Squish wrote: The best formation I've been able to come up with has either 1HB 1FB or 2 HBs. 2 WRs and 1TE off to one side act to greatly imbalance the blocking vs tackling numbers. By my estimates, this formation normally results in a run on the loaded side involving 7 blockers and only 4-6 defenders. I've specifically kept WRs with high blocking in order to run an overkill formation such as the one mentioned.

I've got something setup similarly, and in this game where you can overload one side - but the defense can't respond - It would make sense that it should be able to get consistent gains. Somewhat dangerous to pass out of though, unless the FB and HB have blocking routes to defend the weak side - the formation would be pretty vulnerable to blitzing.

Mavfatha wrote: Mercutioh wrote: that would be a wishbone double tight formation darn I thought I invented a new formation.

Nope. I probably came the closest using the wishbone to created a new one earlier in the game when I ran a wishbone double wide. No tight ends, 2 WR's, helped out a little in the passing game.

My base formation is a HB and FB in an "I", 2 TEs, and 1 WR.

My FB has yet to have a carry all season.

Mercutioh wrote: split wide or two to a side?

It was split. Therefore, I didn't invent anything new, I just used something that is extremely rare. Last edited on 2008-12-19 at 5:46

Any word on whether FBs will get to carry the ball or not? My dedicated FB is perfectly skilled for the job - but I'd hate to have his carrying go to waste just because I had him in FB instead of HB.. at the same time - I do want to differentiate between the two in the frequency of carries and primary roles. Plus, if we get to be able to pass to the HB, I'd like to keep the FB as purely a rusher with the HB being able to do both.