A decent DC would design his scheme to fit his players - or at least recruit players to fit his scheme. There's no reason a FS can't be in man coverage on 100% of plays - and there's no reason CB1 can't be in Deep Weak Half zone coverage to replace the traditional FS role.
Bladnach
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sarg01
A decent DC would design his scheme to fit his players - or at least recruit players to fit his scheme. There's no reason a FS can't be in man coverage on 100% of plays - and there's no reason CB1 can't be in Deep Weak Half zone coverage to replace the traditional FS role.
There actually is a reason a DC doesn't run 100% man with no zones. Because it doesn't work. You have to play to the sim. Don't fall for the trap of pretending GLB is real life football. It's a dangerous road to go down
A decent DC would design his scheme to fit his players - or at least recruit players to fit his scheme. There's no reason a FS can't be in man coverage on 100% of plays - and there's no reason CB1 can't be in Deep Weak Half zone coverage to replace the traditional FS role.
There actually is a reason a DC doesn't run 100% man with no zones. Because it doesn't work. You have to play to the sim. Don't fall for the trap of pretending GLB is real life football. It's a dangerous road to go down
Edited by chronoaug on Jan 5, 2010 23:40:43
Daedalus
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sarg01
A decent DC would design his scheme to fit his players - or at least recruit players to fit his scheme. There's no reason a FS can't be in man coverage on 100% of plays - and there's no reason CB1 can't be in Deep Weak Half zone coverage to replace the traditional FS role.
Hmm...can I assume you don't DC a team? You're right it's POSSIBLE to put a FS in 100% zone. The problem is, it doesn't work in GLB, just as it doesn't work in real football. The team will get burned early and often for long TDs with no one ever playing deep zone coverage, especially when opposing OCs see that that is the defense you play 100% of the time. And no DC in their right mind is going to spend the time rewriting their whole playbook (FS in man, CB in zone) around an inferior build...they'll just go out and get a FS with a superior build and the inferior build will struggle to ever play on a top level team. I don't understand the rationale in creating a FS built like a CB to play man, and expecting a team to go out and find a CB built like a FS to play zone? Rather than spending the SPs and/or AEQ on SC, why not put the SPs into SV and other coverage ability tree SAs (except SC) that are used on every play, and get a CS AEQ piece so you don't have to waste any SPs in the hard hitter tree since CS is the only one worth the cost to a FS in that tree?
A decent DC would design his scheme to fit his players - or at least recruit players to fit his scheme. There's no reason a FS can't be in man coverage on 100% of plays - and there's no reason CB1 can't be in Deep Weak Half zone coverage to replace the traditional FS role.
Hmm...can I assume you don't DC a team? You're right it's POSSIBLE to put a FS in 100% zone. The problem is, it doesn't work in GLB, just as it doesn't work in real football. The team will get burned early and often for long TDs with no one ever playing deep zone coverage, especially when opposing OCs see that that is the defense you play 100% of the time. And no DC in their right mind is going to spend the time rewriting their whole playbook (FS in man, CB in zone) around an inferior build...they'll just go out and get a FS with a superior build and the inferior build will struggle to ever play on a top level team. I don't understand the rationale in creating a FS built like a CB to play man, and expecting a team to go out and find a CB built like a FS to play zone? Rather than spending the SPs and/or AEQ on SC, why not put the SPs into SV and other coverage ability tree SAs (except SC) that are used on every play, and get a CS AEQ piece so you don't have to waste any SPs in the hard hitter tree since CS is the only one worth the cost to a FS in that tree?
I can say from personal experience that a shut-down safety really doesn't work unless you lock him in on man coverage against the TE down the middle... which leaves your corners on an island. Not good. And I would add that closing speed, tackeling, and vision would be the best things a safety can bring to his game on the field. I'm not sure how that is played out here yet, but the best safeties could cover ground in a hurry, diagnose plays quickly, read QB's, and make tackles.
regoob2
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I can say from personal experience that a shut-down safety really doesn't work unless you lock him in on man coverage against the TE down the middle... which leaves your corners on an island. Not good. And I would add that closing speed, tackeling, and vision would be the best things a safety can bring to his game on the field. I'm not sure how that is played out here yet, but the best safeties could cover ground in a hurry, diagnose plays quickly, read QB's, and make tackles.
You're talking about lvl 70 SSB players. You have to puck your poision to an extent before that.
I can say from personal experience that a shut-down safety really doesn't work unless you lock him in on man coverage against the TE down the middle... which leaves your corners on an island. Not good. And I would add that closing speed, tackeling, and vision would be the best things a safety can bring to his game on the field. I'm not sure how that is played out here yet, but the best safeties could cover ground in a hurry, diagnose plays quickly, read QB's, and make tackles.
You're talking about lvl 70 SSB players. You have to puck your poision to an extent before that.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
