Warrior General Games

Originally posted by yello1
Okay this is verified by another game test and me not changing the settings, set it up like this just to see.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2123573&pbp_id=6141974

In a 3-4 the ROLB is set to man the HB and the RILB to man the FB. Both have a secondary fall back of the default simple zone.

Both do not move to man their assignment but stay in their normal positions.

So in a 3-4 the ROLB can not man anyone strongside of the BTE (caveat, in a weak I maybe he could man the FB?).

I did not test to see if the RILB could man the HB, but he can not man a strong I FB position.

Um... maybe someone else will give you a better/different viewpoint but I would say your setup is bad. Using the 3-4 defensive scheme I would think as follows concerning making certain dots cover certain positions;
ILB's should be the ones covering any back (HB or FB). OLB's should cover the TE that is on their side of the field. This not only makes it real simple to set up but you'll have less coverage issues since the defensive dot in question is already lined up across from his man. If you go with your setup and, say, the HB runs a route AWAY FROM the ROLB side, then your ROLB is already badly out of position before the snap of the ball, causing your coverage issues.
Anyone else disagree, please post about it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Um... maybe someone else will give you a better/different viewpoint but I would say your setup is bad. Using the 3-4 defensive scheme I would think as follows concerning making certain dots cover certain positions;
ILB's should be the ones covering any back (HB or FB). OLB's should cover the TE that is on their side of the field. This not only makes it real simple to set up but you'll have less coverage issues since the defensive dot in question is already lined up across from his man. If you go with your setup and, say, the HB runs a route AWAY FROM the ROLB side, then your ROLB is already badly out of position before the snap of the ball, causing your coverage issues.
Anyone else disagree, please post about it. Thanks.

Definitely, this play was just designed to cover the strong side sweep when the tags made it clear the other guy was doing nothing but. Merely brought the limitation to my attention.