2WR 2TE 1 RB or even 3WR 2 TE and its either 4 wide or 5 wide
i dont think of the a 4 wide formation that at times it actually is. when u have ur TE in the WR position its hard to tell what kind of formation im looking to defend theres no guessing at all what it could be. it's no one fault but maddens really but it causes disadvantage for the defense
 
[quote name='DVO21']i wouldnt say u exploit the game at konfusion. its more of the game exploits its self. by the way i explained before. and yes i realize there are formation where the TE lines up as WR in the formation by nature thats not my issue at thats perfectly fine. my problem is when is see this.

2WR 2TE 1 RB or even 3WR 2 TE and its either 4 wide or 5 wide
i dont think of the a 4 wide formation that at times it actually is. when u have ur TE in the WR position its hard to tell what kind of formation im looking to defend theres no guessing at all what it could be. it's no one fault but maddens really but it causes disadvantage for the defense[/QUOTE]

Exactly, the problem I have is someone having a TE in the WR 3/4/5 spot, and then causing different play calls on defense because you are expecting something else. I don't mind if this happens because of a certain play or package in a playbook, but it happens much more when putting the TE in a WR spot which comes across as just trying to deceive the defense to gain an advantage.
 
I have formations that automatically put the TE in the slot as well. it'd be ridiculous to ban that. Like DVO and blade said, the issue is when all you see is 2WR-2TE and the offense comes out with 4 receivers wide. I"m definitely at fault - i had no idea it did this and have already changed my depth chart whether it's banned or not, it's pretty damn cheap.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']I think the problem here is when packages have 4 WR and 1 TE, thus say you also had a TE as your number 4 it would show 3 WRs and 2 TEs. Same thing if you had a TE at the #3 slot, you are trying to cause a mismatch by the personnel you are sending out that the other player can see when choosing their defense.

If the playbook/package moves the WR to the slot wouldn't the #1 corner still move with them? The depth hasn't changed which is how I thought the WRs were covered by the CBs.

I feel like if the playbook/package moves any of these players I am fine with it, that's meant to be like that. However, I am not okay with people changing up their depth chart (moving higher rated players lower, TEs, etc), or subbing players in to try and get this advantage.[/QUOTE]

I definitely agree that if the playbook automatically moves the WR around, so be it. It'd be silly to force users to change where their #1 wr lines up if the formation changes that. My problem with package changes is that you can put the #1WR in the slot at any time, in ANY formation. You could even put a HB in the slot with a package change - so it would come up 4WR-1HB but the offense comes out in 5 wide. I think adding TE/HB to the WR depth chart is the same as package changes...if I don't add them in the depth chart, I could just add them in-game with a package change

EDIT: Oh and the #1CB does NOT move with the #1WR.. the CB is always on the right side of the screen unless you do a package change on defense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dr0ppinL0adz']I have formations that automatically put the TE in the slot as well. it'd be ridiculous to ban that. Like DVO and blade said, the issue is when all you see is 2WR-2TE and the offense comes out with 4 receivers wide. I"m definitely at fault - i had no idea it did this and have already changed my depth chart whether it's banned or not, it's pretty damn cheap.[/QUOTE]

ya i think blade and i agree and most people will as well. we have no problem if the formation is setup like that naturally. but when u when change ur depth chart is the issue at hand. i dont think any formation should be banned from the league thats crazy. but i want it banned to put a TE in a WR position in the depth chart. its an exploit due to the game developers that can be completely avoided
 
[quote name='dr0ppinL0adz']I definitely agree that if the playbook automatically moves the WR around, so be it. It'd be silly to force users to change where their #1 wr lines up if the formation changes that. My problem with package changes is that you can put the #1WR in the slot at any time, in ANY formation. You could even put a HB in the slot with a package change - so it would come up 4WR-1HB but the offense comes out in 5 wide. I think adding TE/HB to the WR depth chart is the same as package changes...if I don't add them in the depth chart, I could just add them in-game with a package change[/QUOTE]

Ya that is subbing(same thing as hot swapping QBs), I don't think I have really seen anyone do this with WRs. It's not too hard checking depth charts to see where players should be but that would be up to the players noticing it in the game.
 
I'll be posting a ruling on this soon. I'm away from my PC right now and don't feel like typing up a long explanation on my phone. Stay tuned!
 
I was curious as to what the hot topic was about TE/WR. It looks like the Ravens have 2 TE's lined up as their 4 and 5 WR in the depth chart. He doesn't even have 5 WR on his roster it looks like?

I literally had to sign a shitty WR so Owen Daniels wouldn't line up 6 on te depth chart.

What is the ruling again on this n8? It's going to directly affect my game.
 
I also think we should have a roster count at Week 1, Week 9, and Week 17. I know many teams are back at having less then 53 players.
 
[quote name='Docb9110']I was curious as to what the hot topic was about TE/WR. It looks like the Ravens have 2 TE's lined up as their 4 and 5 WR in the depth chart. He doesn't even have 5 WR on his roster it looks like?

I literally had to sign a shitty WR so Owen Daniels wouldn't line up 6 on te depth chart.

What is the ruling again on this n8? It's going to directly affect my game.[/QUOTE]

I will change my depth chart if that bothers you. I don't even care if N8 says that we can have TEs at the 4 or 5 spot. I will change it anyway. I don't have some evil scheme to take advantage of you.
 
[quote name='DVO21']ya i think blade and i agree and most people will as well. we have no problem if the formation is setup like that naturally. but when u when change ur depth chart is the issue at hand. i dont think any formation should be banned from the league thats crazy. but i want it banned to put a TE in a WR position in the depth chart. its an exploit due to the game developers that can be completely avoided[/QUOTE]

What about motioning? Or even just using an audible to change the position of the tight end? That's really no different. I do understand what you are saying as it relates to not being able to see who is on the line of scrimmage and who is not, but there are other ways to get that matchup, such as audible or motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top