2 DL Defenses ???

[Dean-Atlanta]

Agreed on the logic swap. If you do it in the right order it does not crash, but it's easy to just not.

I have noticed this, especially with 2-DL plays using the "logic swap" that are converted to 3-DL plays still u sing the logic swap, just testing those plays repeatedly crashes the game.

I'm not sure that the "logic swap" should even be allowed under our rules since it does something the game was NOT designed to do, and odds are strong that having a DL in pass coverage might be an AI-buster in the same way (maybe worse) that the slashing defender was.

Maybe, outside of the discussion of 2-DL plays, we should consider banning the "logic swap" since it is a "hack" kind of thing the game was not designed to do or allow.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Steve,

The whole point is a LB on the LOS, inside the hash, and attacking the LOS can count as a Dl to have 3 or 4 DL plays. I do not believe all 2 DL should be both DT's. Why can't I be in a 3-4 with a DE, DT and the LB? The current DL rules already handle it if you simply look at the LB as a DE/Edge and apply the standard rules.

I think this can be simple and realistic with no significant change in rules.

I think the following should be allowed if we allow LB to play as DEs:

LB-DT-DE in 34
LB-DT-DT-DE in 43
LB-DT-DT-LB in 43

Some may not agree with these but I advocate them being legal:

LB-DT-DE-LB in 43

LB-DE-DT-DE (this can be done now, simply as 34)

I think LB-DT-DT-LB or LB-DT-DE-LB can be done now as 2-DL in passing categories

[James-Eagles]

3-4 one of the DE is more DT than DE since they usually sending a LB.