TheFreakinStud wrote: iMan24 wrote: ScorchedMoose wrote: iMan24 wrote: so pretty much like this WR------OT-OG-OC-OG-OT-TE--------WR then QB, fullback halfback? its a great formation for me personally cuz i got a pretty good offensive line. No: WR------TE-OT-OG-OC-OT-TE i used to use that formation, no i just prefer 2 wr but both formations work quite well For what it's worth, I play: WR---TE--LT--LG--C--RG--RT--TE---WR ----------------QB----------------- ----------------HB----------------- and don't have any complaints about my offensive performance.

Does not having a FB in there affect your running game at all?

slider6 wrote: TheFreakinStud wrote: iMan24 wrote: ScorchedMoose wrote: iMan24 wrote: so pretty much like this WR------OT-OG-OC-OG-OT-TE--------WR then QB, fullback halfback? its a great formation for me personally cuz i got a pretty good offensive line. No: WR------TE-OT-OG-OC-OT-TE i used to use that formation, no i just prefer 2 wr but both formations work quite well For what it's worth, I play: WR---TE--LT--LG--C--RG--RT--TE---WR ----------------QB----------------- ----------------HB----------------- and don't have any complaints about my offensive performance. Does not having a FB in there affect your running game at all?

When my team isn't in the "rebuilding stage" like it is currently, I throw the ball about 90% of the time, so I don't really even pay much attention to the run game. In my mind, it makes sense that the HB would help block if he's not running, so that's why he's there.