FL vs. SE

[flere-imsaho]

I know we've discussed this before, but I can't find the thread via search.

Anyway, what's the difference, in FOF, between Flankers and Split Ends? I'm asking specifically from a personnel standpoint - what kind of player do you want at these positions?

I've been operating under the belief that:

Split End: "Possession" receiver. You want a guy with high courage here, who's reliable and doesn't drop the ball.

Flanker: Burner. The guy who makes the big plays and gets downfield.

Also, by default it's the FL2 who is the 3rd receiver brought into formations, so it makes sens to have your FL2 be your 3rd best receiver, though it's simple to gameplan around this.

Thoughts?

[Icy]

umm isn't the other way? Flanker the posession guy and SE the big plays guy? if not i must have read it wrong everytime we discussed about it.

[MIJB#19]

FL2 is by default the #3 WR, I'm 100% sure on that. Personally, I'd rather game plan the #2 SE in, since the #2 slots are also ment for backup duties when the #1 guy goes out with injury or to take a little break.

On the FL and SE issue, I have no idea what the difference is. I just put the best FL and SE in the starting spots. But, for earlier discussion, I understood that the FL lines up further away and has more room to manouvre, thus to exploit you need route running and getting downfield, I think. But the split end will need to get open (route running) even more, as he's more prone to be in heavy coverage, no?

Or maybe the strategy has to rely more on who the top WR is (who should be the one with more double teaming) and the #2 WR who has one guy covering him?

[General Mike]

SE is the deep threat so Big Play receiving and getting downfield is key here. Courage could be a factor.

FL is the short guy who runs the underneath stuff generally. I'd think Avoid Drops, Route Running and Adjusting to Ball would be most important.

[Dutch]

Courage would do more with going across the middle, I suspect.

[vex]

Flanker is the outside burner, SE is the posession WR.

[Ben E Lou]

Courage would do more with going across the middle, I suspect.This guy (http://www.younglifenorthlake.com/fofc/miracles.wav) would think so, too.

[General Mike]

Flanker is the outside burner, SE is the posession WR.

Maybe for some teams, not for all. Look at the Bengals. Warrick was the flanker, Chad Johnson was the SE.

[Dutch]

This guy (http://www.younglifenorthlake.com/fofc/miracles.wav) would think so, too.

:D

[Ben E Lou]

:D;)

[QuikSand]

There is some good information in the FOF 2004 draft file generator help file:


Receiving Group (receivers also receive an avoid fumble rating and offensive line ratings):

Receiving Hands - ability to catch a thrown ball.

Getting Downfield - ability to gain yardage after the catch.

Route-Running - ability to shoulder the load as a receiver. Receivers with high ratings in this category can be the target of more frequent pass attempts.

Third-Down Receiving - ability to make catches in clutch third- and fourth-down situations.

Big-Play Receiving - ability to catch long and very-long passes.

Courage over the Middle - ability to hang in there on routes planned across the middle of the field.

Adjusting to Bad Throws - ability to catch poorly thrown balls.

Punt Returning - ability to return punts.

Kickoff Returning - ability to return kickoffs.


While some of this is pretty mundane - there are things here that are not totally obvious. To the extent that you're mostly relying on what you personally think these terms like "courage" and "getting downfield" might mean in real football -- here's a source that has some knowledge of how this particular game works. Hope this helps.

[Calabaza]

Getting Downfield - ability to gain yardage after the catch.
Big-Play Receiving - ability to catch long and very-long passes.

Are you sure about this, because I always thought it was the complete opposite.

[Ben E Lou]

Are you sure about this, because I always thought it was the complete opposite.Those comments are from the help file, written by the game's developer. I would certainly think that he knows what he's talking about. ;)

[vex]

haha

[vex]

Dola

Cala, but I can definitely see why you'd think this. Jim should just label Getting downfield, "YAC", but Big play receiving seems like it makes sense.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep, I was confused on this as well. In fact, I posted about this and how I stumbled across it in a scouting report a couple of weeks ago. Getting downfield = YAC. For 2 years now I had it backwards. Go figure.

[Dutch]

Hope this helps.

Thanks for posting that info, Quiksand.

[AlexB]

I've always worked on if you've got a strong WR (i.e. good bench press reps in rookie combine) he should be SE as he is more likely to have to fight off guys at the line of scrimmage... Is this along the lines of other people's thoughts?

[QuikSand]

There is some good information in the FOF 2004 draft file generator help file:

Are you sure about this [stuff quoted from the help file], because I always thought it was the complete opposite.

*sigh*



Anyway - if anyone remains interested in this topic and perhaps how the two positions differ in the FOF game... perhaps this thread might be useful:

23 spots lower, same forum section (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=36867)

Nothing really earth-shattering there, but at least a little work was done on the two poisitions in FOF.

[Warhammer]

I think another way to take a look at the positions is to look in the play calling section of a single player game. That should give you some ideas of the types of patterns each of the positions run.

[aran]

FL and SE aren't really positions you see in modern day football. The terms are quite old, and the meanings have been largely lost among usual football fans. I don't see how they would be elementarily different. They are both Wide Recievers, just more specific as to where they play.

The FL plays on the strong side of the formation (side of the formation where the most TEs are located). He is usually off the line of scrimmage.

The SE plays on the weak side of the formation (opposite of the FL), he is usually on the line of scrimmage.

If you're in a two TE set, it really doesn't matter who's who.

I don't see how it'd make such a big difference. I'd supposed you'd want a better blocker in your FL spot, because he'd see more runs coming his way, but that isn't really significant.

[Dutch]

I think a classic example of a FL/SE duo is Michael Irvin (FL) and Alvin Harper (SE). I don't know if that example is the norm, but it's what I always think of.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree with Aran so much that the SE/FL distinction should be dropped in future versions of FOF to one common WR. I would also like to see LCB/RCB dropped for just CB. The other distinctions are ok, but those two are dumb. Actually, LDT/RDT should go as well.

Does anyone ever hear about some team drafting, signing, or trading for a guy depending on whether he played SE or FL, and could make the switch???? All the guy has to learn is to start his pattern a few yards further or closer to the line of scrimmage.

[wade moore]

I agree with Aran so much that the SE/FL distinction should be dropped in future versions of FOF to one common WR. I would also like to see LCB/RCB dropped for just CB. The other distinctions are ok, but those two are dumb. Actually, LDT/RDT should go as well.

Does anyone ever hear about some team drafting, signing, or trading for a guy depending on whether he played SE or FL, and could make the switch???? All the guy has to learn is to start his pattern a few yards further or closer to the line of scrimmage.
Uhh...

All of these TOTALLY matter, you just may not realize it...

For instance... Irving Fryar never played the deep threat... he was always the possession guy.. he may not have had the "label" but there is a distinct difference...

For CB, watch an NFL game... the corners generally play one side of the field the whole game..

Same for DT...

[Izulde]

I've been under the impression that FL is the possession receiver and SE is the deep threat in my Tampa solo dynasty so far.

[Joe]

its always been confusing to me in FOF. I'd always thought of FL as possession receiver and SE deep threat, but then I thought, why are guys like Randy Moss and Torry Holt FL's in the player file.

[MrBigglesworth]

Same for DT...
A lot of teams play one DT on the strong side and one on the weak side.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Uhh...

All of these TOTALLY matter, you just may not realize it...

For instance... Irving Fryar never played the deep threat... he was always the possession guy.. he may not have had the "label" but there is a distinct difference...

For CB, watch an NFL game... the corners generally play one side of the field the whole game..

Same for DT...

Uhh, sorry Wade, the DESIGNATIONS don't matter. Irving Fryar was Irving Fryar, and played a type of game that was him. The type of receiver he is was determined by his skill set, not where he lined up necessarily or what someone called him. Similarly, in FOF, the type of receiver he is determined by his ratings, not his designation as SE or FL. Sure, some guys with certain skills may line up in more places than others and catch certain kinds of passes, but to bother with the designation of SE and FL is pointless now. My point is people still recognize a possession receiver from a burner, but to penalize their skills in FOF based on where they may line up is dumb. No one talks about FL or SEs any more.

As for CBs, you may notice that the CB is lined up on the same side of the field most of the game BECAUSE the WR he has been chosen to cover lines up on the same side of the field most of the time. You will NEVER hear a coach, GM, or analyst ever talk about what a great "right" or "left" cornerback that guy is. Now some guys may be better able to turn on a right or left foot, but to make that distinction in FOF is as I said it, just plain dumb.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

A lot of teams play one DT on the strong side and one on the weak side.

Thank you.

[mhass]

A lot of teams play one DT on the strong side and one on the weak side.
There is also a lot more shifting in line play nowadays. Plenty of "tackles" will line up on the edge in passing downs with two other "tackles" and one "end." You'll also see "ends" slide down to the outside shoulder of a guard in some zone blitzing schemes because the "end" ends up covering a running back. I agree with Vinateri that to assign sides to the DT spot is not as meaningful as, perhaps, StrongDT and WeakDT. And I never understood RCB vs. LCB when the defensive gameplan gives you the option right there to orient them by top receiver.

As for SE and FL, I think you'll find that, like every position, the real life game is so fluid that the roles become mixed up by convention. Some coordinator will begin a rotation away from, say the FL being the deep threat because defenses were keying on that, and making the SE play that role. Then, as defenses pick up on that trend, the rotation continues a little further to make the FL NEVER run a deep route. The cycle continues perpetually until the terms FL and SE are so garbled they're meaningless. The same thing has happened with running backs. A generation ago, RB's had the role of 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Then, with the rise of the West Coast offense, the Roger Craig type back was asked not for 1,400 at 3.1 yards per carry, but to catch and run for 900 apiece, mostly at the edges. Now we're seeing a rotation back to power running with guys like Bettis, Jamal Lewis, Benson and the like. But unlike the two wideout spots, we didn't invent a new name for the "finesse" back and both styles are kept under the same generic term. If we just called the two (or three or four) wideouts "receivers" we'd never care which specific label the speedy guy or the tough guy received.

[sovereignstar]

Thank you.

So we need a SDT and a WDT. Cool.

[fantastic flying froggies]

A real life example of the differences between FL and SE is illustrated in the following article featuring Amani Toomer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=citadel-2_424992_64&prov=citadel&type=story

Here's the interesting part for those that don't want to read the whole thing (and really, you shouldn't if you're not a Giants fan)


...Not to mention the challenge of manning a new receiver spot - one that Toomer hadn't played in years. When Big Blue signed Plaxico Burress (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5037/) it immediately brought up an interesting question - with two split ends, who would be moved to flanker? The answer came early and swiftly - Toomer would have to move. While he said he wasn't upset with the move, he clearly wasn't thrilled with it either.

"I was excited about trying something different, but I also didn't know the reason why - and I still don't," Toomer said. "But I don't concern myself with that.

"It was interesting. I didn't know how to take it. I ended up trying to shake it off as much as possible, and just take it as I'm still on the field. I didn't get a chance to question it."

Toomer said there are some distinct differences between the split end ('X') and his new flanker ('Z') spot. He mentioned lining up off the ball a yard or so as something that definitely takes getting used to, as does running routes with the tight end inside of him. However, he's already embracing the advantages of his new place in the Giants offense.

"It's actually a little easier getting off the line of scrimmage," he said. The position change to flanker, in all honesty, might be a better fit for Toomer, who's excellent at crossing patterns, slants, underneath routes, and getting open in traffic. It also gives him a new outlet to prove his critics wrong.

[sovereignstar]

You saying that the Giants and SI know more about football than Vin4Prez and aran? If they say the designations don't matter, THEY DON'T MATTER. Get it through your skull, froggy.

[JesterBlaze]

Football is not a symetrical sport, even in a symetrical formation, therefore every "right"/"left" positional difference is just that.... a difference. There is a learning curve associated with every positional change and any "plug and play" between positions in video games is designer simplification.

In addition to FL/SE, some receivers are simply better on the left or right side, regardless of whether it's considered FL or SE or any other term. Also, (I've heard) rarely will an NFL rookie receiver play anything other than one WR position his whole rookie year, if he's lucky enough to play at all.


To experience something similar to this for yourself simply try whacking off with the other hand. It takes the same skillset and yet it's just not the same. :D

[Calabaza]

This article does a good job explaining the difference between the two positions. Most notable is the one comment:

Burress was the team's X receiver, or split end, a position designed for deep passes and big plays.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05231/556527.stm

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well, this one article is not the be all and end all. I did some snooping around and came up with this. In the West Coast Offense, it is the FL that usually is the deep threat and the SE who runs the quick slants. Moreover, many teams use their WRs interchangeably in these positions. This is an example of what I was talking about in that the distinctions are so much blurred that using them in FOF is dumb.

http://kffl.com/article.php/1790/204

I also think in Green Bay for instance, Driver, Walker, and Ferguson lined up all over the place throughout the season as another example.

Are there slight differences. Sure. They actually do line up differently and some guys have only ever lined up in one position. But that doesn't justify it in FOF.

[MrBigglesworth]

What if you have a FL and a SE, but want to play the FL as the SE and the SE as the FL? Can you make the FL the FL on the depth chart, but switch all of them on the formation screens?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

In using the formation screens FL1 will mean whoever you slotted in the first spot in the depth chart. So, I guess if you wanted your top SE to play as the FL1, you have two options. Leave the formation screens alone and just put him in the depth chart as the top FL (the easiest way) or leave him as the SE in the depth chart, but move SE1 to the FL position on each formation screen (the more cumbersome method). I think you would get penalized either way. I am pretty sure this is how it works.

Although maybe you have hit on a way to avoid the penalty -- leave him in the proper position in the depth chart and just monkey with the formations screen. Perhaps Jim didn't think of that workaround.???