Defensive Alignments & Substitutions

[VitoStallion]

FOF:

I still suspect the game has the defensive/offensive assignments reversed:

SS FS
LCB SLB SILB WILB WLB RCB
LDE LDT RDT RDE

FL TE LT LG C RG RT TE SE


in the NFL this the exact opposite (I think). Anybody else suspect this? Do you game plan considering the tradition alignments or 'adjust' for what I suspect is true.

And yes this because I have to defend Columbia tomorrow

[Wolfpack GM]

same question

I was curious about this myself. Pittsburgh has a great run defense and my gameplan needs to be modified. If I run to my LG or LT, is that to the left or to the right of the defense?

[sovstar]

RDE lines up with the LT. And in the scouting report, both offensive rushing and defensive rushing are from the offense's perspective.

[Cringer]

Your left is their right.

left = right.

Like when you are facing someone in real life.

[VitoStallion]

I think you guys are right --- but I've put some LBs in at end on matchups I should have been able to exploit only to have that mediocre RT or LT not get beaten...maybe it's just my D

Whassup Jeff?

[Cringer]

I think you guys are right --- but I've put some LBs in at end on matchups I should have been able to exploit only to have that mediocre RT or LT not get beaten...maybe it's just my D

Whassup Jeff?

You put that LB in at DE and suddenly that mediocre T can beat him because your LB might be mediocre when playing out of position.

[VitoStallion]

I think you guys are right --- but I've put some LBs in at end on matchups I should have been able to exploit only to have that mediocre RT or LT not get beaten...maybe it's just my D

Whassup Jeff?

You put that LB in at DE and suddenly that mediocre T can beat him because your LB might be mediocre when playing out of position.

Yeah, last year he got 13.5 sacks doing the same thing -- not so this season

[Matt]

I think you guys are right --- but I've put some LBs in at end on matchups I should have been able to exploit only to have that mediocre RT or LT not get beaten...maybe it's just my D

Whassup Jeff?

You put that LB in at DE and suddenly that mediocre T can beat him because your LB might be mediocre when playing out of position.

Yeah, last year he got 13.5 sacks doing the same thing -- not so this season

That might have something to do with the latest patch :roll:

[Cringer]

I'm not too sure about that one. I know that last patch took away a bit of the pass rushing ability of LB's, but you still see LB's getting decent sack numbers. Before those numbers were a bit out of hand. And, wasn't a good amount of last season under the last patch? :scratchhead:

[JesterBlaze]

I don't know the specifics of each patch but I know that when we started the IFL I drafted "DLine first" and was disapointed the first two IFL seasons in my sack totals but am content as of late.

It's my opinion that an atheletic DLine without the help of a good scheme will still generate more sacks and QB pressures than a below-avg DLine utilizing a great scheme and that didn't seem to be the case with FOF before. LB's are secondary to DLine when it comes to pressuring the QB and without a good DLine players like Lewis, Urlacher, etc... will all get knocked on their ass on any given play.

I think a player like Edmund Peacock going a half-season without a sack shows that there's still plenty of room for advancement in FOF but from what I understand of the latest patches Jim's going in the right direction. Say what you want about game-planning but I highly doubt that there's ever been an almost-perfect NFL defensive lineman that went 8 games without a sack.

BTW - I've been drinking and can't understand my own babble so I don't expect you to.

[Cringer]

That is one pathetic drunk post man. It makes sense, no typos, clean language. Just sad.... :roll:

Keep drinking man, you clearly haven't had enough.

[VitoStallion]

That is one pathetic drunk post man. It makes sense, no typos, clean language. Just sad.... :roll:

Keep drinking man, you clearly haven't had enough.

Err yae whar he seeeead