I'd also like the ruling to specify for having HBs in as well as TEs at WR. I would think for HBs if you want them out as a receiver move them out there, same with TEs. I have no problem with someone adjusting them on the line cause I can at least see it happening and make adjustments.
CAGLS: Madden 13 Gentlemen's League - We Finished! Thanks for Playing!
- Thread starter CAGLeagueSports
- Start date
[quote name='Konfusion']What about motioning? Or even just using an audible to change the position of the tight end? That's really no different.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with you there dude. I honestly never payed attention until they brought it up today but your TE are huge over my 4 and 5 CB's. I don't think it's an "evil scheme" at all. Just takes advantage of the game is all in my opinion. I don't think a real NFL coach would line up his TE's as 4-5 receivers in the depth chart unless it was literally like once or twice a game and even then it's special situations.
Flip side is that it all about strategy I suppose right?
I can agree with you there dude. I honestly never payed attention until they brought it up today but your TE are huge over my 4 and 5 CB's. I don't think it's an "evil scheme" at all. Just takes advantage of the game is all in my opinion. I don't think a real NFL coach would line up his TE's as 4-5 receivers in the depth chart unless it was literally like once or twice a game and even then it's special situations.
Flip side is that it all about strategy I suppose right?
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[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]
Absolutely nothing wrong with that you are only required to carry 3 receivers we can't just start making random changes to what positions teams have to carry.
In terms of what you did drop the shitty receiver and pick up an impact player next time. 14 teams in our league carry 5 or less WRs, and a few carry 4 or less.
And I agree with blade about roster checks.
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]
Absolutely nothing wrong with that you are only required to carry 3 receivers we can't just start making random changes to what positions teams have to carry.
In terms of what you did drop the shitty receiver and pick up an impact player next time. 14 teams in our league carry 5 or less WRs, and a few carry 4 or less.
And I agree with blade about roster checks.
Just to be clear, I don't have a huge problem with this or anything. I just don't want people to think I was a dirty player or something. I'm pretty sure I have Travis Beckum in at #4 wideout and I don't think he even had 10 catches all season. I rarely go 5 wide. My tight ends are nothing special and neither are my backup receivers. I had to make a midseason trade for Vincent Jackson because of how pathetic they were.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Absolutely nothing wrong with that you are only required to carry 3 receivers we can't just start making random changes to what positions teams have to carry.
In terms of what you did drop the shitty receiver and pick up an impact player next time.
And I agree with blade about roster checks.[/QUOTE]
If you only are required to carry 3 receivers then it should be ok to put whomever you you want at 4-5-6
In terms of what you did drop the shitty receiver and pick up an impact player next time.
And I agree with blade about roster checks.[/QUOTE]
If you only are required to carry 3 receivers then it should be ok to put whomever you you want at 4-5-6
[quote name='Docb9110']If you only are required to carry 3 receivers then it should be ok to put whomever you you want at 4-5-6[/QUOTE]
I should have 5 wideouts. I had 6 until I recently let one go to sign an extra linebacker.
Vincent Jackson
Torrey Smith
Austin Collie
Emmanuel Sanders
Jordan Shipley
I should have 5 wideouts. I had 6 until I recently let one go to sign an extra linebacker.
Vincent Jackson
Torrey Smith
Austin Collie
Emmanuel Sanders
Jordan Shipley
GamerDude316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 22 (100%)
personally I think its cheap to have TEs and HB's lined up in the slots pre-play. If we allow TEs to line up in the slot, then youre basically saying its okay for a TE to play WR. Well what about teams moving a WR to TE then? We've all played those cheesers who do that online and its cheap, and I dont think we should allow either one here. Designed packages and motions pre-snap are one thing, but depth chart adjustments are another.
And I agree about the roster checks. If the expectation is for every team to carry 53 players, then that needs to be enforced throughout the entire season. I'd suggest roster checks every 2-3 weeks.
And I agree about the roster checks. If the expectation is for every team to carry 53 players, then that needs to be enforced throughout the entire season. I'd suggest roster checks every 2-3 weeks.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Comparing moving the TE to a WR and a WR moved to TE is comparing apples to steaks. Completely different beast right there and moving a wide receiver to tight end is absolute horse shit.
Again, I'm saying this as someone with no need to have my TE play a WR position. I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating this one on my own behalf.
Again, I'm saying this as someone with no need to have my TE play a WR position. I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating this one on my own behalf.
GamerDude316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 22 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']Comparing moving the TE to a WR and a WR moved to TE is comparing apples to steaks. Completely different beast right there and moving a wide receiver to tight end is absolute horse shit.
Again, I'm saying this as someone with no need to have my TE play a WR position. I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating this one on my own behalf.[/QUOTE]
I dont think I agree. If its okay for TEs to play WR, whats to stop somebody thinking its okay to move a WR to TE either. To me, its opening up a Pandora's box and I dont want to see that. We've had enough trouble getting people to go by the rules as it is with the numerous discussions on how to play with a lead, CPU games, etc.
Again, I'm saying this as someone with no need to have my TE play a WR position. I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating this one on my own behalf.[/QUOTE]
I dont think I agree. If its okay for TEs to play WR, whats to stop somebody thinking its okay to move a WR to TE either. To me, its opening up a Pandora's box and I dont want to see that. We've had enough trouble getting people to go by the rules as it is with the numerous discussions on how to play with a lead, CPU games, etc.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='GpNinja']Yep I use that playbook. Also the Bills playbook has there starting HB as a wideout and then the backup HB lineed up in the backfield[/QUOTE]
Same with the ravens playbook and whatever playbook kaster runs (we've talked about how it's cool the HB lines up at wideout). Nothing wrong with using plays that are in playbooks IMO.
Same with the ravens playbook and whatever playbook kaster runs (we've talked about how it's cool the HB lines up at wideout). Nothing wrong with using plays that are in playbooks IMO.
[quote name='GamerDude316'] If we allow TEs to line up in the slot, then youre basically saying its okay for a TE to play WR. Well what about teams moving a WR to TE then?[/QUOTE]
That's not even close to the same thing.
Tight ends do line up out wide in real life. As a Ravens fan, I can tell you Dennis Pitta does it all the time. Really any team with an athletic tight end does it. New England and New Orleans come to mind as having their tight ends out wide a lot.
That's not even close to the same thing.
Tight ends do line up out wide in real life. As a Ravens fan, I can tell you Dennis Pitta does it all the time. Really any team with an athletic tight end does it. New England and New Orleans come to mind as having their tight ends out wide a lot.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='GamerDude316']I dont think I agree. If its okay for TEs to play WR, whats to stop somebody thinking its okay to move a WR to TE either. To me, its opening up a Pandora's box and I dont want to see that. We've had enough trouble getting people to go by the rules as it is with the numerous discussions on how to play with a lead, CPU games, etc.[/QUOTE]
It's completely different. The only reason to move a WR to TE is to create a mismatch based off speed and coverage of a LB that is covering him. Moving a TE to a WR would take place because you have shit receivers or you run packages that use TE's lined up at WR like TE packers or patriots do irl. That argument is completely irrelevant.
It's completely different. The only reason to move a WR to TE is to create a mismatch based off speed and coverage of a LB that is covering him. Moving a TE to a WR would take place because you have shit receivers or you run packages that use TE's lined up at WR like TE packers or patriots do irl. That argument is completely irrelevant.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
That's what I thought but I didn't want to be wrong and say the wrong team lol. It's the perfect playbook for AP though that's for sure.
Edit: if you see edits in my posts it's because I'm on my phone and don't want to look like my grammar is that of a 12 y.o.
Edit: if you see edits in my posts it's because I'm on my phone and don't want to look like my grammar is that of a 12 y.o.
[quote name='Lexxon']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.[/QUOTE]
GG to you as well. I felt my D played pretty well until i BLEW that tackle for the long TD. You did really well holding me on 3rd downs and in the red zone.
Turnovers were key in this game, both of us with picks and missed FGs, but i think that fumble was the biggest one
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.[/QUOTE]
GG to you as well. I felt my D played pretty well until i BLEW that tackle for the long TD. You did really well holding me on 3rd downs and in the red zone.
Turnovers were key in this game, both of us with picks and missed FGs, but i think that fumble was the biggest one
[quote name='Docb9110']Gonna be a few more mins confusion. Business call finishing up[/QUOTE]
That's fine.
Is it really a problem if I have a tight end as my 5th WR though? 5 WR VS 4 WR 1 TE is the same defensive play call for me. You know its a pass play.
That's fine.
Is it really a problem if I have a tight end as my 5th WR though? 5 WR VS 4 WR 1 TE is the same defensive play call for me. You know its a pass play.
DVO21
CAGiversary!
i think wut gamerdude is trying to say is.
u put a fast TE out to be WR becuz one he is fast and 2 has better hands than ur number 3WR or lower.
so what if someone had TEs with shitty hands but a slow WR saw 84 speed 84 accel but he had nice hands whats the difference in playing that guy at TE since hes as slow as a TE.
u put a fast TE out to be WR becuz one he is fast and 2 has better hands than ur number 3WR or lower.
so what if someone had TEs with shitty hands but a slow WR saw 84 speed 84 accel but he had nice hands whats the difference in playing that guy at TE since hes as slow as a TE.
GamerDude316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 22 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's completely different. The only reason to move a WR to TE is to create a mismatch based off speed and coverage of a LB that is covering him. Moving a TE to a WR would take place because you have shit receivers or you run packages that use TE's lined up at WR like TE packers or patriots do irl. That argument is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
and why do you think the Patriots do that irl? To take advantage of mismatches because of Gronk's size and Hernandez's speed. I agree that moving WR to TE is far worse than TE to WR, but its still not a move I'm a fan of seeing at all. Especially for the point DVO made that it looks like a 2 WR 2 TE set and then comes out 4 WR. Thats a big issue.
and why do you think the Patriots do that irl? To take advantage of mismatches because of Gronk's size and Hernandez's speed. I agree that moving WR to TE is far worse than TE to WR, but its still not a move I'm a fan of seeing at all. Especially for the point DVO made that it looks like a 2 WR 2 TE set and then comes out 4 WR. Thats a big issue.
GamerDude316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 22 (100%)
[quote name='DVO21']i think wut gamerdude is trying to say is.
u put a fast TE out to be WR becuz one he is fast and 2 has better hands than ur number 3WR or lower.
so what if someone had TEs with shitty hands but a slow WR saw 84 speed 84 accel but he had nice hands whats the difference in playing that guy at TE since hes as slow as a TE.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that too.
u put a fast TE out to be WR becuz one he is fast and 2 has better hands than ur number 3WR or lower.
so what if someone had TEs with shitty hands but a slow WR saw 84 speed 84 accel but he had nice hands whats the difference in playing that guy at TE since hes as slow as a TE.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that too.
Superstar
CAGiversary!
The whole game of football is about mismatches. You'll never see a team say "I am going to put my worst wide out against the best corner in the league and hope to succeed". The difference here is that this is a game and can't be treated like real football. I am not sure of a solution, personally.
[quote name='Konfusion']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]
I agree with this. Also Cowboys are ready to start trading as soon as the season is finished.
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]
I agree with this. Also Cowboys are ready to start trading as soon as the season is finished.
[quote name='Docb9110']Texans defeat Ravens in a lucky game!
GG confusion! Appreciated they chat we had. I seriously got lucky on this one.[/QUOTE]
Nah, you had a good gameplan that I was not prepared for. Got down 24-0 quick and couldn't recover quick enough. Good game by you. Hopefully I can improve my roster and gameplay in the offseason.
GG confusion! Appreciated they chat we had. I seriously got lucky on this one.[/QUOTE]
Nah, you had a good gameplan that I was not prepared for. Got down 24-0 quick and couldn't recover quick enough. Good game by you. Hopefully I can improve my roster and gameplay in the offseason.
Dark Rider
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Dark Rider's Playoff Predictions:
Lions vs Eagles - (Lions) Going to have to go with the Lions. Such a great season so far.
49ers vs Vikings - (49ers) Close game with the 49ers pulling through at the end.
Bills vs Jets - (Bills) I think the Bills will win this.
Chiefs vs Texans - (Chiefs) A tight game plan and a great defense will lead the Chiefs to their first AFC Championship game.
Super Bowl Prediction: Chiefs vs Lions
Good luck to everyone!
Lions vs Eagles - (Lions) Going to have to go with the Lions. Such a great season so far.
49ers vs Vikings - (49ers) Close game with the 49ers pulling through at the end.
Bills vs Jets - (Bills) I think the Bills will win this.
Chiefs vs Texans - (Chiefs) A tight game plan and a great defense will lead the Chiefs to their first AFC Championship game.
Super Bowl Prediction: Chiefs vs Lions
Good luck to everyone!
GamerDude316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 22 (100%)
Gamerdude's playoff predictions:
Lions over Eagles
49ers over Vikings
Bills over Jets
Chiefs over Texans
Good luck to all!
Lions over Eagles
49ers over Vikings
Bills over Jets
Chiefs over Texans
Good luck to all!
Ultimate Matt X
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
If I'm holding on to the Browns for now because nobody else wants them, Brady is available for trade.
CAGLeagueSports
CAGiversary!
Ok...here we go.
Having TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
Having TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Ok...here we go.
Having TEs at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
[/QUOTE]
Haha great pic.
Also, is this going to apply to having HBs in your depth at WR?
Also, what about my suggestion of roster checks? For 53 men on the team? As well as depth?
Having TEs at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
Haha great pic.
Also, is this going to apply to having HBs in your depth at WR?
Also, what about my suggestion of roster checks? For 53 men on the team? As well as depth?
CAGLeagueSports
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Blade3D']Haha great pic.
Also, is this going to apply to having HBs in your depth at WR?
Also, what about my suggestion of roster checks? For 53 men on the team? As well as depth?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my idea was for it to apply to any offensive player being put at a different position (I'm writing up the official policy for the OP now). I haven't checked it, but I assume if you had RBs at WR, the game would do the same thing as with the TEs. Theoretically, you could have the game telling your opponent that you're running a 1 WR, 1 TE, 4 RB set...which is
ing retarded, lol.
As for roster checks...I would love to do them, but I really don't have time. If someone wants to volunteer as a "roster monitor", I'd probably be on board.
Also, is this going to apply to having HBs in your depth at WR?
Also, what about my suggestion of roster checks? For 53 men on the team? As well as depth?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my idea was for it to apply to any offensive player being put at a different position (I'm writing up the official policy for the OP now). I haven't checked it, but I assume if you had RBs at WR, the game would do the same thing as with the TEs. Theoretically, you could have the game telling your opponent that you're running a 1 WR, 1 TE, 4 RB set...which is
ing retarded, lol.As for roster checks...I would love to do them, but I really don't have time. If someone wants to volunteer as a "roster monitor", I'd probably be on board.
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Yeah, my idea was for it to apply to any offensive player being put at a different position (I'm writing up the official policy for the OP now). I haven't checked it, but I assume if you had RBs at WR, the game would do the same thing as with the TEs. Theoretically, you could have the game telling your opponent that you're running a 1 WR, 1 TE, 4 RB set...which is ing retarded, lol.
As for roster checks...I would love to do them, but I really don't have time. If someone wants to volunteer as a "roster monitor", I'd probably be on board.[/QUOTE]
Ya thats what I figured, someone would need to volunteer.
ing retarded, lol.As for roster checks...I would love to do them, but I really don't have time. If someone wants to volunteer as a "roster monitor", I'd probably be on board.[/QUOTE]
Ya thats what I figured, someone would need to volunteer.
CAGLeagueSports
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Blade3D']Ya thats what I figured, someone would need to volunteer.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I'd love for this stuff to be monitored...well, really, I'd love for EA to make a completely thought out game where monitoring this crap isn't necessary. But there's just so much stuff in this game to try to "keep people in check" with, it becomes incredibly daunting. All I can say is that at least by having a policy in place now, it's definitely not something you want to be caught doing...especially in the playoffs. You never know who might be looking.
What I had thought of is making this kind of thing a 2 strike offence though. Since it's something that is so difficult to keep up with...and since there's potential for people to really not notice it until AFTER playing the person, I feel like just giving a warning isn't good enough. This way, it would at least be something you DEFINITELY don't want to get caught doing because it's an instant 1 game suspension. Does that make sense to anybody else?
Honestly, I'd love for this stuff to be monitored...well, really, I'd love for EA to make a completely thought out game where monitoring this crap isn't necessary. But there's just so much stuff in this game to try to "keep people in check" with, it becomes incredibly daunting. All I can say is that at least by having a policy in place now, it's definitely not something you want to be caught doing...especially in the playoffs. You never know who might be looking.
What I had thought of is making this kind of thing a 2 strike offence though. Since it's something that is so difficult to keep up with...and since there's potential for people to really not notice it until AFTER playing the person, I feel like just giving a warning isn't good enough. This way, it would at least be something you DEFINITELY don't want to get caught doing because it's an instant 1 game suspension. Does that make sense to anybody else?
CAGLeagueSports
CAGiversary!
Policy now added to OP
Moving Players to Different Positions
Offense in Madden can be very overpowered at times, and there are numerous "go to" plays and positions that are extremely difficult to defend. In an effort to curb this a bit, it will not be allowed to move an offensive player out of his natural position on the depth chart. This includes putting RBs at WR, TEs at WR, WRs at TE, etc. In addition to the potential mismatches this would create, the main reason this policy is necessary is because the game continues to recognize the players' natural position, rather than where he's being lined up. What this gives you is 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB "formations" which give the appearance of a running play...but end up essentially being 4 WR shotgun plays. Such gimmicks are very deceptive and not in the spirit of this league.
Having RBs/TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, RBs/TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy.
As for moving players around on defense, this is completely allowed, as the consequences generally don't have the potential to impact the game as severely. If you want to play a LB at DE, that's fine. Or a CB at FS. The advantages to be gained on defense are not nearly as severe as moving offensive players around.
Moving Players to Different Positions
Offense in Madden can be very overpowered at times, and there are numerous "go to" plays and positions that are extremely difficult to defend. In an effort to curb this a bit, it will not be allowed to move an offensive player out of his natural position on the depth chart. This includes putting RBs at WR, TEs at WR, WRs at TE, etc. In addition to the potential mismatches this would create, the main reason this policy is necessary is because the game continues to recognize the players' natural position, rather than where he's being lined up. What this gives you is 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB "formations" which give the appearance of a running play...but end up essentially being 4 WR shotgun plays. Such gimmicks are very deceptive and not in the spirit of this league.
Having RBs/TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, RBs/TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy.
As for moving players around on defense, this is completely allowed, as the consequences generally don't have the potential to impact the game as severely. If you want to play a LB at DE, that's fine. Or a CB at FS. The advantages to be gained on defense are not nearly as severe as moving offensive players around.
I did want to mention that in my last game against confusion my TE did line up in a slot position a few times. That's why I spoke to Konfusion. I literally do not have a TE on my WR depth chart. I looked more into it and some plays actually do have the TE position in the slot.
How do we distinguish this?
How do we distinguish this?
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
[quote name='Docb9110']I did want to mention that in my last game against confusion my TE did line up in a slot position a few times. That's why I spoke to Konfusion. I literally do not have a TE on my WR depth chart. I looked more into it and some plays actually do have the TE position in the slot.
How do we distinguish this?[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think you can view your opponent's depth chart in-game (or can you?) But at the least, if you suspect someone of violating the policy, go look at their team depth chart after the game. If they've got a TE as their #3 receiver, PM me so I can look myself without alerting anyone.
How do we distinguish this?[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think you can view your opponent's depth chart in-game (or can you?) But at the least, if you suspect someone of violating the policy, go look at their team depth chart after the game. If they've got a TE as their #3 receiver, PM me so I can look myself without alerting anyone.
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Policy now added to OP
Moving Players to Different Positions
Offense in Madden can be very overpowered at times, and there are numerous "go to" plays and positions that are extremely difficult to defend. In an effort to curb this a bit, it will not be allowed to move an offensive player out of his natural position on the depth chart. This includes putting RBs at WR, TEs at WR, WRs at TE, etc. In addition to the potential mismatches this would create, the main reason this policy is necessary is because the game continues to recognize the players' natural position, rather than where he's being lined up. What this gives you is 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB "formations" which give the appearance of a running play...but end up essentially being 4 WR shotgun plays. Such gimmicks are very deceptive and not in the spirit of this league.
Having RBs/TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, RBs/TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy.
As for moving players around on defense, this is completely allowed, as the consequences generally don't have the potential to impact the game as severely. If you want to play a LB at DE, that's fine. Or a CB at FS. The advantages to be gained on defense are not nearly as severe as moving offensive players around. [/QUOTE]
So I am assuming using packages like TE Flanker or HB Slot is not allowed.
I have a hard time seeing how all this will be monitored, unless the game is being recorded. How will you know if they have a package that moves a player to an unnatural position and not just subbing them in before the play call?
Moving Players to Different Positions
Offense in Madden can be very overpowered at times, and there are numerous "go to" plays and positions that are extremely difficult to defend. In an effort to curb this a bit, it will not be allowed to move an offensive player out of his natural position on the depth chart. This includes putting RBs at WR, TEs at WR, WRs at TE, etc. In addition to the potential mismatches this would create, the main reason this policy is necessary is because the game continues to recognize the players' natural position, rather than where he's being lined up. What this gives you is 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB "formations" which give the appearance of a running play...but end up essentially being 4 WR shotgun plays. Such gimmicks are very deceptive and not in the spirit of this league.
Having RBs/TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, RBs/TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy.
As for moving players around on defense, this is completely allowed, as the consequences generally don't have the potential to impact the game as severely. If you want to play a LB at DE, that's fine. Or a CB at FS. The advantages to be gained on defense are not nearly as severe as moving offensive players around. [/QUOTE]
So I am assuming using packages like TE Flanker or HB Slot is not allowed.
I have a hard time seeing how all this will be monitored, unless the game is being recorded. How will you know if they have a package that moves a player to an unnatural position and not just subbing them in before the play call?
Dark Rider
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Well, I don't think you can view your opponent's depth chart in-game (or can you?) But at the least, if you suspect someone of violating the policy, go look at their team depth chart after the game. If they've got a TE as their #3 receiver, PM me so I can look myself without alerting anyone.[/QUOTE]
You can pause and view the depth chart in game. You should be able to flip between yours and your opponents with "RT".
So can we still audible into other formations? For example, I usually run a 2WR, 2RB, 1TE formation ("I" formation), but I will sometimes audible (at the line) to a four wide spread formation, where my TE and FB will go out to the slots, and my QB and RB will drop into shotgun. This is still allowed correct?
You can pause and view the depth chart in game. You should be able to flip between yours and your opponents with "RT".
So can we still audible into other formations? For example, I usually run a 2WR, 2RB, 1TE formation ("I" formation), but I will sometimes audible (at the line) to a four wide spread formation, where my TE and FB will go out to the slots, and my QB and RB will drop into shotgun. This is still allowed correct?
[quote name='Dark Rider']You can pause and view the depth chart in game. You should be able to flip between yours and your opponents with "RT".
So can we still audible into other formations? For example, I usually run a 2WR, 2RB, 1TE formation ("I" formation), but I will sometimes audible (at the line) to a four wide spread formation, where my TE and FB will go out to the slots, and my QB and RB will drop into shotgun. This is still allowed correct?[/QUOTE]
Also motioning guys out wide for the same effect.
So can we still audible into other formations? For example, I usually run a 2WR, 2RB, 1TE formation ("I" formation), but I will sometimes audible (at the line) to a four wide spread formation, where my TE and FB will go out to the slots, and my QB and RB will drop into shotgun. This is still allowed correct?[/QUOTE]
Also motioning guys out wide for the same effect.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
[quote name='Konfusion']So I am assuming using packages like TE Flanker or HB Slot is not allowed.
I have a hard time seeing how all this will be monitored, unless the game is being recorded. How will you know if they have a package that moves a player to an unnatural position and not just subbing them in before the play call?[/QUOTE]
I trust you understand what "curb" means. I'm not delusional enough to think this will stop all instances of people trying to get mismatches. But this entire thing was brought up due to depth chart discrepencies...which more than a couple people were guilty of. It's not going to entirely wipe out potential exploits...but it's another brick in the wall.
I have a hard time seeing how all this will be monitored, unless the game is being recorded. How will you know if they have a package that moves a player to an unnatural position and not just subbing them in before the play call?[/QUOTE]
I trust you understand what "curb" means. I'm not delusional enough to think this will stop all instances of people trying to get mismatches. But this entire thing was brought up due to depth chart discrepencies...which more than a couple people were guilty of. It's not going to entirely wipe out potential exploits...but it's another brick in the wall.
dr0ppinL0adz
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Ok...here we go.
Having TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean packages or formations? They are 2 completely separate things. I get that if a default formation has TE/RB/whoever at WR, that's fine. But you state that "packages" that move players around is OK - which is done by going right or left on the R-Stick - You can do a number of things (i.e. move #1WR to slot, have 2 TE's as WR, HB as WR)... Is that still allowed? It will still encounter the same problem of 2WR-2TE-1HB showing up in a 5 wide set.
Having TEs above any WR at the WR position on your depth chart will not be allowed. I am willing to concede that due to injury or whatever, TEs may need to fill in at the bottom of the depth chart. However, this is not an excuse to carry only 3 WRs. It will be pretty obvious if someone is trying to abuse this policy. DVO and Blade pointed out the exact reason for this. It allows people to choose 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB plays...which give the appearance of one particular formation...which end up being shotgun passing plays with both TEs and a RB lined up wide.
It does not matter one ounce whether or not these plays happen in real life. In real life, you SEE the personnel on the field, and you see the formation your opponent is coming out in. What we're given in Madden is the equivalent of having a blindfold on and having somebody whisper into your ear what positions are coming out onto the field. Then, 5 seconds before the ball is snapped, someone takes the blindfold off and says "Get em!"
That's not real football. That's a video game-ism. And it's not necessary for success in this game. Does it give you a higher chance for success? Sure. But not due to any inherent skill or strategy. In my personal opinion, offense in this game is powerful enough. Defenses are already gimped by not having defensive assignments, many zone coverages being broken, and the fact that having a MCV less than 90 might as well be a 60. Using tricks and gimmicks to take offensive players out of their natural position is not necessary.
As for packages that move players to different places on the field BY DESIGN, that has been and will continue to be acceptable. If you have a play that moves your #1 receiver to the slot, that's fine. It would be unreasonable to expect people to navigate around particular plays in their playbook that might create favorable matchups. Same thing with plays that might put a TE in the slot. If it's in the playbook, as is...it's fine. But altering your lineup and depth chart to bring in players for situations that they should not be appearing in is not ok.
I will be adding this policy to the OP, and from here on out, anyone discovered to be in violation of said policy will receive a strike.
Oh...and also (mostly for DVO)...
Do you mean packages or formations? They are 2 completely separate things. I get that if a default formation has TE/RB/whoever at WR, that's fine. But you state that "packages" that move players around is OK - which is done by going right or left on the R-Stick - You can do a number of things (i.e. move #1WR to slot, have 2 TE's as WR, HB as WR)... Is that still allowed? It will still encounter the same problem of 2WR-2TE-1HB showing up in a 5 wide set.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
[quote name='Konfusion']Also motioning guys out wide for the same effect.[/QUOTE]
I think sending guys in motion is one of those judgment things (same as audibling to shotgun and moving receivers). If someone is doing that as their basis of play calling, they're looking for an exploit. But if it's being done every once in awhile, it shouldn't be a big deal.
I think sending guys in motion is one of those judgment things (same as audibling to shotgun and moving receivers). If someone is doing that as their basis of play calling, they're looking for an exploit. But if it's being done every once in awhile, it shouldn't be a big deal.
[quote name='dr0ppinL0adz']Do you mean packages or formations? They are 2 completely separate things. I get that if a default formation has TE/RB/whoever at WR, that's fine. But you state that "packages" that move players around is OK - which is done by going right or left on the R-Stick - You can do a number of things (i.e. move #1WR to slot, have 2 TE's as WR, HB as WR)... Is that still allowed? It will still encounter the same problem of 2WR-2TE-1HB showing up in a 5 wide set.[/QUOTE]
That was my question. For example, TE Flanker or HB Slot.
Sounds like we just have to assume everybody is playing the way they should be. Only way to monitor this kind of thing is if games are recorded and to my knowledge, only the Panthers have a way to record. I would like to get one myself one of these days.
That was my question. For example, TE Flanker or HB Slot.
Sounds like we just have to assume everybody is playing the way they should be. Only way to monitor this kind of thing is if games are recorded and to my knowledge, only the Panthers have a way to record. I would like to get one myself one of these days.
bread's done