Thinking of axing a back. I have 3 and while 2 are very young they are very good. What does the game do if say the FB slot is empty on FB run plays? Who slips in to run that play?

For starters the runners and recievers section is just fluff, so don't let that guide your playcalling. Secondly I reckon that actually having a back in the slot might not make that much of a difference, the runs would probably still be credited to the FB, he would merely be ano star player. You would loose a ORI and OQB (or whatever) though, and perhaps the individual bonus from having an appropriate player? Although maybe if you had a ORI HB and called U RC the computer would ask "does he have an ORI RB to use?" the answer would be yes here, but maybe the question is "does he have a ORI RB in the FB slot?" I don't know...

I'm ignoring the fluff. I'm worried that I'll lose some bonus by not having a FB on FB runs when surely dragging in my HB or RB isn't much of a stretch. And if it did which one would it pull?

In my mind its not much of a stretch to think that there could and should be a bonus for having a blocking (ORI/OQB) FB in on lead plays, or for that matter plays from a lead friendly formation like RO from I.
I can imagine the computer saying on a RL "is the FB going to get a lead block in on this play? Ohh, no there isn't much of a FB there at all just a regular gain then..."

Gameplan is still a squad totals game, you get bonuses for having the right strengths to run the right plays and formations.

l have three backs l love them all l don't play W that much but l have them for other reasons and l want to cut one more but that will have to wait until next season. l want to cut one back he has a strenght l don't need and l want to get a strength l will use.

A FB with OQB/ORI is important yes.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that on lead runs OQB can be useful on a FB, not just ORI as you would otherwise expect.
My Rbs are all young bucks, 9 strengths between them, and they will be the backbone of this team for a while. I wish Westbrook had a few more years under his belt, but just think of the years he has ahead of him instead!

Sorry l forgot to say l will be cutting one back and getting another back to replace him. Just to swap out a strength l don't need to get a stength l do need.

I bet the guy you cut will be younger than the new guy, huh!

That's not nice, you just know how much l would hate that!

Having seen how my running is going so far I'm keen to keep all 3 backs. I certainly have no OQB on the FB, but I have a couple OPS. Something I've never had on RBs before. So I'm trying to get passing options to RBs in my gameplan. Initial results look good.

Initial game results don't though do they, not at Philly anyway.


Just joshing mate, I was very impressed at how you were able to get your RBs downfield from run formations! This is a threat I had never even considered, while I was jamming your TE your RBs were sneaking out all over the place. I think this is a wonderfully inovative idea that will be very cool if it continues its current success.

I have 3 backs at mo and like to use W every now and then, but I too will be axing one as I have decided two good quality backs in the FB & HB slots are all I need. LP's can be used elsewhere more effectively in my opinion.

Divit, yes l too have seen people pass to backs out of non-wing back formations like A K etc. they do work ok l don't do it because they work better out of wing back formations like B E etc. l guess my believe has always been get the best formation for the play call and it should always match your roster.

Mike, good one l like that thinking, before you do cut a back. Ask yourself this, "do l want a power running team?" and "Do l want lots of OQB for a long passing and dump off game?" lf you answer yes to one or both of those DON'T cut the back, he will be useful to beef up the run and OQB.

In a AY league that is so blitz heavy on defence, a good OQb from the line and very importantly from the RB's is absolutely crucial.  Stormin was not silly when he moved OQB RB's into his backfield. It is not infalliable, but the Titans are close to the hardest team to blitz on as a result. I put an absolute premium on my OQB FB.

I shouldn't being saying this but, I find myself without any OQB on my RBs so I'm a little OQB short in this blitz happy league. I do have 2 OPS on my RBs though. Now I think that leaves me trapped. I could use WB formations as Norman says and maximise these RB pass plays but I think I'd be exposing myself to the pass rush. Generally I have only used RB pass plays from WB formations, but from strong run formations such as G I have found it possible to get reasonable results. I think a combo of OQB and OPS would be nice because you could then be an effective passing side. But it's a weird combo to have.

I'm a running team based on squad strengths. Guess I've just wanted to work those OPS in. Perhaps I should start moving towrds being a passing team.

Hah! I have almost as many OQB in my backfield as I I do on the line, and as much OPS as my WRs have, and as much ORO as my TEs and ORI to rival the line too!

Paul,this is just my opinion and certainly open for debate, i think with your lack of OQB in the backfield but so many strong runners i would be thinking of staying in the run to set up the pass.  With someluck it will dilute the pass rush while still giving you some time to throw it on the right matchups.  Maybe in passing forms an E or B would suit you best. Would at least give you a WB for your tasty RB passes and at least a blocker for the pass rush (even though you don't get a bonus for a OQB RB).  I would think seriously about either pulling a 'Stormin' and waive a RB and draft a FA OQB RB, or wait to next season and draft a similar RB.  I can kinda see this league swinging away from such heavy blitz up the track with the increase in OQB.