Why AREN'T specific positions in NCAA?

[poopoop]

EA always seems hesitant to introduce things that'd add strategy to the game. The desire to keep everything as simple as possible holds the game back from where it could be.

[Electronic fArts]

This could all be remedied if we were given the ability to create our own formation packages for each formation that we could quickly reach from the playcall menu. It's the same thing with in-dynasty editing. It's ok that they don't have time or feel it's important enough to fix what's broken, but if they would just give us more customization options, we could fix it ourselves.

[Antec]

Quote: Originally Posted by berad88

Some of that stuff is technically in the game but labeled in a basic way. Like the third reciever on the depth chart is pretty much the slot reciever the game just does not call it that.

That's true but the advantage to a more advanced system would be for injuries/fatigue subs. You're backup slot WR doesn't have a spot on the depth chart.

Using the Patriots as an example because I have more knowledge of them than a college team's depth chart. Welker would be the slot receiver and Edelman would be the backup slot. Edelman currently wouldn't fit into the depth chart correctly.

[WipeOut464]

Quote: Originally Posted by fcboiler87

This conversation has been had here on the boards before. I think the consensus is that specific names are just that. They are specific to various offenses or defenses. It keeps things simple across the board by having generic names. Now, as a coach, I agree that I'd like to have specific type of names, but I could see where it would really complicate things. I'd much rather have them focus on many other things in the game. In fact, I'd like some positional things, especially for dynasty mode purposes, be more generic. I want to land an OLB, not an ROLB. I know we can change this stuff through position changes. I'd just like to recruit a S or a T. Then when you get them on your team, you see where they fit better. But again I could see this complicating things, especially for the casual gamer.

I agree entirely regarding the recruiting aspects. I'd probably go even a little further in making recruits more "athletes" that can be molded into specific positions. In the original post, I was really more just talking about the actual use of the players in the depth chart and schemes.

Gotta disagree about the "specific names" thing though. There's a tangible and schematic difference between a 3-4 NT and a 4-3 DT. Same goes for Strong, Mike, and Weak LBs (especially regarding matchup skills v. FBs, RBs, & TEs). Once you get into actual program specific names, i.e. "Mo", "Joker", etc., I can follow you about their relative usefulness to the game as a whole, though.

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Antec

That's true but the advantage to a more advanced system would be for injuries/fatigue subs. You're backup slot WR doesn't have a spot on the depth chart. Using the Patriots as an example because I have more knowledge of them than a college team's depth chart. Welker would be the slot receiver and Edelman would be the backup slot. Edelman currently wouldn't fit into the depth chart correctly.

Sure he does. Your 4th string WR is your backup slot. It's not like if you had the option you would suddenly make your #1 overall your backup slot receiver.

[JalenTigh]

If they would overhaul the formations subs to make them more user friendly and give the ability to add backups through that method, problem solved. As is though, most people dont even know its there, or how to use it properly.. and the AI does not use it at all. The current depth chart should be nothing but a "base" depth chart that should really have no bearing on actual gameplay.

[BtothejizA]

WLB/SLB, WDE/SDE, and FC/BC are all that are needed. I don't think it would be too hard to do. Field Corners are smaller/faster/able to cover open field better while boundary corners are bigger and more physical, ETC.


Getting into the differences bwtween NTs and DTs or LTs amd RTs is too much like splitting hairs though.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Quote: Originally Posted by BtothejizA

WLB/SLB, WDE/SDE, and FC/BC are all that are needed. I don't think it would be too hard to do. Field Corners are smaller/faster/able to cover open field better while boundary corners are bigger and more physical, ETC. Getting into the differences bwtween NTs and DTs or LTs amd RTs is too much like splitting hairs though.

I don't see how you think NT's and DT's aren't worthy of discussion but FC's and BC's are... NT's are widely recognized even by most casual fans as different than a regular DT. Most people on this board just realized their was a difference between FC's and BC's for the first time with your post. I don't even know of that many teams that use that method.