NCAA09 PS3 Big Ten-Pac Ten Dynasty (Official Thread)

[Basebuck]

Yes. In the early days of both dynasty's I thought it was acceptable to do that. I remember playing one game where someone put a fast player in at QB and scrambled around until they could get the corner.

 

[Smooth Olaf]

Wait... people had WRs at QB in the 'other' dynasty. (ie the other BP dynasty?)

I never played against anyone doing it. Or if they were, I just didn't notice. And if they did, the fuck 'em, I'm Army for Christ's sake. All I saw were WRs lined up as RBs, which I think is pushing it if the WR is there on the depth chart. If, however, someone just does a lineup change at the play-call screen to put a WR back there, that's not cheesing, that's using all the nuances of the game.

 

[Piney]

Yes. In the early days of both dynasty's I thought it was acceptable to do that. I remember playing one game where someone put a fast player in at QB and scrambled around until they could get the corner.

That would be a negative. I know I wouldn't allow THAT against humans. Against the computer... well... we wouldn't know that was happening right?

 

[Basebuck]

That would be a negative. I know I wouldn't allow THAT against humans. Against the computer... well... we wouldn't know that was happening right?

Wasn't me. Wasn't BN27 bitching about all this 60 pages ago?

 

[Piney]

I never played against anyone doing it. Or if they were, I just didn't notice. And if they did, the fuck 'em, I'm Army for Christ's sake. All I saw were WRs lined up as RBs, which I think is pushing it if the WR is there on the depth chart. If, however, someone just does a lineup change at the play-call screen to put a WR back there, that's not cheesing, that's using all the nuances of the game.

agreed... Using the formation sub to put a WR at RB, no problem. Having that WR as your #1 RB on your depth chart, NOPE. Or even using the WR sub at HB ALL game long is a no-no. But for a few plays... no problem.

 

[Piney]

Wasn't me. Wasn't BN27 bitching about all this 60 pages ago?

Yeah... and like most issues once it is brought up once it should be all that is needed to correct the issue. And in that case it was more about dropping your QB back 15-20 yards and running around til someone was open. But things like that you sometimes don't realize you are dropping that far back, so once you are aware you can limit that in future human games and the issue is fixed.

 

[IronBuckI]

Aren't quite a few people doing something similar? I know in the other league I played a few people with wr's at QB.

Yes, and this was my initial response.

Depends on the size of the WR and HB that you moved. 5'8" 165 lbs at either position and it's cheese. over 190 lbs at either position and preferably over 6'1" at TE, then I'm cool with that.

Everyone knows that I've used giant WRs at TE and big HBs at FB in the past, and it's never been a problem before.

I've had TE and FB recruits that were smaller and weaker than the guys that I've moved...so I don't see an issue.

The problem came when it was out of a shotgun formation of 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB on almost every single play, except when it was the same personell in an ace or goal line formation. Having multiple WRs at TE on running plays is not as ineffective as it should be (especially against a pass defense), and obviously having them at TE on passing plays takes any kind of base defense out of the equation. Another issue was the immediate retreat of the QB at the snap. That's two exploits on one play on nearly every play. Bleed said that he didn't realize that he was even doing the QB retreat thing, and I believe him. The reason for all of the personnel changes being because he was running a spread was not exactly forthwright, when it's being run from a 1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB set. Against the computer that's a major exploit in the passing game. Against a human, it could be used to completely FUBAR both rushing and passing.

Obviously this didn't end up with great results for him, but the fact that I was trying to counter exploits instead of football plays was not what we wanted in this or the other league, and it's not how I choose to play.

 

[IronBuckI]

Yes. In the early days of both dynasty's I thought it was acceptable to do that. I remember playing one game where someone put a fast player in at QB and scrambled around until they could get the corner.

It wasn't, and it shouldn't have happened in the MAC Dynasty either. Since it did, all I can say is.

 

[Piney]

It wasn't, and it shouldn't have happened in the MAC Dynasty either. Since it did, all I can say is.

And I would like to add this one point. If you see this happening you should let either Iron or I know about it in our respective dynasties. I know I had two cases in the other dynasty but once I pm'd the player it got resolved. Even if it is just a question whether "Is this cheese?"

You don't need to go the BN route and post it in the main thread, just ask us and we can settle things a bit more quietly unless it shouldn't be done quietly.

 

[Piney]

Not to start [censored].....but hasn't fanatic had a WR rush for over a 1000 yrds while being his primary RB?? I know he was listed as a WR, but if we are going to allow this for a whole season, then how can we justify not letting someone leave a WR sub (from play selection) for majority of game. BTW, I really have no problem with this fanatic, just making a point.

Also, I have always moved 6'4 210+ WR to TE during position changes. College Rosters are littered with TEs this size. While none of them have a speed over 90, It is the only way I can recruit a decent TE. Is this also cheesing?????? Because I know others have done this, weight has NOTHING to do with a player performance in this game. I guess here is my problem, if you find a 6' 4 220 lb WR that runs a 4.2 forty, it is ok to move them to TE, but not a 190 lb player. Doesn't sound to fair, if we are going to limit switching to TEs, let's do it by speed, not size!

Finally, this same argument can be made for RB to FB, as anyone can get around EA's supposed fix......If not, then Mich State better more their 230 with 90+ speed back up HB to FB. Rather then make it a 220 lb cutoff at FB, let's limit it by speed.......seems the only fair way.

First off I have played fanatic what seems like a million times in the MAC & now Big10/Pac10 dynasty. Against humans it seems like he does this sparingly (not every play). Now against the cpu probably is a different story. And like I said earlier... that part it hard to police nor care much about.

But I have seen some dynasties limit position switches by weight & speed and with this recent discussion was thinking of mentioning it (hey, I just mentioned it )

I would answer your post in more detail, but I got the gist out of it. Just realized I need to leave work!

 

[THEWOOD]

How do you sub a WR in at QB? Do you just set your fastest guy as second on the depth chart or something? I really want to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[IronBuckI]

Not to start [censored].....but hasn't fanatic had a WR rush for over a 1000 yrds while being his primary RB?? I know he was listed as a WR, but if we are going to allow this for a whole season, then how can we justify not letting someone leave a WR sub (from play selection) for majority of game. BTW, I really have no problem with this fanatic, just making a point.

Also, I have always moved 6'4 210+ WR to TE during position changes. College Rosters are littered with TEs this size. While none of them have a speed over 90, It is the only way I can recruit a decent TE. Is this also cheesing?????? Because I know others have done this. Also, weight has NOTHING to do with a player performance in this game. I guess here is my problem, if you find a 6' 4 220 lb WR that runs a 4.2 forty, it is ok to move them to TE, but not a 190 lb player. Doesn't sound to fair, if we are going to limit switching to TEs, let's do it by speed, not size! (or BOTH, thanks Piney :))

Finally, this same argument can be made for RB to FB, as anyone can get around EA's supposed fix. If not, then Mich State better more their 230 with 90+ speed back up HB to FB. Rather then make it a 220 lb cutoff at FB, let's limit it by speed.......seems the only fair way.

EDIT - Iron I wrote this before I read your weight post. But still stand strong by my weight argument, I think we don't fix the exploit bug if people find big enough players with speed, which do exist.

Also, I use.......way to much

I agree. FB and TE speed should be limited to sub 90 spd players. With one exception. If you can recruit a player listed as a FB or TE (no athletes) that has a 4.35(90 spd) or faster 40 time, then you're still good.

Since I already keep a spreadsheet of my recruits it won't be all that difficult to keep track of all none of the current batch of recruits that fall into that category.

 

[THEWOOD]

In regards to the HB/FB discussion I have a question. I currently have an issue with ASU.

I am pretty sure I do not have a FB. So a HB is my FB when I run 2 back sets. Also the guy who is my FB in that situation is my HB in one back sets.

This is due to me having a bunch of injured players.

Is this going to be a problem?

Also wanted to get this out there so when I play Piney he is not wondering what the fuck I am doing.

 

[IronBuckI]

How do you sub a WR in at QB? Do you just set your fastest guy as second on the depth chart or something? I really want to see what all the fuss is about.

Depends on the playbook. Some of them have a WR at QB or HB at QB. I've used Florida's playbook and it has one formation where you can do WR at QB, and one where you can do HB at QB.

 

[IronBuckI]

In regards to the HB/FB discussion I have a question. I currently have an issue with ASU.

I am pretty sure I do not have a FB. So a HB is my FB when I run 2 back sets. Also the guy who is my FB in that situation is my HB in one back sets.

This is due to me having a bunch of injured players.

Is this going to be a problem?

Also wanted to get this out there so when I play Piney he is not wondering what the fuck I am doing.

There are always exceptions. Your situation is unique and probably can't be realistically rectified in one season. Also, your guys are big, strong, and slow. The problem is when someone has intentionally used an exploit and abused the hell out of it.

I don't even see a problem with moving a faster guy to TE if you use SMU's playbook, or a similar type of playbook. It is all spread and the limits of the WR "depth" chart will kill you if you get into a long scoring drive, because the computer subs in CBs instead of one of your 7 or 8 deep receivers. By having WRs at TE you would be able to use formational subs to allow depth in a spread offense. That's why I didn't have a problem with Bleed's subs when I thought he was running an actual spread offense.

I've also put a HB with 90 spd in at FB when I ran the flexbone offense. As soon as I realized that the flexbone wasn't going to fly against human opponents, I switched him back to HB and put a slower guy at FB.