VC, we love YOUR ideas! But a word of caution...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

VC, if you're reading...

This idea originally comes from a guy who calls himself DARK_LORD_VADER. Making sure that on offense, the "MAXIMUM TACKLE" has a "risk factor" built in. Wherein if a runner is trying to break a tackle, then his chances of fumbling goes up.

Here's an additional thought.

"[IT'S] AN ABSOLUTE MUST!...Hopefully they've already done this or are doing this, but again it is a MUST, to have the RISK of fumbling if you're fighting for more yards!

... That's just part of the game of football. They could even have an animation of a guy trying to strip the ball when the runner is trying to get more yardage. That's the way you usually see it: One or two guys are wrapping up the guy, while another guy comes in and tries to rip the ball free.

If this "risk" isn't added, then it just might become a battle of "who mashes the button/wiggles the stick" more the offense or the defense? There HAS TO be a risk for the runner."

[**DONOTDELETE**]

LBzrule added:

"I just thought about something on the RB's. IF Fatigue is addressed, which was another big complaint, then trying to break tackles on every run will probably tax your RB causing you to sub alot more. If fatigue is addressed this will be golden."

[Dagreat1]

yea right there shouldnt be ANY risk for the runner. That fumble thing is a REALLY bad idea as people will return the game from too many fumbles. Breaking tackles made ESPN Football realistic IMO and i'm sure they already toned it down.

[HotrodderZ]

Quote:

---

Dagreat1 said:
yea right there shouldnt be ANY risk for the runner. That fumble thing is a REALLY bad idea as people will return the game from too many fumbles. Breaking tackles made ESPN Football realistic IMO and i'm sure they already toned it down.

---

I agree, I think adding fumbles is a bad idea. Fatigue should take a big hit though. The loss of fatigue should add more fumbles anyway.

[thejake]

Quote:

---

HotrodderZ said:

Quote:

---

Dagreat1 said:
yea right there shouldnt be ANY risk for the runner. That fumble thing is a REALLY bad idea as people will return the game from too many fumbles. Breaking tackles made ESPN Football realistic IMO and i'm sure they already toned it down.

---

I agree, I think adding fumbles is a bad idea. Fatigue should take a big hit though. The loss of fatigue should add more fumbles anyway.

---

Adding fumbles a bad idea ??? WTF

That is how is HAS to be to be realistic.

[NYG_Meth]

Quote:

---

thejake said:

Quote:

---

HotrodderZ said:

Quote:

---

Dagreat1 said:
yea right there shouldnt be ANY risk for the runner. That fumble thing is a REALLY bad idea as people will return the game from too many fumbles. Breaking tackles made ESPN Football realistic IMO and i'm sure they already toned it down.

---

I agree, I think adding fumbles is a bad idea. Fatigue should take a big hit though. The loss of fatigue should add more fumbles anyway.

---

Adding fumbles a bad idea ??? WTF

That is how is HAS to be to be realistic.

---

Yea, look at Tiki...

[Bondra12]

IMO, the longer a running back stays up going for extra yard while being tackled, the risk of fumbling increases in real life. The back takes extra hits, stretches the ball out leaving it vunerable to a strip etc... I think there should be some extra risk involved when fighting for extra yards in the game as well. Just like there should be risk when going for the highlight reel hit. These tackles may miss more often then wrap tackles and since they don't involve wrapping the ball handler up, if the offensive player manages to stay on his feet, he is in the clear. I can't count the number of times I've seen DBs in the NFL try to fly into a back with a big shoulder hit and the back manages to stay on his feet for a nice gain.

[HotrodderZ]

I disagree, fumbling is a result of not securing the ball, which is handled by a completely different rating, not breaking tackles.