Strong, free and safe: terms for "blitzability"

[Grumbledook]

the left or right guy on the LOS

these kind of things are normally accompanied by a diagram anyway making it obvious who you are talking about when using middle, left, right, LOS, deep, wide etc

I agree with you to a point, I just think the terms you use are rather centralised to american football when a lot of blood bowl players don't know these

why is nose better than middle when the latter is far more universal

I guess nose would be specifically for the LOS which saves adding that distinction but that have never been an issue before

and nickle and dime are terrible, every time I go to america I have to ask the shop ppl which is what, why can't you guys write numbers on them like everywhere else does, I usually dig into my pocket and hold my hand out asking them to take what they need ;]

[mattgslater]

Keep in mind that the American football watcher is probably either an American or looking to pick up hokey bits of Yankee kitsch for the experience of watching an American football game. You don't have to tell an American what "nickel" means. So as a foreigner, of course you hate that term. Equally obviously, it doesn't belong in BB, because I know painfully how peripheral the U.S. is in the BB community. Also, it doesn't fit well, though I've tried to refer to my InvZig as a "dime defense" in the past (it is).

I really don't incorporate a lot of American football in the terms I use, unless the American parallel a) screams at me as valuable, b) seems appropriate and easy to pick up, and c) makes sense from a BB perspective. 3-4 LB terminology is very apt, but isn't very intuitive, so we replaced it with "midfielders" and "flankers" that seem to make more sense and have clearer applications than the American terms Mike, Moe, Will, Sam, Jack, Joker, whatever. Similarly tight end/tackle eligible is a bona fide BB position, but "tight end" is a confusing term even in AmFB, and tackle eligible only makes sense if you buy the term "offensive tackle" (another confusing term with BB parallels) and if you play with eligibility rules. Obviously, there's no eligibility in BB. Or rather, there's no ineligibility. (Okay, there's AG1....)

American terms I use: Nose, end, safety, center, halfback, fullback, d-line, o-line. That's not a lot.

[Grumbledook]

I don't even think flanker is a good term to use though, I've never heard it used for a positional term in blood bowl

a flanking move can be done in the game where you go down one side of the opposing team

I believe the terms used in games come from the situations coming up and then people describing them and the terms stick

as I said the middle guy on the LOS is already clear enough to not have to start using nose and it how people have always described someone placed there

if there is something that you are trying to describe that doesn't have a good term then if one is needed it will evolve into use, I think you are trying to put the cart before the horse as it were to some degree

obviously the rebuttal to that is that how can you describe it without having that term, that's where diagrams come in, numbering the players and referring to them like that is where you start then a term will usually evolve from that if its needed

make sense?

[mattski]

I wonder if this is a discussion that would really benefit from having lots of pictorial examples of the things that are being talked about here. I can really see what you are trying to achieve here but I am still stuck on how you can get from using terms on really generic ideas to taking the big step and using these terms in a non-situational specific sense.

Just re-read what Grumbledook wrote and it sounds as though I am suggesting what he has already said. But I really do think that small examples of common situational set-ups i.e. how you set up in the wide-zone initially and having a term for that. I agree in one sense that this discussion is actually too theoretical and lexicon driven. It is like we have all these terms and are looking for places to apply them rather than just looking at common situations within the game and letting a name/description/term grow-up around them.

[Joemanji]

I think that was the point I was getting at when I posted a 'play' earlier in the thread. People need to see a tactical discussion with these terms being used effectively as shorthand. Otherwise what is the point? You need to show the ramifications of using a trap wedge over a gloogin in a specific tactical discussion.

Literally:

1) Here coach X has defended* with a (term A) on his left flank and some (term Bs) in the middle.
2) Coach Y can move his team here by blitzing the (term C) away.
3) But if coach X had used a (term C) on his left flank then this wouldn't have been possible.

*i.e. in the middle of a drive, not before the kickoff.

[mattski]

Yep, totally agree with that and I think that it would help to be able to really see what is being talked about. Small sections leading onto bigger patterns would aid hugely I think.

[mattgslater]

Agreed. I was working on an article on the "Ace" offense for High Elves that showed how a lone ("ace") AG4 fullback, working with a halfback at centerfield and a pair of halfbacks split out in the 3-column, just inside from the WZ marks (all have to be credible handlers, hence the High Elves in the example), can morph into any of several different offensive structures, depending on the lie of the ball, the tempo of the game, and the strengths of the opponent, with seven (really nine) men available for blocking and/or structural duty.

One of the examples of a screen is that if the ball goes wide and shallow (five squares to the one... ), the (MA6) centerfield halfback can pick up and hand-off to the guy manning the hashmarks, but only if in so doing he forms a screen in front of that player; otherwise a failed handoff (bad enough) is probably a defensive score. Having players on the line unmarked in the 3-column makes this possible from the 6-column... if the defender doesn't have Frenzy in blitz range, and does have the speed to come around the edge. Otherwise, column 5 is probably far enough, or you can pull (football term) a guy off the line to cover him against Frenzy, much like a flank in a defensive WZ formation.

In fact, pretty much every single diagram I've ever seen on defense vs. the cage involves what I'd call a "trap screen" with players spaced two squares apart, and guys directly behind them to back them up. That's just the compound name that my terms create for that specific formation. By contrast, "fences" with players one square apart are mostly used either for cages (the "X cage" is essentially a 4-man fence with one player forming a trap with each), or when skills like Stand Firm enter the picture, or when one player is functionally unblockable, like a Blodge Ogre or something. In that case, one guy can fill two-thirds of the role of two guys.

I don't feel like digging, but a couple months ago I posted an offense for Orcs with Ripper that involved a lot of O-line traps to take advantage of Grab and generate backfield blocks. But mostly "trap" is used from the perspective of the passive player.

Like this trap lock: x - o x x

Here, o can't dodge free to the left, up or down without two rolls, one at -1. He can't dodge to the right without two rolls, one at -2. He can blitz into the clear at the cost of a square, but if he's trying to go left or right, he's going to have to dodge or pay another square.

[Joemanji]

But mostly "trap" is used from the perspective of the passive player.

Like this trap lock: x - o x x

Here, o can't dodge free to the left, up or down without two rolls, one at -1. He can't dodge to the right without two rolls, one at -2. He can blitz into the clear at the cost of a square, but if he's trying to go left or right, he's going to have to dodge or pay another square.

See, this is really basic stuff. Been doing this for probably 15 years without naming it. What I want from you Matt is a reason why 'o' is worth triple marking and why this particular trap lock is better than say 'x o x'. An elf with Dodge has a 5/6 chance to escape your trap lock even without a team reroll or a blitz action or help from a friend. Commiting 3 players to force someone into a 2+ roll doesn't sound like good value to me.

An idea needs to be worth discussing before you name it.

[duckwing]

American terms I use: Nose, end, safety, center, halfback, fullback, d-line, o-line. That's not a lot.

It's enough to make you need to explain the meaning of eight words

[mattgslater]

See, this is really basic stuff. Been doing this for probably 15 years without naming it.

Actually, that's my point. If you don't have names for the basics you can't build on them, except through insight and experience, the first of which is unreliable and the second very limited. If your terms don't describe the obvious, they're not any good. Marathon, Joe, not a sprint.

What I want from you Matt is a reason why 'o' is worth triple marking and why this particular trap lock is better than say 'x o x'.

That technique is so common that there are a host of conditions that could make it plausible. Say two of the X players are filling other roles at the same time, or if O is the most mobile guy on the board, or the closest, or the strongest, or has some other reason you need to invest a lot in taking him out. Possibly he's a Human Catcher type, and you want him not to run right at full extension, while the guy on the left could be marking some prone player in any of a few squares and picked this one just to mess with the other guy's head. Maybe you just have a huge numerical advantage. Maybe the guy on the far right is a Diving Tackle Goblin, and he's just a trap-lock kind of guy. It's crazy to think I might conceive of all the circumstances for a trap lock.

An idea needs to be worth discussing before you name it.

If you use it all the time, and when you see it you recognize you have been using it all the time for fifteen years, it's probably worth discussing.

It's enough to make you need to explain the meaning of eight words

Sure.
D-line: LOS, when kicking.
O-line: LOS, when receiving.
Nose: Guy in middle of d-line.
Center: Guy in middle of o-line.
End: Guy on end of d-line.
Safety: Defender between the wide zone markers, behind the midfielders.
Halfback: Offensive player off line in blitz range.
Fullback: Offensive player off line out of blitz range.

[Joemanji]

Stop naming things and put this into bloody practice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In order to have these terms take hold you need to provide a platform that shows them to be necessary. An actual tactically nuanced discussion. You just keep defining terms without ever using them. You say you can't move on without naming stuff. But nobody else feels this way (from months of TFF responses to your posts). So the onus is on you to show why these terms are needed. You are approaching it all wrong. You need to have the discussion and reach the point where people need to coin a term or shorthand is desirable. People need to experience the feeling of grasping for a term.

[mattgslater]

Stop naming things and put this into bloody practice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In order to have these terms take hold you need to provide a platform that shows them to be necessary. An actual tactically nuanced discussion. You just keep defining terms without ever using them. You say you can't move on without naming stuff. But nobody else feels this way (from months of TFF responses to your posts). So the onus is on you to show why these terms are needed. You are approaching it all wrong. You need to have the discussion and reach the point where people need to coin a term or shorthand is desirable. People need to experience the feeling of grasping for a term.

Understood. On it. May take awhile the first time. This is part of my effort to do this; what I've got going on is that everything plays into everything else in my head, so doing it right means doing a fair amount of mental editing. If I have too many tools, I can start winnowing. But I hate the idea of coining terms all on my lonesome, because I come from a foreign culture from where most of y'all sit.

Believe you me, I would never try to coin a term I didn't plan to use. It's just that the first article is taking me longer than I thought it would, because this is a huge can of worms, and because more important stuff keeps coming up. So I'm building up to pare down. I'm looking for, heck, maybe just one or two people to use as sounding-boards for individual terms that, as defined, make sense and seem intuitive. If they don't wow you, it's because I can't convey the wow unless I know what I'm going to call it.

[sann0638]

What is the 3 column etc? In your description above, that's the main bit that is not intuitive?

Joe, I think the x - o x x example is obvious, but the point of the extra x on the right is to avoid the simple blitz out. So basically good against AG3, not v elves (as you pointed out).

Fullback and halfback I quite like. Have not quite seen the use of safety yet.

[duckwing]

The problem with fullback and halfback for me is that in swedish soccer speach a back is a defensive player.

I think BB should be free as much as possible from real life sports references.

[Grumbledook]

matt, I think you need to post diagrams and then we can have a discussion about the best way of explaining that situation, which you could then compile into your "ace" article

certainly agree about not using full and half back, safety is just the term used for the player kept deep as a "safety net" to react against opposing players getting through