http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.js...mrush&site=org
1) Navy - Flexbone/Spread option
2) Oregon - Shotgun zone read/option (Chip Kelly actually did some flexbone stuff at New Hampshire. Still runs veer)
3) Nevada - pistol option, though I don't get to see them much and thus don't know the particulars. probably heavier on misdirection vs. option than some other teams on this list.
4) Georgia Tech - Flexbone/Spread Option. Lead nation in plays of +20 and +30 yards, so the most explosive offense in the country in some respects.
5) Tulsa - ? run zone read, from what I remember. correct me if I'm wrong
6) Air Force - multiple option, including lots of veer from shotgun, and still some flexbone.
7) La. Lafayette - Shotgun spread option. Lots of zone read, speed options, and the like.
8) Ok. State - ?
9) Army - Flexbone option. Based more in wishbone-type plays than Paul Johnson's spread style last year, but now they've got Cal-Poly's old coach, who is one of the most creative flexbone minds out there.
10) Florida - Zone read, shotgun veer, power option, jet sweeps and jet zone reads, straight QB power plays, etc.
Okay.
So most of the top rushing teams in the nation last year had as their base philosophy the concept of leaving defenders unblocked and letting the QB read them.
This gives them a numerical advantage of blockers over defenders at the point of attack. It nullifies the speed or strength of certain defenders by making them take themselves out of the play.
EA does not feature this style, point blank. It's just not in the game.
It gives you something that looks similar from the point of view of the QB and a running back but the offensive line plays no differently than they would on any straight ahead running play.
Georgia Tech destroyed Miami this year while starting an offensive tackle who was around 240 pounds. If he were to play by EA's style, they would have been destroyed.
The most common responses I've seen to all this is
"It's a video game and you can't expect 100% realism.
"It's close enough."
"Who cares?"
Now, if the passing game were as broken as this, you'd have WRs running 2 routes.
If the running backs were as off as the blocking schemes, you'd have only 2 possible running plays.
Someone tell me, with the prevalence of shotgun spread option teams in CFB today, why one SHOULDN'T desire to see the basic philosophy behind option football somewhat-accurately put into place.
I've been told that leaving players unblocked causes "AI problems"
But doesn't that just signal that there needs to be a deeper AI fix and perhaps more resources could be spent on that?
I'm not "blaming" EA - their market research probably suggests that people don't care.
I'm telling you that you SHOULD care.
You'd get upset if your WR could only run a hitch or a fly, right? Correcting that would be pretty high priority to most people.
This is just as big in terms of football realism.
1) Navy - Flexbone/Spread option
2) Oregon - Shotgun zone read/option (Chip Kelly actually did some flexbone stuff at New Hampshire. Still runs veer)
3) Nevada - pistol option, though I don't get to see them much and thus don't know the particulars. probably heavier on misdirection vs. option than some other teams on this list.
4) Georgia Tech - Flexbone/Spread Option. Lead nation in plays of +20 and +30 yards, so the most explosive offense in the country in some respects.
5) Tulsa - ? run zone read, from what I remember. correct me if I'm wrong
6) Air Force - multiple option, including lots of veer from shotgun, and still some flexbone.
7) La. Lafayette - Shotgun spread option. Lots of zone read, speed options, and the like.
8) Ok. State - ?
9) Army - Flexbone option. Based more in wishbone-type plays than Paul Johnson's spread style last year, but now they've got Cal-Poly's old coach, who is one of the most creative flexbone minds out there.
10) Florida - Zone read, shotgun veer, power option, jet sweeps and jet zone reads, straight QB power plays, etc.
Okay.
So most of the top rushing teams in the nation last year had as their base philosophy the concept of leaving defenders unblocked and letting the QB read them.
This gives them a numerical advantage of blockers over defenders at the point of attack. It nullifies the speed or strength of certain defenders by making them take themselves out of the play.
EA does not feature this style, point blank. It's just not in the game.
It gives you something that looks similar from the point of view of the QB and a running back but the offensive line plays no differently than they would on any straight ahead running play.
Georgia Tech destroyed Miami this year while starting an offensive tackle who was around 240 pounds. If he were to play by EA's style, they would have been destroyed.
The most common responses I've seen to all this is
"It's a video game and you can't expect 100% realism.
"It's close enough."
"Who cares?"
Now, if the passing game were as broken as this, you'd have WRs running 2 routes.
If the running backs were as off as the blocking schemes, you'd have only 2 possible running plays.
Someone tell me, with the prevalence of shotgun spread option teams in CFB today, why one SHOULDN'T desire to see the basic philosophy behind option football somewhat-accurately put into place.
I've been told that leaving players unblocked causes "AI problems"
But doesn't that just signal that there needs to be a deeper AI fix and perhaps more resources could be spent on that?
I'm not "blaming" EA - their market research probably suggests that people don't care.
I'm telling you that you SHOULD care.
You'd get upset if your WR could only run a hitch or a fly, right? Correcting that would be pretty high priority to most people.
This is just as big in terms of football realism.
Comment