Rule Changes and Additions have been made!!

Fr8trainShane wrote:Here's the problem with this rule, and we should just go ahead and address it now before this goes any further.

Its going to be hell to police. You'd either have to record all of the games, or hope the highlight saves, and includes them actually lining up pre-snap (and then you still wouldn't see the package that showed on screen).

Its un-policeable.

disagree...the owner has to substitute the players....its their discretion to do it. They can stop. Their opponent can report them and show footage...just like everything else.

take pictures of there depth chart with your phone.... if they sub players at the play screen, then you know for sure who the chessers are...

jmojsoski wrote:look bro...if you need this trickery to win fine...obviously you feel strongly about it, im not going to go back and forth, however if the rule is passed, you would have to adjust just like your opponents have had to adjust to your trickery..

IT'S NOT TRICKERY! Winslow is my #4 WR. Period. Last game he caught 3 TD passes. He's a huge part of my offense on that team. Limiting him to only being my backup TE would cripple me. Do I think I'm 'tricking' anyone by having it read 3WR, 1TE when it's a 4 wide set? No. The LB will still be covering him, just a few steps out. Stop making this a personal attack on me because I feel strongly that this rule is about as unfair as you could possibly come up with. I agreed with you on using them as your 1 or 2, it probably wouldn't happen in real life, so fine. But you are delusional if you think not allowing them in your 3 or 4 is in any way fair or sim.

man i hope mlb the show doesn turn out like this.. lol.. an damn bitch fest.. he throw an illegal pitch.. he stole when he wasnt suppose to.. he glitched to prevent my home run... i swear we could make a tv drama series out of this site..... WOULD PROBABLY HAVE GOOD RATINGS TO!!! lol

phantomshark wrote:

jmojsoski wrote:look bro...if you need this trickery to win fine...obviously you feel strongly about it, im not going to go back and forth, however if the rule is passed, you would have to adjust just like your opponents have had to adjust to your trickery..

IT'S NOT TRICKERY! Winslow is my #4 WR. Period. Last game he caught 3 TD passes. He's a huge part of my offense on that team. Limiting him to only being my backup TE would cripple me. Do I think I'm 'tricking' anyone by having it read 3WR, 1TE when it's a 4 wide set? No. The LB will still be covering him, just a few steps out. Stop making this a personal attack on me because I feel strongly that this rule is about as unfair as you could possibly come up with. I agreed with you on using them as your 1 or 2, it probably wouldn't happen in real life, so fine. But you are delusional if you think not allowing them in your 3 or 4 is in any way fair or sim.

I have no problems with you using Winslow at WR#3...or WR#4...as long as its just those spots. I have played you...and you have used your TE (Specifically Winslow) at other spots...but whatever. It is what it is.

My issues are....If you are gonna use a lame substitution...limit it too 1 per play. You shouldn't be allowed to then put another TE at WR#4 or a RB at WR#4, so that it completely gives off a false impression. I agree that 3WR 1 TE is gonna be close to the same package. But, if u sub an additional RB or TE at the #4 position...it becomes a crap shoot. Thats typically what the cheeseballs are doing. Using multiple subs..not just one. I see no problem with you using Winslow at WR#3, as long as hes lined up in the slow...anywhere else is lame. Unless he was motioned out...from his tight end position.

The rule should simply be....Only One Substitution or RB/TE can be subbed for a Wide Receiver. NO MORE. Regardless of Speed/Players...etc. (Shouldn't matter if u have Reggie Bush and a fast TE like Winslow- Pick one or the other if you call a 4wr or 5wr play)- The minute u start putting more than 1 guy in the package that isn't playing in his proper position you are purposely rigging the play call screen. We all use the play-call screen for reference...you know what your doing to your opponent. Grow up. Furthermore, a TE or RB should never...NEVER....NEVER...be put in place at WR1 or WR2. BlainetheMONO does this 5-6 times a game in a power formation...and will then sub in LT's and RT's to play the TE position. Its pure lame.

Things I'm cool with...putting speed TEs or Speed RBS at WR#3 or WR #4 or WR#5 (as long as its only 1 per play- NOT 1RB and 1TE per play)

Things I'm not cool with.....a depth chart....reading this....or even a play...reading this...
WR1- Sidney Rice
WR2- Nate Burleson
WR3- Reggie Bush
WR4- Kellen Winslow
WR5- Travis Beckum

Get my points? Imagine a guy calling 4 and 5 wide consistently all game? and it just keeps reading 2WR 1RB 1TE and its really 4 wide...shotgun...or 2WR 2TE 1RB and its 5 wide. Those are pure power/running formations...guys are going to call base d's with linebackers on the field. Bush/Winslow/Beckum will burn those formations all day...if they are abusing it like that. I can only imagine novice players or bad defensive play callers like myself...calling 4-3 or 4-6 or 3-4 formations and you coming out 5 wide. All the audibles and changes in the world...wouldn't save me from the punishment I'm about to receive.

Keep it simple...if your WRs blow...use One Tight End....OR....One Running Back in their place at WR3.

Don't just start stashing 2-3 RBs and TEs in the depth chart or play call...to screw your opponent. Lets face it...an NFL teams 4-5-6th WR are going to get open against Darrelle Revis (Example) more than a TE of Vernon Davis's stature is. Sorry to say...its the truth. In Madden, its probably the opposite. Davis is likely to burn Revis alot more than (Example: David Kircus, Jordy Nelson, Brandon Stokley)

I guess because you dont have talent at WR...that we should have to guess what your doing? when you sub in a bunch of other position players?

phantom u are a great member - and your enthusiam on this board is a great example of this - AND I KNOW THIS RULKE WOULD CREATE SOME WAVES... clearly u are some1 that is gettn the short end of the stick - and for that i appologize - but something had to be done...

Now to move forward... i would like to offer you a lab partner to work with your exisitng playbook or find a new playbook that works better for u i was think of your issue (any other volunteers to LAB with Phantom would be appreaciated)- maybe u can pot WINSLOW at FB and motion him out - than adjust your plays through hot routes - I WOULD BE WILLING TO EVEN THROW U A LIL BONE - and make it a rule that nobody can call a DLEAY OF GAME PENALTY ON YOU WHEN U MOTION YOUR "FB" OUT TO A FLANKER OR SLOT...

In my coaching and busines carreer - my attitude is always HOW CAN WE FIX PROBLEMS... we had a big problem b4 this rule - it fixeda lot of them - but created issues for you - so now u have my dedication to help solve your issue with the situation - U wantr to see if we can putr our heads together and find a wy to make it work for you as well?

1 TE at a WR#3 or lower spot should be legal - IMO

I don't like the RB there though- motion him out or use the formation that has an RB out there already. Putting an RB in the WR#3 spot would be lining him up at the line way more than is realistic. Limiting an RB to only those set formations that split him out, or manually motioning him out keeps things realistic.

But basically running a two TE offense with one of them lining up in the slot on a lot of plays is not unrealistic.

I made my suggestion. If you make it that WR1 and WR2 has to be WRs (and Delmas, if it was last year I played you Winslow was my #2 WR, so maybe that's what you are thinking of, this year he was #3 the 1st week and #4 since I got White), and then 3 may be a TE or WR, and 4 and higher can be anything, but at least 1 out of 3 or 4 must be a WR, so 3 of the top 4 spots must be WR. This will minimize the damage anyone can do 'tricking' the play calling screen, as you put it. Oh, and if you want to make it a rule that to use anything but a WR in the top 4 requires you to post a message on the boards, so I'd have to post 'Kellen Winslow is #4 on my WR depth chart'. NFL scouting would know that already.

phantomshark wrote:I made my suggestion. If you make it that WR1 and WR2 has to be WRs (and Delmas, if it was last year I played you Winslow was my #2 WR, so maybe that's what you are thinking of, this year he was #3 the 1st week and #4 since I got White), and then 3 may be a TE or WR, and 4 and higher can be anything, but at least 1 out of 3 or 4 must be a WR, so 3 of the top 4 spots must be WR. This will minimize the damage anyone can do 'tricking' the play calling screen, as you put it. Oh, and if you want to make it a rule that to use anything but a WR in the top 4 requires you to post a message on the boards, so I'd have to post 'Kellen Winslow is #4 on my WR depth chart'. NFL scouting would know that already.

As it's been going, only 1 member has voted against this rule, however all seem it's ok to have ONE TE OR ONE RB (not both) as your 4th WR. Not 3rd. But 4th is ok. So the rule will probably reflect that.

This rule, where I can agree that people can abused the playcall screen, is utter crap. It's extremely unbalanced. You're asking the Offense to keep what could be it's best pass catchers on the sideline simply to appease the defence's playcall screen. In DW league I have Desean Jax, Steve Smith(car) at wrs, Gonzo at TE and Spiller at rb. In 5 wide sets, which I run often, you're going to tell me I can't use Gonzo or Spill?

Or take my Tight-I formation, where I bring in a Tackle at te and put two tes at wideout. The result is kindof an adjusted goalline.

Or take my team in Cheddahs league, where I'm forced to play Dilliard over Tim Beckum at wr3. Beckum is like a 65 at TE yet aprx. a 75 at wr. That's a major disadvantage.

In the NFL, d-coordinators have someone watching the other teams subs. This tells him who is going to be in the game, NOT what formation or play type it is.

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:This rule, where I can agree that people can abused the playcall screen, is utter crap. It's extremely unbalanced. You're asking the Offense to keep what could be it's best pass catchers on the sideline simply to appease the defence's playcall screen. In DW league I have Desean Jax, Steve Smith(car) at wrs, Gonzo at TE and Spiller at rb. In 5 wide sets, which I run often, you're going to tell me I can't use Gonzo or Spill?

Or take my Tight-I formation, where I bring in a Tackle at te and put two tes at wideout. The result is kindof an adjusted goalline.

Or take my team in Cheddahs league, where I'm forced to play Dilliard over Tim Beckum at wr3. Beckum is like a 65 at TE yet aprx. a 75 at wr. That's a major disadvantage.

In the NFL, d-coordinators have someone watching the other teams subs. This tells him who is going to be in the game, NOT what formation or play type it is.

There are playbooks with spread sets that include 3WR 1TE and 1RB - why not learn that playbook with that team? Or use the packages for the 5WR sets? That removes the shadiness of any depth chart trickery.

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:This rule, where I can agree that people can abused the playcall screen, is utter crap. It's extremely unbalanced. You're asking the Offense to keep what could be it's best pass catchers on the sideline simply to appease the defence's playcall screen. In DW league I have Desean Jax, Steve Smith(car) at wrs, Gonzo at TE and Spiller at rb. In 5 wide sets, which I run often, you're going to tell me I can't use Gonzo or Spill?

Or take my Tight-I formation, where I bring in a Tackle at te and put two tes at wideout. The result is kindof an adjusted goalline.

Or take my team in Cheddahs league, where I'm forced to play Dilliard over Tim Beckum at wr3. Beckum is like a 65 at TE yet aprx. a 75 at wr. That's a major disadvantage.

In the NFL, d-coordinators have someone watching the other teams subs. This tells him who is going to be in the game, NOT what formation or play type it is.

At least someone understands me.

That's my point. That THERE IS NO SHADINESS OR TRICKERY IN DOING THIS. I'm putting my best players on the field. Nothing more.

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:That's my point. That THERE IS NO SHADINESS OR TRICKERY IN DOING THIS. I'm putting my best players on the field. Nothing more.

Running a two TE offense by putting one TE in the WR3 spot is not shady. That is a legit offense to run, and is run in the NFL.

But putting Spiller as the WR3 - and running an offense with him lining up in the slot on bunch formations etc. and all the other 3WR sets is not realistic. That's making him a third WR. Now him lining up at the LOS in a spread formation once in a while is realistic. Or motioning him out sometimes is realistic.

But can't you sub him in on spread formations realistically and keep him off the depth chart? How often is a team using an HB in the backfield and then also using there other HB as a slot or wide out? I don't think that is happening. Right?

Never said I put Spiller at WR3, only WR5.

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:Never said I put Spiller at WR3, only WR5.

Just sub him in on the 5WR set instead of putting him the depth chart. No one can argue with Spiller being out there in the one spread set that your playbook has. Seriously - I hope not.

Blaine if you want your TEs on the field and spiller split out, call a 2TE set (there's tons) and then motion spiller out. Simple as that. You guys are acting like it's impossible to get a TE or WR split out without putting him there in the depth chart.

A rule like this is going to force me to do things I find far cheesier than playing a TE as the 3rd WR. Like calling 2TE sets and then audibling to a shotgun. I'm sure that there are packages called 'TE Slot' in some formations, but unfortunately I think that'll put my starting TE Clark in the slot and not Winslow. Greener suggested putting Winslow at FB and motioning him out and hot-routing, but how is that better than just having him in the slot to begin with? To me that's a lot less sim, and a lot more potential for abuse. I suppose I could find a WR with the worst possible stamina and put him 3 and send him on a couple of flies so #4 has to come in. I mean, I can think of lots of ways to cheat the system, but I shouldn't have to do that.

If u are in a 4 wr set - and sub a TE and RB into the slots - would it say 4 WR 1 RB set or 2 WR, 1 TE and 2 RB?

GREENERRRR wrote:If u are in a 4 wr set - and sub a TE and RB into the slots - would it say 4 WR 1 RB set or 2 WR, 1 TE and 2 RB?

2WR, 1TE, 2RB. It doesn't care what formation you are in, it cares what's on the field.

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:This rule, where I can agree that people can abused the playcall screen, is utter crap. It's extremely unbalanced. You're asking the Offense to keep what could be it's best pass catchers on the sideline simply to appease the defence's playcall screen. In DW league I have Desean Jax, Steve Smith(car) at wrs, Gonzo at TE and Spiller at rb. In 5 wide sets, which I run often, you're going to tell me I can't use Gonzo or Spill?

Or take my Tight-I formation, where I bring in a Tackle at te and put two tes at wideout. The result is kindof an adjusted goalline.

Or take my team in Cheddahs league, where I'm forced to play Dilliard over Tim Beckum at wr3. Beckum is like a 65 at TE yet aprx. a 75 at wr. That's a major disadvantage.

In the NFL, d-coordinators have someone watching the other teams subs. This tells him who is going to be in the game, NOT what formation or play type it is.

of course you are against the rule.... a guy who played TE's at WR1 and WR2 for certain formations...

You clearly are against these rules because it directly helps/effects you. Sorry to say that broh...but its the truth.

Anyone who plays a split WR formation...and puts TE1 and TE2 at WR and puts two tackles at TE's on each side....(BTW, thats not a different type of goaline formation) I've never seen that formation in real life...EVER. So, dont make an excuse. Especially when I confronted you about it...and called it cheese. You reply with..."it isnt against the rules...I dont care what your play-call screen says..blah blah" - You know what you are doing...and thats why you do it. Don't give us that load of BS..."Im not going to keep my best pass catchers on the bench to appease my opponent. Beckum isnt better than alot of the WRs...quit giving me that crud. Travis Beckum is never getting open on a starting NFL Cornerback like he does in Madden. Its UNSIM"

Furthermore, you have Deon Butler and Golden Tate, so you should never have a TE in replacing them...running routes as WR1 or WR2. But, what do you do? put Hernandez/Beckum in at WR...and then say "it isnt against the rules...I'm not going to put them there...just to appease you..."

Hence, I dont give a @#$@! what my opponent thinks...Im gonna do it...because it isnt against the rules.

Blaine, you are some of the reason people are bringing up this crap. You cheese the play-call screen and you dont even care. You know it..and you laugh.

Delmas26 wrote:

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:This rule, where I can agree that people can abused the playcall screen, is utter crap. It's extremely unbalanced. You're asking the Offense to keep what could be it's best pass catchers on the sideline simply to appease the defence's playcall screen. In DW league I have Desean Jax, Steve Smith(car) at wrs, Gonzo at TE and Spiller at rb. In 5 wide sets, which I run often, you're going to tell me I can't use Gonzo or Spill?

Or take my Tight-I formation, where I bring in a Tackle at te and put two tes at wideout. The result is kindof an adjusted goalline.

Or take my team in Cheddahs league, where I'm forced to play Dilliard over Tim Beckum at wr3. Beckum is like a 65 at TE yet aprx. a 75 at wr. That's a major disadvantage.

In the NFL, d-coordinators have someone watching the other teams subs. This tells him who is going to be in the game, NOT what formation or play type it is.

of course you are against the rule.... a guy who played TE's at WR1 and WR2 for certain formations...

You clearly are against these rules because it directly helps/effects you. Sorry to say that broh...but its the truth.

Anyone who plays a split WR formation...and puts TE1 and TE2 at WR and puts two tackles at TE's on each side....(BTW, thats not a different type of goaline formation) I've never seen that formation in real life...EVER. So, dont make an excuse. Especially when I confronted you about it...and called it cheese. You reply with..."it isnt against the rules...I dont care what your play-call screen says..blah blah" - You know what you are doing...and thats why you do it. Don't give us that load of BS..."Im not going to keep my best pass catchers on the bench to appease my opponent. Beckum isnt better than alot of the WRs...quit giving me that crud. Travis Beckum is never getting open on a starting NFL Cornerback like he does in Madden. Its UNSIM"

The formation in question is a tight-I formation with ONE tackle where the tight-end would be, and two TE's (I use Beckum and Hernandez in Chz league. Gonzo and Kliensasser[which should prove that I'm not trying to get an advantage in the passing game]). I do this NOT to screw with your play call screen, but to give myself a strategic advantage in the running game. Having WR's that tight in for a running play doesn't make too much sense.

Once again, along with Phantom and EZ and anyone else who is against this rule, I make this moves to gain a strategic advantage with the players on the field, not to mess with you fellas' precious little play call screens.

when/where on the field do you run that TE/T sub play that has no WR?

Short-yardage situations, goal line, late in the forth with a lead. Motioning the strong-side TE, assuming the D is in zone, can create a nice double-iso play. I run three or four running plays and one passing play out of this. Like I said before, it's really just an adjusted goalline formation.

BTW, the last 2 or 3 weeks the Jets used a 3rd tackle WITH Keller on the field. Not much difference.