Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Forbin
Originally posted by Viscount

I totally burnt an FS today in a playoff game:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=136231&pbp_id=8907034

lol at the dumbass team running a cover 2 vs. 3 WR

A cover 1 would have been even worse, as the FS would have been even CLOSER to the middle, away from the WR.

Originally posted by GIEFF
Originally posted by Forbin

Originally posted by Viscount


I totally burnt an FS today in a playoff game:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=136231&pbp_id=8907034

lol at the dumbass team running a cover 2 vs. 3 WR

A cover 1 would have been even worse, as the FS would have been even CLOSER to the middle, away from the WR.

So it's smart to leave a receiver uncovered?

Leaving the receiver uncovered had nothing to do with Cover 1 or 2. It had to do with using 4-3 base, man coverage, and blitzing WILL. Mike covers the HB, and CB #1 covered WR#1, too.

If Mike had blitzed, Will might have been there faster on a WR, and he and the CB might have figured it out.

Maybe. BUt I think WILL would have still covered the HB, leaving WR#3 free to run downfield.

Well, if you're using 4-3, yeah, but that's a separate issue. I think that even cover 1 4-3 against 3 WR's will put a LB on a wideout.

Originally posted by GIEFF
Well, if you're using 4-3, yeah, but that's a separate issue. I think that even cover 1 4-3 against 3 WR's will put a LB on a wideout.

Yeah. I've tried to get our coverage SS there, but couldn't figure it out. I even went so far as to blitz all 3 LBs, just to see which receiver was the "priority" ...So of course the SS covers the TE.

I think the best way to fix it is by making sure your CBs are good. The problem really arises when you play the CBs in a short zone and the FS is responsible for the deep zone. If you keep them in man coverage and they are good CBs they can usually prevent deep TDs. To be fair, I think safeties are somewhat underrated in GLB's pass defense and I haven't really come across a FS that's a real ball hawk (thin Ed Reed in the NFL). Then again, the entire pass defense is difficult in GLB.

In Forbins example it is cover two with 2 corners vs 3 WRs. RAPBs "proof" that cover two works vs 3 WRs is a totally different scenario. He has either 3 or 4 CBs on the field. Apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Forbin
Originally posted by GIEFF

Originally posted by Forbin


Originally posted by Viscount



I totally burnt an FS today in a playoff game:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=136231&pbp_id=8907034

lol at the dumbass team running a cover 2 vs. 3 WR

A cover 1 would have been even worse, as the FS would have been even CLOSER to the middle, away from the WR.

So it's smart to leave a receiver uncovered?

Technically everyone is uncovered in a Cover 2/1 scheme. You play zones, not necessarily receivers.

Originally posted by alfies
Originally posted by Forbin

Originally posted by GIEFF


Originally posted by Forbin



Originally posted by Viscount




I totally burnt an FS today in a playoff game:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=136231&pbp_id=8907034

lol at the dumbass team running a cover 2 vs. 3 WR

A cover 1 would have been even worse, as the FS would have been even CLOSER to the middle, away from the WR.

So it's smart to leave a receiver uncovered?

Technically everyone is uncovered in a Cover 2/1 scheme. You play zones, not necessarily receivers.

You don't understand what Cover 2 means in this game. "Cover #" means # players will go back and divide up the deeper half of the field into zones. It doesn't mean anything with regards to how you cover the individual receivers (except that if # is large, you won't have many defenders left for individual coverage.) You can have Cover 2 with man coverage underneath.

For example, a Cover 2 typically means the FS guards the defenses deep right zone, and the SS guards the deep left zone (blitzing one or the other can change this). Cover 1 has the FS in the deep middle. Cover 3 has CB 1 and 2 going deep right and left, and the FS in the deep middle.

Exactly, so they cover ZONES and not individual players.

That's what I said.

Originally posted by alfies
Exactly, so they cover ZONES and not individual players.

That's what I said.

You said everyone is uncovered in a Cover 2/1 scheme. This is wrong in GLB. In GLB, the cover scheme ONLY tells you about the deep zone coverage. In GLB, Cover 2 Man underneath coverage covers every individual player and the 2 deep zones.

EDIT - Unless, of course, you blitz people such that you don't have enough people left to cover.