I think it's time to eliminate RT/LT, RG/LG, LOLB/ROLB, LE/RE

[TWC]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

If you're using HB's at FB and WR's at TE, then why not switch to a spread system where you aren't using the FB much and can use 4/5 WR sets?

That's actually what I'm doing. The only reason I do it is to free up that roster slot for another offensive lineman.

Quote:

If you have 2 WR's at TE at any point, then you're trying to exploit the system. If you line up in I-Formation and have a speed HB at FB, then you're trying to exploit the system.

If this is an exploit, it's a problem with the game, not the strategy being used. Teams do things like this all the time, especially mid-major programs. If you're not using the TE to block, it just makes sense to carry them as extra receivers. The only time I ever have a FB in the game is in the shotgun formations used as a receiver. If I have to carry a FB, I may as well fill that roster spot with someone I can actually use.

I don't run anything out of the I formation.

[J.R. Locke]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingCashus

In real life, LT and RT are two totally different positions. Playing LT and guarding the blindside of your right handed QB, is way harder than playing RT. I don't think they should get rid of those positions, but rather make them hold their own importance.

Depending on the system. In Georgia Tech's offense it doesn't matter. In most play action pass attacks it doesn't matter. It does matter more in a team that shotgun passes every game but no more than teams seaching for certain types of offensive lineman (quick rather than huge for instance).

I am in favor of the OP's suggestion.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingCashus

In real life, LT and RT are two totally different positions. Playing LT and guarding the blindside of your right handed QB, is way harder than playing RT. I don't think they should get rid of those positions, but rather make them hold their own importance.

Most would agree that a good LT is more important than a good RT. But whether one position is harder or more important than the other is NOT the same as saying the two positions are totally different. Playing tackle is playing tackle. Asking a RT to move to LT is no different than asking a right guard to play left guard. Awareness or instinct is not the issue here - only their skills sets (particularly their pass block skills). That's why we are saying the difference between a RT and LT should be based on their skills and not arbitrarily creating a special position for them.

[callmetaternuts]

There shouldnt be any distinction. Guys get moved from LT to RT or LG to RG all the time. You shouldnt be limited (not should the CPU) in where you play a guy. If you recruit 3 T's in the offseason, and they all end up being LT, why couldnt you switch them? Would a real coach say "Well, we recruited these three big tackles, but they all play left tackle so now we're 3 deep at LT and have no one at RT!"

[Jason_19]

Quote: Originally Posted by auburntigersfan

If they are going to separate LB's into groups, it should be WLB and SLB.

I agree. It would be great if they had those listed as the positions. If they did that, though, they would have to make the user defense automatically line itself up.

[jdrhammer]

Quote: Originally Posted by TWC

That's actually what I'm doing. The only reason I do it is to free up that roster slot for another offensive lineman. If this is an exploit, it's a problem with the game, not the strategy being used. Teams do things like this all the time, especially mid-major programs. If you're not using the TE to block, it just makes sense to carry them as extra receivers. The only time I ever have a FB in the game is in the shotgun formations used as a receiver. If I have to carry a FB, I may as well fill that roster spot with someone I can actually use. I don't run anything out of the I formation.

I see your points but a WR lining up at TE beside the T is an exploit on 09. Hopefully it won't be on 10. I understand your logic about what teams do all the time but that logic is thrown out the window on NCAA 09 due to the horrible state the D is in. Whether anyone intends to exploit it or not, it is an exploit. I can understand the HB to FB ,especially if you never run out of the I, but the WR @ TE is an unfair advantage, except in some of the package subs.

[Cryolemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by jdrhammer

OK, Nostredamus. I feel the same way but what's your all-knowing plan to stop the FB cheese? I agree about physical attributes staying the same but there are a few cases such as HB to FB, that will be cheesed to no end until there are serious changes to combat it.

Improving blocking AI and animations and defensive AI would be a good place to start.

[TrevJo]

Quote: Originally Posted by TrevJo

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA Quote: Originally Posted by hawkeyekid While they are at it, could they not have rating changes for moving a guy to different positions. Why should speed change if you move a guy from FS to SS? (snip) Agreed, expect not to see that hit in NCAA 10; same with STR, ACC, and AGI. Woot!

Man, I have to say, I am even more glad about this today than I was before.
I hardly been doing hardly any recruiting of ATHs, but I just finished a recruiting class with 4 ATH signings. Two of them I could tell were default WRs and one was a default HB. But I had needs for them at CB and FB. As position changes I was glad to see their OVR was just as good at the positions I needed them at, as it was at their default positions.
I knew some particular attributes would take a hit but I had no idea how bad it would be. The WR->CBs didn't lose any SPD but one of them had his ACC drop from 91 to 73 and his STR from ~40 to 33. Now, I can kind of see some logic with the ACC thing because you're going from accelerating forward (as a WR) to accelerating on the backpedal as a CB. But the FB example blew that logic away. The guy dropped from 88 SPD to 68 SPD (which makes some sense and I expected it), but what blew me away was he dropped from 65 STR to 50 STR! That makes no sense! If anything the guy is going to be bulking up for the position, which presumably would be why he loses speed.

Anyway I just wanted to rant (a little later than most players!) about the position changes thing, and at the same time applaud EA in advance for fixing this in 10.