Maybe I should darkwing to Carlile in league games.

So Daudy has suggested that Burrows should get the nod over Moles @ OLB.

Burrows is -

+5 on STR
-3 spd
+3 Ag
-2 stam
-2 Vis
+2 Pos
-14 INT
-1 CON
Tackling same
-6 ftwk

Like I said, I like the idea now vs 2 good TEs but what about otherwise?

I might give him a run vs the Croates. Both Norway and the UK play with single TEs so I don't really want to use him there.

Thoughts?

hosh13 wrote: So Daudy has suggested that Burrows should get the nod over Moles @ OLB. Burrows is - +5 on STR -3 spd +3 Ag -2 stam -2 Vis +2 Pos -14 INT -1 CON Tackling same -6 ftwk Like I said, I like the idea now vs 2 good TEs but what about otherwise? I might give him a run vs the Croates. Both Norway and the UK play with single TEs so I don't really want to use him there. Thoughts?

I wouldn't, I don't like dummies at OLB (nothing below 10 for me)

UK CBs have been starting 5*, ending 4*, yet today they both end 5* Also, both are CON 20!

When did the theory about OLBs needing INT come up?

I thought it was always all about the MLB, particularly during that small time we were all over MLBs having to be smart to pick the kind of defence to play. But then again, that would make logical sense...

I think that INT affecting that many positions is unlikely, given we're adding yet another factor to calculations in this supposedly simple engine. Some of the best receivers I've ever seen production wise (on an international and club scale) were dumb as bricks. If you believe defenders need INT to 'outsmart' opponents, then surely there would also be a counter INT for the receivers? Or would it just be a one sided roll where the defender has a set chance depending solely on his own INT to do... something?