|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Jul 31, 2021 16:08:58 GMT
Gentleman,
This option has been up for debate with us even prior to going to the computer version of the game, so it's time to bring it to the forefront for discussion and official vote. Should we allow two halfbacks to play in the backfield at the same time? I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or the other but here are a few items to consider when voting.
1) Blocking Back results come up more often on the generic D cards and most HB's have a zero rating versus your typical BB or FB.
2) Most HB's have better receiving cards and YAC than a BB's or FB's.
3) Allowing two HB's to play at the same time may reduce "card abuse" amongst runners.
4) Eliminates formation mistakes from coaches which happen more frequently than you may realize.
I'm sure there more, so chime in as you see fit.
For my official Vote, it will be "Yes" to allow this to occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Jul 31, 2021 18:14:32 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Jul 31, 2021 20:55:29 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Aug 1, 2021 15:16:05 GMT
Currently voting No on this
Though I assume the rule we used of HB with a run block rating of 4 or higher will be allowed as BB but not able to run.
Currently the only 2 HB situation is Full House as I know of.
To elaborate concern of my No vote is defending 2 HBs. Likely puts more YAC offensive power in play. But more so, it's the abusive runner cards are often either inside runners or outside runners. Those that can run all zones are usually good starting backs (not always but...). If one has an abusive inside runner and can pair them with a good outside HB easily, it makes the defender have to worry about all zones for a RB they shouldn't have to. This latter argument is my thinking at this time.
I'm not biased as the Panthers would benefit from this rule proposal of 2HB runners in a formation this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by lugoboss on Aug 1, 2021 16:30:02 GMT
I vote NO to this.
I think this would give a offense to much of a advantage and defending this would be a nightmare. Especially with the current defense cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2021 17:23:34 GMT
I vote no. Other rules we have voted for actually occur in football. I don't even agree with our current blocking back rule. Joe Mixon does not play blocking back in real football and shouldn't be allowed to play it in our league, but that is a different discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 1, 2021 17:26:27 GMT
No for above reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 2, 2021 5:26:41 GMT
just some more food for thought-
The Joe Mixon example is an SOM rule, not OFM as far as I know. The "You never see two HB's in the backfield at the same time is not accurate. While it's not common, it does occur. What you never see is a full house backfield which we allow, because it's in the game. Pro Set in the NFL? rarely unless there are two HB's in the game The defensive cards themselves have no bearing on this potential change so not sure why that's a concern. Harder to defend, sure, but isn't that what offensive coaches generally are trying to do? Put personal on the field to potentially gain a matchup advantage. Yes there may be more YAC in play but isn't that why we see RB's and TE's split as wideouts. Teams trying to get their best skill players on the field in space to create more chances of making a play
In the world of real football, they are all just running backs. Typically the FB or BB just happened to be named that if they were the bigger of the two backs in the backfield. It had nothing to do with their ability to run or catch the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Aug 2, 2021 16:44:07 GMT
I vote no. Other rules we have voted for actually occur in football. I don't even agree with our current blocking back rule. Joe Mixon does not play blocking back in real football and shouldn't be allowed to play it in our league, but that is a different discussion. Kareem Hunt and Nick Chubb Alvin Kamara and Taysom Hill Whatever 2 backs Bill feels like running in a given week Two RB sets are becoming increasingly common in the NFL. What we are voting on does occur in the NFL especially with teams that have 2 good backs (they are few and far between). |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Aug 2, 2021 18:39:50 GMT
For what it is worth - here is why I voted "yes".
1. It resolves any potential formation issues in game. While there were definitely some last year, thankfully there wasn't any during a crucial moment in a crucial game. This would help avoid a situation where it could make a difference in an important game.
2. I have played in a league that allows 2 HBs on the field at the same time. It is not any more difficult to defend than any other "good" or "powerful" offense in Strat. With our league having "Flats=Runs", this helps contain teams with two good backs and YAC guys. Also, on average there is less than 1 YAC A player per team in this year's set.
3. The draft league cards have more receiver rolls. Receivers will become more important, more so than YAC players. YAC value drops a bit with these cards. Also, on average, the draft league cards are more "playable" and competitive than what 50%+ of the league is forced to use year after year if you were outside of the top 12.
4. Two RBs is definitely an increasingly used formation in the NFL. To say it is not is simply not true; and it is used way more frequently than a "Full House" formation, which we allow. Some two RB formation stats (please note these are without FBs) from PFF from last year:
Browns - 28%
Falcons - 12%
Bills - 10%
Bears - 16%
Broncos - 14%
Lions - 16%
Packers - 13%
Saints - 18%
Cardinals - 32%
Ravens - 17%
49ers - 27%
5. It can always be voted out. How do you know if you dislike something without ever having tried it?
I do not feel overly strongly on this one way or another, above were just my thoughts. I do not have a team this year that will be playing two HBs either, so this is not voting in my own self interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 3, 2021 15:09:32 GMT
Although I really don't have a strong opinion either way , I'll vote Yes for the reasons Ryan has stated above.
As a side note, the 4 rated run blocking HB's that are allowed to play BB, is a SOM rule. They rated those players (5 in this years set) for a reason, so they can replicate formations those teams used in the NFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2021 20:53:27 GMT
So if we only allowed players to play the position they are rated for (LG has to play LG; SS has to play SS; RDT has to play RDT; etc.), the game program would allow a player who is rated as a HB only and has a 4 run block rating or greater to play Blocking Back?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 3, 2021 21:09:58 GMT
So if we only allowed players to play the position they are rated for (LG has to play LG; SS has to play SS; RDT has to play RDT; etc.), the game program would allow a player who is rated as a HB only and has a 4 run block rating or greater to play Blocking Back? Yes. We adopted "advice" from the game company as set forth within the rules (a copy is loaded on your hard drive when you download the game). Here is the excerpt: BLOCKING BACK OFFENSE Using the standard Pro Set, designate one of the two backs as the “blocking back”. The designated player must be rated as a back (HB, FB, RB or BB) or as “Tight End” and he should have a Run Block rating of 4 or greater (you can use a 0 rated blocker, but we recommend that you do not since this would be unrealistic). When using this offense the blocking back cannot run the ball. Decrease all defensive player’s Pass Rush Rating by 1 (the minimum adjusted rating is 1). In addition, if the Offensive Onside End reading occurs on runs to the left side then use the Blocking Back’s rating. Note: if a Tight End is used as the Blocking Back his pass block rating is a 0. Restriction: If a "HB-only" has a "0" Run Block rating then he cannot play Blocking Back. If a "HB-only" has a "4", "5" or "6" Run Block rating, and he is positioned at Blocking Back, then reduce his Run Block rating by 1. For purposes of this rule, a "HB-only" is a player rated to play at HB but not rated to play FB, BB, or TE. Note: If a player is rated only at TE and not at any other BB position (HB, FB, RB or BB) then you should not allow him to be positioned at BB in competitive play. This is because doing so allows an unfair advantage to the offensive coach by allowing him to dictate pass coverage matchups. For example an ILB is able to doubleteam a TE, but no LB is able to doubleteam a BB. So we highly recommend that leagues and tournaments outlaw this practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2021 22:31:15 GMT
I will change my vote to yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 3:43:17 GMT
I vote yes.
|
|
