Why are teams like the badgers playing two HB's instead of an extra reciever?? If its for blocking why not play fullbacks??

pstimpel wrote: Most of us think that a second receiver in the same spot/same side does not bring any extra value compared to playing only one receiver per spot/side. An extra HB goves you the option to have a left and a right sides HB, if you attack over the flanks that could be an advantage

Why could it be an advantage if you only pass?

By extra WR I think he means a 2nd WR - Badgers only usually play with one WR.
Ans.- If you look at his team his 2nd WR is not that good, so he's just playing to his strengths.

TheFreakinStud wrote: kong_kaj wrote: pstimpel wrote: Most of us think that a second receiver in the same spot/same side does not bring any extra value compared to playing only one receiver per spot/side. An extra HB goves you the option to have a left and a right sides HB, if you attack over the flanks that could be an advantage Why could it be an advantage if you only pass? Cause then you have BPOS built up for when you play bots..

Just like playing them as FB's would've?

kong_kaj wrote: oneknee wrote: By extra WR I think he means a 2nd WR - Badgers only usually play with one WR. Ans.- If you look at his team his 2nd WR is not that good, so he's just playing to his strengths. LoL, sorry, I dont buy that one... I think a team like that is not just randomly built, and UPS, ends up with only one strong WR.... I think he prefers to do so for some reason, I just dont get why...

Another WR may be in development (2 WR were played against a bot recently) but this takes time and top quality pass catchers (high BPOS plus 15+ catching) can't just be bought on the market.

Plus of course this may just be exploiting the TE catching 'bug'. I've done this myself in games against good teams who only play 3 LBs.