|
Post by Str8Baller on Oct 26, 2004 13:40:22 GMT -5
so then there is no need for this discussion!!!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by hackett on Oct 26, 2004 13:40:46 GMT -5
forget it, point missed entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Poundtherock on Oct 26, 2004 13:49:05 GMT -5
Dawgs, I know you don't like to read long posts so for you, "we are working on things." ;D
I want to preface this post that when you have 32 players with teams that there are always differing opinions. That is why we formed the rules committee to write the rules for the league, trying to come up the most effective way in creating a level playing field because EA keeps changing the game. We knew the D was going to be better this year but no one could suspect that by mid-year players were going to be looking for and finding ways to enhance it even more. And sad to say, the folks at VG help out in the sense, IMO, a little too much.
The rules committee has had complaints registered in this league in regards to some or all of the above subjects contained in the player posts, most of them coming just recently. We have been looking at these issues and there will most likely be some changes coming in the near future, possibly doing away with a rule or two, amending another or intituting a new one. Some you will like, some you might not. But all, I think, will agree, that something MUST be done and done soon or the very foundation of the league may suffer a crack.
The playing field is not level at this point in time and defensive scenarios are being abused according to complaints we have gotten.
I have used the 'lineman spread" since Season I and I still use it in Season III. There is one difference. I do not use a blitz when I spread the linemen this season as the blitz rushing three or more was resulting in unfavorable comments from a lot of leagues because there was no way to stop it when the O line overmatched. In, fact, the last time I was in the MM room, there was still discussion of banning that particular scenario. I haven't been there in a while so they may not have done anything.
That seems to be the main topic here so that is why I mention it. Whether or not we do anything about it is under consideration.
I will mention this, a glitch to some may not be a glitch to others and vice versa. When the committee addresses a current rule for amending or dropping, or looks to adding a rule, it is done with both the offense and defense in mind. THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD, and we do not view it as such. When the offense was overshadowing the defense, we adjusted. In many members opinions now, the defense overshadows the offense. However, we must be careful that we don't take a problem now and make it worse.
Everybody is going to look for the easiest and best way to win, that is human nature. But if that is all there is to the game, then the fun and sport of it is gone! I believe all of us do not want that to happen.
We read your posts and your viewpoints are respected.
|
|
|
Post by dawgs18 on Oct 26, 2004 14:15:42 GMT -5
PTR you would be proud. I read the whole thing...twice.
There is a need for a discussion here because it is becoming a problem that people are doing it every play or at least a majority of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Poundtherock on Oct 26, 2004 14:23:13 GMT -5
Agree.
|
|
|
Post by hackett on Oct 26, 2004 14:23:57 GMT -5
concur
|
|
|
Post by PFeels on Oct 26, 2004 14:29:54 GMT -5
ditto
|
|
|
Post by Petrags23 on Oct 26, 2004 18:58:28 GMT -5
It's not so much of a problem when you do the "R1 then UP on the D-pad or when you do the R1 then UP on the analog, either one of those by itself itsn't bad. It is when you combine them both that the Defensive Ends, literally, run right past the offensive tackles.
|
|
|
Post by dawgs18 on Oct 26, 2004 19:08:30 GMT -5
^yes exactly!
|
|
|
Post by hackett on Oct 26, 2004 19:27:03 GMT -5
i thought that is how i explained it....oh well, yes petragz thanks for clearing the situation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Petrags23 on Oct 26, 2004 21:48:53 GMT -5
i thought that is how i explained it....oh well, yes petragz thanks for clearing the situation. ;D Hey Hack, not trying to take any credit from ya! I was the one that brought this up to PTR and Shanks. I PM'd them long over a month ago... good to see it finally being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by dawgs18 on Oct 26, 2004 22:08:04 GMT -5
Combining them is when it gets hairy. That's what we should do PTR. No combining of the moves with the D-line. I like that!
|
|
|
Post by Poundtherock on Oct 27, 2004 6:26:49 GMT -5
I haven't dropped the ball on that, Petrags, ;D, just takes time working with all members trying to make sure that we institute a new rule that "it really is needed." or the amendment of one. Believe me, I haven't forgotten. I think everybody will like the eventual adjustments that have and are going to be made. The Commish already has issued some changes last night that will be incorporated immediately and will be structured into the rules.
|
|
|
Post by dawgs18 on Oct 27, 2004 8:19:04 GMT -5
I haven't dropped the ball on that, Petrags, ;D, just takes time working with all members trying to make sure that we institute a new rule that "it really is needed." or the amendment of one. Believe me, I haven't forgotten. I think everybody will like the eventual adjustments that have and are going to be made. The Commish already has issued some changes last night that will be incorporated immediately and will be structured into the rules. I am so excited to hear the news! It's like Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by hackett on Oct 27, 2004 10:25:06 GMT -5
Hey Hack, not trying to take any credit from ya! I was the one that brought this up to PTR and Shanks. I PM'd them long over a month ago... good to see it finally being discussed. i know you brought the issue up before me....and i wasn't trying to be an as$. i was just sayin thx for ensuring that is what i was talking about.
|
|