Dual Threat

Does anyone think they will add a passive dual threat? I know they have already made multiple passive unstoppable force, and a couple passive universal coverage, so I was just wondering?

On one hand I'm not sure how much demand there is for it. I know some schemes have a dline drop into coverage. But for the most part people would be fine with a passive unstoppable force/colossus and lurk artist in those schemes. LBs is the other position group that would consider using dual threat. But arguably most LBs would want reinforcement to help combat vanguard players on the offense. 

On the other hand, I could easily see EA doing it just so they can offer a high end card for the schemes where it would be really good.

All that to say I think it's more likely that it happens than it doesn't. My bet would be on a UL card if it does.

Breakluna said:

On one hand I'm not sure how much demand there is for it. I know some schemes have a dline drop into coverage. But for the most part people would be fine with a passive unstoppable force/colossus and lurk artist in those schemes. LBs is the other position group that would consider using dual threat. But arguably most LBs would want reinforcement to help combat vanguard players on the offense. 

On the other hand, I could easily see EA doing it just so they can offer a high end card for the schemes where it would be really good.

All that to say I think it's more likely that it happens than it doesn't. My bet would be on a UL card if it does.

good breakdown right here. Given that we got freight train, and then angry runs, which is 4 X factors combined (FT, YAC, FOF, AB), I would imagine fairly soon we see a dual threat built in. I think Warren sapp will probably get colossus for 1, but maybe a ted hendricks upgrade

eedit - Hendricks has a 99 I forgot about because it wasn’t very good anymore lol

thanks for the info! Off topic but Do you think I should sell ted Hendricks at this point?

ollie7162011 said:

thanks for the info! Off topic but Do you think I should sell ted Hendricks at this point?

I would sell him because at this point I would say that Hendricks card is well behind any of the top LBs in terms of abilities. But if you're having fun with him or don't care about abilities feel free to keep

sublbs getting reinforcement would be way way sexier 👀

I run dual threat on both of my sub LBs (gronk / Megatron).  I thought it would be helpful for when they're blitzing, and in coverage, and because that darn Derrick Brooks card played so well with it earlier in the year (and Mr. Monday Night too).  Is consensus that thinking is wrong and reinforcement is better?

yakgigilo said:

I run dual threat on both of my sub LBs (gronk / Megatron).  I thought it would be helpful for when they're blitzing, and in coverage, and because that darn Derrick Brooks card played so well with it earlier in the year (and Mr. Monday Night too).  Is consensus that thinking is wrong and reinforcement is better?

I don't know if I'd say your thinking is wrong. I just think Dual Threat vs Reinforcement is a very META and preference dependent debate. There's certainly METAs where dual threat would be favored. And to be honest I probably would have said Dual Threat is better for most of the year for the exact same reason you did. But with how popular it is to run multiple vanguards on offense now, reinforcement is generally preferred because it's one of the few ways to counter vanguard.

If you're having success stopping opponents with multiple vanguards with your current set up, I see no reason to change. Dual Threat is still a good xfactor. But if you're struggling against multiple vanguards, I highly recommend giving reinforcement a try.