GC Voting is done!!

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:24 pm

The members of the GC are : Falconsfan (FF), ChildPlease (CP), Jmojsoski (J), Me (chz), Greener (G), Deathwish (Dw), Ezweightloss (Ez), Surfnturf (S), and Kight. Couldn't get in touch with kight, and Saastar (Sa) told me Greener made him a part of the council too, so I took his votes.

Ok, the rule changes/additions are as follows

Punt Rule: Passed

If it is 4th down, and you are on your side of the 50yd line. You MUST punt. The only exception is when you are trailing with 5min and under in the 4th qtr.

For: Sa, FF, S, G, Chz, CP, Dw
Against: Ez, Jmo

Depth Chart Rule: Passed

You MAY NOT have any player listed in the top 3 WR spots on the depth chart other than ACTUAL WIDE RECEIVERS

For: Chz, FF, Sa, G, J, Dw, CP
Against: Ez, S

Coverage rule: Passed

You must ALWAYS have two Rushers on defense. (Players in QB contain or blitzing count as rushers. Spies do not count as rushers). Therefore, you can not drop more than 9 men into coverage on any play.

For: Sa, Ez, FF, J, G, Dw, Chz, S, CP,
Against: No one

Uniform Rule:

Home team gets to choose between White and Dark. Away team must pick the opposite.

For: Everyone
Against: No one

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:26 pm

Vista is also a member of the GC...I don't think I remembered to tally his votes, but obviously by the results, they would not have mattered. Vista, if you read this, I believe I sent you a PM along with the others, and didn't hear back from you. I hope you don't take offense, none was intended.

by BlaineTheMono19 Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:38 pm

So just clarifying because I do this a lot and don't wanna be consistently breaking rules. In regards to the depth chart rule, are any of the following still legal? These are all substitutions done at the play calling screen, not in the depth chart. These are also subs that I make use maybe 5-10 times a game. And again, not wanting to argue or anything, just wanna get it right.

Single back, 3 wide, 1 Te. Is is okay to bring in a TACKLE at TE and bump the TE out to WR3 in the slot? I do this a lot with Shaun Andrews because he's a massive run blocker, and it also has benefits pass protection, very effective at slowing a good outside rush. Doing this would slate the TE at the third WR.

Tight formations Kind of the same theory, Bring a 3rd TACKLE in at TE, utilizing the TE at WR. It's the same personnel as a goal line package, except 1 T and 2 TE's as oppose to 3 TE's.

by phantomshark Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:39 pm

Very disappointing on the WR rule that you cannot have a TE at the #3 spot, it's just plain stupid. And you cannot even go for it on 4th and inches anymore on your side of the field? Ridiculous.

by bjcole26 Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:51 pm

I agree Phantom... If i was ever up 1 point with 4th and inches at the my own 48 late in the 4th quarter against FF or CP or JMO or EZ, etc.., the last thing i would want to do is punt the ball to let them drive the field to kick a fg and win. I certainly understand in the 1st thru 3rd qtr.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:53 pm

phantomshark wrote:Very disappointing on the WR rule that you cannot have a TE at the #3 spot, it's just plain stupid. And you cannot even go for it on 4th and inches anymore on your side of the field? Ridiculous.

Yeah, I figured the 4th and in people would be pissed about that. But on Sundays, you don't see many teams go for it on 4th and in on their own side of the field anyway. It's not an easy conversion like it is in Madden. I guarantee I could convert 9 out of 10 4th and in in madden, while in the NFL the rate of converted 4th and in is less than 50% (46.15%).

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:55 pm

It was definitely something I wanted to make subjective to discretion (like in BJCole's sitaution) but the problem is, when you leave too much gray area, people start finding ways to break the rule at times when it shouldn't be broken. We need the rules to be as simple as possible to avoid interpretation and people using loop holes. This was the simplest we could get it.

by bjcole26 Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:02 pm

Agree Cheddah... It is a fine line on 4th down of what is realistic going for it... I certainly understand the stance on it and hate when the games feel like lobby games... Not that i have to worry about being up 1 point on CP or JMO, etc. Smile

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:10 pm

exactly

by surfnturf90 Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:14 pm

For the record, the version of the depth chart rule that I voted no on said there couldn't be anything but WR's at the top 4 spots. I would have voted yes to banning them from the top 3 spots.

I have WR's at my top 5 spots in all 3 of my leagues so it doesn't matter to me either way, I just thought not letting somebody put a TE on the WR depth chart at all was pretty restrictive.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:20 pm

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:So just clarifying because I do this a lot and don't wanna be consistently breaking rules. In regards to the depth chart rule, are any of the following still legal? These are all substitutions done at the play calling screen, not in the depth chart. These are also subs that I make use maybe 5-10 times a game. And again, not wanting to argue or anything, just wanna get it right.

Single back, 3 wide, 1 Te. Is is okay to bring in a TACKLE at TE and bump the TE out to WR3 in the slot? I do this a lot with Shaun Andrews because he's a massive run blocker, and it also has benefits pass protection, very effective at slowing a good outside rush. Doing this would slate the TE at the third WR.

Tight formations Kind of the same theory, Bring a 3rd TACKLE in at TE, utilizing the TE at WR. It's the same personnel as a goal line package, except 1 T and 2 TE's as oppose to 3 TE's.

Blaine. Short answer: No. That's still causing a mix up on the play selection. You also can't put a TE in the WR3 spot. There are plenty of formations in the game where the TE is there already, so you can use on of those, or you can use one of the default packages set up for the formation.

I think you're misunderstanding what a tight formation is too. Tight formations are things like I-Tight, where it's 1WR, 2TE, 2RB. If you sub a TE in as the WR, you're putting him in the WR1 spot. Illegal. Also it will read as OWR, 2RB, 3TE on the playcall screen, making your opponent think you are in goal line.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:22 pm

To futher clarify, subbing that TE in the WR spot when the WR is there in the first place, makes it you subbing a TE into the wr3 spot. However, in the formations in various playbooks where the TE is lined up there in the slot to begin with, that's an actual TE spot, not a WR spot, making it ok.

by phantomshark Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:33 pm

And again, you are missing my point. If you use the formations that use a TE in the slot, that is the starting TE. There's no way to use a backup TE in the slot other than make a manual substitution, and that takes too long with the accelerated clock (well, I'm sure there's some of you 'masters' that can work the screens fast enough to make the substitution, that's probably why it's all the elite players who want this rule, to further widen the gap between themselves and us mere mortals).

by falconfansince81 Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:41 pm

phantomshark wrote:And again, you are missing my point. If you use the formations that use a TE in the slot, that is the starting TE. There's no way to use a backup TE in the slot other than make a manual substitution, and that takes too long with the accelerated clock (well, I'm sure there's some of you 'masters' that can work the screens fast enough to make the substitution, that's probably why it's all the elite players who want this rule, to further widen the gap between themselves and us mere mortals).

dont need to be quick at formation subs to do that. just number your players in order in which they start, its not that hard really. wr's are 11,12,13,14 te's 81,82,83 etc. thats a piss poor excuse to abuse the play call screen, and player subs is part of the game. practice it.

by falconfansince81 Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:45 pm

and i was still under the impression 4th and inches was ok to go for anywhere on the field unless u had a lead...either way, i'm still gonna play it realistically and won't crucify anyone who goes for it when it makes sense.

by phantomshark Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:58 pm

Yeah, if I'm down 14 in the 2nd quarter with 4th and inches at my own 45, I will still go for it, so feel free to report me.

by falconfansince81 Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:04 pm

phantomshark wrote:Yeah, if I'm down 14 in the 2nd quarter with 4th and inches at my own 45, I will still go for it, so feel free to report me.

if people would just play logical it wouldnt be a problem, and thats a logical call even with the lead...any 4th and inches is around the 45 of either side.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:05 pm

phantomshark wrote:Yeah, if I'm down 14 in the 2nd quarter with 4th and inches at my own 45, I will still go for it, so feel free to report me.

Yeah, I don't think that's something that would be a big problem. It's more or less written that way so guys aren't doing it from their own 30. That wouldn't happen very often in the NFL

by sam22smith Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:14 pm

going for it it on 4th from your own side of the field in the first half is very very rare. I would like to see the stats on that.

I like the rule. But if I was down by two scores in the second half from my own 45 I will go for it on 4th and inches.

by BlaineTheMono19 Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:28 pm

Thanks for clarifying, Cheddah. And I understand what a tight formation is. Brings the WRs closer to the spot of the ball, maybe 3-4 yards down from the tackle/TE. I use Washington's playbook, which features a lot of these. With wideouts, running-plays are usually ineffective because they are matched up in a one-on-one situation with an OLB. TE's are a different story. They can hold their own, making this very effective formation.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:50 pm

BlaineTheMono19 wrote:Thanks for clarifying, Cheddah. And I understand what a tight formation is. Brings the WRs closer to the spot of the ball, maybe 3-4 yards down from the tackle/TE. I use Washington's playbook, which features a lot of these. With wideouts, running-plays are usually ineffective because they are matched up in a one-on-one situation with an OLB. TE's are a different story. They can hold their own, making this very effective formation.

If that's your definition of tight, our lingo just doesn't match. I call a tight formation what I described (Wr1)...a lot of people have different names for it...some teams call it jumbo. What you are describing is what I call a stack, or a bunch (Madden only uses the term bunch with trips or more, in real life you can have a bunched 2wr set, which looks like what you're describing). Sorry for the confusion, but even in what you're calling a tight set, that kind of subbing is illegal

by BlaineTheMono19 Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:17 pm

Different terminology is probably the mix up here. I think we are basically talking about the same thing, but you threw me off with terms like Stack and Bunch. This is what I'm talking about, and if the formatting turns this into a bunch of random letters forgive me.

X T G C G T Y Z
Q
F
H

And basically what I did was replace X and Z with TE's and Y with a 3rd Tackle. But long story short, I'll stop doing that, although I think the rule should be amended to so that a TE(not RB) can be the 3rd WR. It's something you often see on Sundays and really, when you break it down, what's the difference from the slot and the TE pos?—aprx. 4-5 yards off the ball and off the LOS as oppose to on.

by BlaineTheMono19 Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:18 pm

Yep, That didn't work. Haha. Too bad these boards arn't very X's and O's friendly.

by Fr8trainShane Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:19 pm

You do often see it on Sunday's, however, its in a set specifically called for 2 WRs and a TE split out....which the game has.

by Cheddah_Cheez Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Here's what I mean by a tight set blaine:

TE T G C G T TE WR
QB
F
H

Compared to a normal set:

WR T G C G T TE WR
QB
F
H

And a stack would look like this:

TE T G C G T TE
WR QB WR
H

by Sponsored content

GC Voting is done!!

GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!

Re: GC Voting is done!!