Speed Factor

Just wondering what your thoughts are on speed in Madden.

On you depth chart, would you prefer speed over skill?

An example.

At FS who would you start? (CPU Controlled)

Player A: 82 Speed - 87 Acceleration - 90 Awareness - 80 Tackle - 75 Hit Power - 90 Zone Coverage

Player B: 96 Speed - 97 Acceleration - 65 Awareness - 65 Tackle - 80 Hit Power - 65 Zone Coverge

Usually I would start player 'A' but I'm not so sure anymore. In my online fran Ive got some LBs with crazy speed that are playing well above their 50 OVR ratings.

Just wondering what you all think and where would you draw the line at speed over skill?

Speed over everything

player A

if he has 0 awareness he'll be face thrown and since he computer controlled, he wont do sh!t..

more zone/awr the better chance he'll jump the pass..


and if ur playing zone, then speed is irrelevant b/c he wont get beat deep

WasItTehChad wrote:

player A

if he has 0 awareness he'll be face thrown and since he computer controlled, he wont do sh!t..

more zone/awr the better chance he'll jump the pass..


and if ur playing zone, then speed is irrelevant b/c he wont get beat deep

This...

To be honest a FS doesnt need to be that fast ( i like 84+ speed, ATL has 85 and 87 speed) they wont get beat deep if in a deep zone. cover 2, cover 3, cover 4, 2 man under, they wont get beat....They will be in pos to make a play, dont get me wrong YOU WILL HAVE TO CLICK ON AND MAKE THE PLAY but they will be there

o i thot it was user my b

i agree with mr chad.

Does this apply @ LB as well? This is just a theory so far (haven't tried this in any games yet) but Lance Briggs (79 SPD) makes a decent DE opposite of Pep with 95 BSH to give me a better pass rush. Then I can bring Roach in @ ROLB w/ his 83 SPD and have a decently fast LB corps . . .

with LBs (in zone) speed doesnt really matter. They will get to the spots at about the same time. yes a 86 spd lb will get there b4 a 79 spd one but it is by like 1 or 2 steps b4...

in zone you want Lbs who can play the zone the best over just a fast LB...You can mane up the spd difference just by moving them closer to where they need to get to, but you can make up how they play in the zone.

as for DE pass rush I have found that blk sheding and finness/power move make up good pass rushers (getting off of the blk).... and fast DEs can get a good contain rush. by that i mean they can take contain the pocket well just off a pass rush and they can sometimes come free

A.
but if it was which player would you user, def player B.

UppingMyGame wrote:

Does this apply @ LB as well? This is just a theory so far (haven't tried this in any games yet) but Lance Briggs (79 SPD) makes a decent DE opposite of Pep with 95 BSH to give me a better pass rush. Then I can bring Roach in @ ROLB w/ his 83 SPD and have a decently fast LB corps . . .

bears have a beast dline already, I dont think u need to put any LB's on the line. Too much hitpower. Unless u plan on dropping him in coverage vs a pass, keep him at LB. Peppers wont need any help, just keep the oline occupied

Speed > AWR/ZCV

Man Cov matters but I would start a 97 spd/acc CB with 50-70 mcv over an 89 spd 99 MCV CB.

Speed over zone and awareness. I mean i would take a 96 speed over an 84 speed. Speed does matter in zone, when the ball is in the air, if the player is too slow to get there, even by half a second, the ball is completed. Playing zone with the Raiders is a lot better then playing zone with the Chargers,. TRUST ME

xHHx_megatron wrote:

UppingMyGame wrote:

Does this apply @ LB as well? This is just a theory so far (haven't tried this in any games yet) but Lance Briggs (79 SPD) makes a decent DE opposite of Pep with 95 BSH to give me a better pass rush. Then I can bring Roach in @ ROLB w/ his 83 SPD and have a decently fast LB corps . . .

bears have a beast dline already, I dont think u need to put any LB's on the line. Too much hitpower. Unless u plan on dropping him in coverage vs a pass, keep him at LB. Peppers wont need any help, just keep the oline occupied

Briggs on the line is needed. not needed, but i'd rather have Urlacher, Tisa and Roach at LB's wit Briggs on the line. Bears D-line sucks without Peppers.

wangtangkiki wrote:

Speed > AWR/ZCV

Man Cov matters but I would start a 97 spd/acc CB with 50-70 mcv over an 89 spd 99 MCV CB.

Ill take the 89 speed/99 man cov. He will lock up every receiver.

wangtangkiki wrote:

Speed > AWR/ZCV

Man Cov matters but I would start a 97 spd/acc CB with 50-70 mcv over an 89 spd 99 MCV CB.

so youre saying fabian washignton and tye hill are big playmkers? wang, ive played and seen gys with awesome speed beat the reciever on a route and when the ball was thrown their way, they froze. i would take a 89 spd, 99 zcv/mcv cb anyday over speed.

[quote="Ant1010"]

xHHx_megatron wrote:

Briggs on the line is needed. not needed, but i'd rather have Urlacher, Tisa and Roach at LB's wit Briggs on the line. Bears D-line sucks without Peppers.

so needed or not needed? Peppers is just the fastest, all the dline get off their blocks quite well.. Bears have a good dline.. U dont know what ur talking bout

Brings can rush, block shed in run support, and react when dropping. If you drop a lot he is needed. If you dont' drop a lot he isn't needed, just a variable want. Bears have Juliuis Peppers, not a good D-line, you don't know what you're talking about.

The D-line really is decent and I get a fair amount of sacks without blitzing anyone, was just wondering if I could make them MORE effective, you know? If you've ever heard Lovie Smith talk about his D it's all predicated on getting a good pass rush with just the front four. And I actually do drop my line into coverage sometimes, always fun to see Tommie Harris or Pep jumping up to get picks.

xHHx_megatron wrote:

wangtangkiki wrote:

Speed > AWR/ZCV

Man Cov matters but I would start a 97 spd/acc CB with 50-70 mcv over an 89 spd 99 MCV CB.

Ill take the 89 speed/99 man cov. He will lock up every receiver.

Yep.. just like how Asomugha is beat by Heyward-Bey in almost every tournament game you see in M11.. He's like 93 spd and 6'2".. Great 99 mcv guy.. yet he is still beat by a fast WR.. just because he's.. fast.

TheRedQueen100 wrote:

wangtangkiki wrote:

Speed > AWR/ZCV

Man Cov matters but I would start a 97 spd/acc CB with 50-70 mcv over an 89 spd 99 MCV CB.

so youre saying fabian washignton and tye hill are big playmkers? wang, ive played and seen gys with awesome speed beat the reciever on a route and when the ball was thrown their way, they froze. i would take a 89 spd, 99 zcv/mcv cb anyday over speed.

I'm not saying they are playmakers.. I'm saying they will cover who I want them to cover. There was a huge difference when the Titans got Tye Hill.. It was sooo happy.. He helped shutdown my opponent's WRs.. they can't just do one drag and beat him.. he's too fast..

Btw.. there were times when I would prefer to have Chris Johnson from the Raiders on a WR over Asomugha.. I don't think CJ's awareness is very high.. and his MCV is max of 82.. yet when I used the Raiders, he would always manage to get 2+ tips.. He's 6'1" with 97 spd/97 acc [or he was..] I would take him over Aso at times.. I would definitely take CJ over Charles Woodson.. not in real life though, of course.

UppingMyGame wrote:

The D-line really is decent and I get a fair amount of sacks without blitzing anyone, was just wondering if I could make them MORE effective, you know? If you've ever heard Lovie Smith talk about his D it's all predicated on getting a good pass rush with just the front four. And I actually do drop my line into coverage sometimes, always fun to see Tommie Harris or Pep jumping up to get picks.

If you are just going to have the 4 down lineman blitz, you want very high PMV/FMV.. PMV/FMV are what allow your DEs/DTs to get off their block.. "Block Shedding" is non-sense.. I've done tests by having 99 PMV and 12 Block Shed.. then 12 PMV and 99 block shed.. the 99 PMV guy was getting off his block as normal.. the 12 PMV guy couldn't do a thing..

If you prefer using defenses like the contain D, you would want two fast DEs.