Warrior General Games

The Man Cover options of Strong or Weak are great.

But they are sometimes screwed up by the routes that cross the line of scrimmage between the tackles and then turn to the other side of the field, leaving a Man Cover Strong side chasing a RB running to the Weak Side with no hope of catching up.

So add three more settings

Man Cover Middle - will only cover the receiver if the receiver crosses the line of scrimmage between the tackles

Man Cover Strong Outside - will only cover the receiver if the receiver crosses the LOS outside of the ROT

Man Cover Weak Outside - will only cover the receiver if the receiver crosses the LOS outside of the LOT

Keep the existing Man, Man Strong and Man Weak options as well.

I do not think this would upset play balance so much as to render the game borked. And it would close some silly openings in the defenses.

-1

Scout and put in plays for better positioning

Originally posted by Dadd
-1

Scout and put in plays for better positioning

stop asking GLB to fix your shortfalls Yello1 and learn to do it yourself

Its people like you two what made "Happy Meal" the leading American Cuisine.

Originally posted by yello1
Its people like you two what made "Happy Meal" the leading American Cuisine.

seriously what is your fetish with McDonalds

I don't really understand what you are talking about here. It doesn't matter if they cross through the LOS or outside the tackles. It is about whether the route finishes strong or weak side.



Originally posted by Dadd
-1

Scout and put in plays for better positioning

compared to his other suggestions this one is not bad. however the risk/reward should be huge

so ima +0.5 for concept sake

Originally posted by bhall43
I don't really understand what you are talking about here. It doesn't matter if they cross through the LOS or outside the tackles. It is about whether the route finishes strong or weak side.



Originally posted by Dadd

-1

Scout and put in plays for better positioning



Its the point of crossing the LOS that controls whether the route is considered strong or weak.

I do not have the replay handy...but there is a play where the FB runs forward and crosses the LOS just to the right of Center or perhaps the Right Guard, then turns immediately left and runs to the weak side in a shallow drag like route.

My SS in wide strong position with cover FB Strong dutifully spent the play running for the opposite sideline - five yards or more from the FB the entire time (SS was fast but so was FB).

To be able to cover that play your FB coverage needs to be in the middle of the pack. This naturally puts him out of position for sweeps and screens. Thats annoying. So having the option of having your FS cover weak, MLB cover middle and SS cover strong would be a useful option, albeit one with its own costs and downsides of course.

Originally posted by Diamond Spade
compared to his other suggestions this one is not bad. however the risk/reward should be huge

so ima +0.5 for concept sake

after rereading the suggestion, it seems i misunderstood what yello actually wanted. i was thinking he wanted a option to tell a defender to cheat toward a certain way. thats obviously not the case

that said

-1

Originally posted by yello1
Its the point of crossing the LOS that controls whether the route is considered strong or weak.

I do not have the replay handy...but there is a play where the FB runs forward and crosses the LOS just to the right of Center or perhaps the Right Guard, then turns immediately left and runs to the weak side in a shallow drag like route.

My SS in wide strong position with cover FB Strong dutifully spent the play running for the opposite sideline - five yards or more from the FB the entire time (SS was fast but so was FB).

To be able to cover that play your FB coverage needs to be in the middle of the pack. This naturally puts him out of position for sweeps and screens. Thats annoying. So having the option of having your FS cover weak, MLB cover middle and SS cover strong would be a useful option, albeit one with its own costs and downsides of course.



edit: upon further analysis I am told that the play in question will result in coverage using both weak and strong side assignments. So it is a bit bugged.

Originally posted by bhall43
edit: upon further analysis I am told that the play in question will result in coverage using both weak and strong side assignments. So it is a bit bugged.


Ahhh indeed the one I was thinking of does in fact result in both guys picking up the coverage. I had mainly been looking at the guy pulled off the strong side (the play did not go to the FB).

Well that kinda fixes the problem of the FB being open but it kinda makes the other DB a total wasted dot on the play.