![]() |
|
|
#1 | ||
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
|
pro formation vs weak formation vs strong formation
pro formation (normal) vs weak formation (normal) vs strong formation (normal)
is there really much difference between these formations, beside the fb and rb starting on different sides? is there any advantage using one over the other? |
||
|
|
| Sponsors (you can remove these ads by registering or logging in) |
|
Register or login to remove these ads and many more. |
|
|
#2 |
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Memphis, TN
|
No evidence to back this up, but I prefer the pro formation over the weak and strong formations. The pro formation is a better passing formation, except for when the weak and strong formations go to a 3 WR set.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
I don't think there is much difference, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
Quote:
strong and weak are considered neutral formations and pro is geared more toward the pass. This is explained in the help file: Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
|
yabanci
thanks what is meant by neutral formations? |
|
|
|
|
#6 | |||
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
|
Quote:
It means that there is no distinguished use for it. You can equally run or pass from that formation.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
Quote:
It means the formation favors neither the run nor the pass, but is neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Jul 2005
|
Even though the strong and weak formations are neutral between run and pass, is there anything that indicates they are stronger running to the side the FB is lined up on, and weaker running to the side opposite the fullback.
Not sure that this would actually influence my gameplanning... just curious |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|