Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dr. E
I'm not saying pass coverage doesn't need a tweak, but it would be small. But, if it was as easy as you say, QBs would be completing a lot more passes against me than they do.

As for researching DCs, I don't see how looking at a profile would indicate if a DC is good or bad? Even looking at a win loss record doesn't show much.

I just thought you were assuming that i only play man coverage with no zone help that why i said you should probably just look at some teams i DC for to see i heavily rely on C2 and C3.

As for the bolded part i assume your talking about your team in SEAPL. Here's the thing SEAPL is pretty damn weak, so the competition isn't as good as it could be...

Here is a very even matchup between 2 playoff teams (I DC for TAP) http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=2161350
67% completion when i mainly played cover 3 but sometimes c2 to get different coverages. In this game it sported numerous completions deep into double coverage.

Originally posted by SG✬21
I just thought you were assuming that i only play man coverage with no zone help that why i said you should probably just look at some teams i DC for to see i heavily rely on C2 and C3.

As for the bolded part i assume your talking about your team in SEAPL. Here's the thing SEAPL is pretty damn weak, so the competition isn't as good as it could be...

Here is a very even matchup between 2 playoff teams (I DC for TAP) http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=2161350
67% completion when i mainly played cover 3 but sometimes c2 to get different coverages. In this game it sported numerous completions deep into double coverage.

I watched the first two series, it does seem you lose a lot of rolls. I've seen my fair share of rolls lost, but it often happens when the Dot in coverage isn't one optimized for zone coverage, or some other issue that may have contributed, not always, but often. First question would be are the builds suited for what you are doing. Second of course is the tactics on those dots in coverage.

not sure why I'm responding as this is NTGH

but isn't the point to find the 1vs1 as an OC? Cover 2 isn't the be all end all, either. From Gun 3WR, as an example, you'll find several plays to take advantage of a DC always throwing Cover 2 deep on the field. That's when under zones will upset the OC in me if I'm throwing under routes on the field when I think I'll see 2 shell defense.

Nothing wrong with 1vs1 success of WR vs CB, IMHO.

-1

like others have said here its getting to be like pro teams scrimmaging college teams when it comes to the advantage O has over D.

time to unlock a lot of things... bringing back Ball Hawk would be nice, but would also be nice to unlock the positioning in the DPC for all the dots, get rid of the "at least three guys have to blitz" rule, let DEs get assigned cover back or TEs, or give us some more defensive formations like strong nickel and anything with fewer down def linemen like 1-1-9 or 2-1-8.

About the only thing that could stop a good passing team would be to have 1 guy blitz and 2 guys each cover every offensive guy running a route.

Originally posted by Dr. E
I watched the first two series, it does seem you lose a lot of rolls. I've seen my fair share of rolls lost, but it often happens when the Dot in coverage isn't one optimized for zone coverage, or some other issue that may have contributed, not always, but often. First question would be are the builds suited for what you are doing. Second of course is the tactics on those dots in coverage.

Yeah the builds are rock solid for what i need and i make sure player tactics are set to what i need.

Originally posted by dusk883
not sure why I'm responding as this is NTGH

but isn't the point to find the 1vs1 as an OC? Cover 2 isn't the be all end all, either. From Gun 3WR, as an example, you'll find several plays to take advantage of a DC always throwing Cover 2 deep on the field. That's when under zones will upset the OC in me if I'm throwing under routes on the field when I think I'll see 2 shell defense.

Nothing wrong with 1vs1 success of WR vs CB, IMHO.

-1



You are insanely wrong man... There isn't any risk in throwing deep at all, same risk as throwing short tbh.. Right now OCs have it pretty easy, before OCs used to have to put in work to put up 50+

Originally posted by fogie55
like others have said here its getting to be like pro teams scrimmaging college teams when it comes to the advantage O has over D.

time to unlock a lot of things... bringing back Ball Hawk would be nice, but would also be nice to unlock the positioning in the DPC for all the dots, get rid of the "at least three guys have to blitz" rule, let DEs get assigned cover back or TEs, or give us some more defensive formations like strong nickel and anything with fewer down def linemen like 1-1-9 or 2-1-8.

About the only thing that could stop a good passing team would be to have 1 guy blitz and 2 guys each cover every offensive guy running a route.

+1000000

As has been said, w/o any real/effective blitz capability from D, long passes are more bang for the buck than anything else. Its' pretty skewed dynamic, to be sure.

With the passing game the way it is we arent far from awarding TDs to the offense when they throw INTs. Wouldn't all you DCs just love to have this feature in the game??

XD

bump

Originally posted by SG✬21
no im just a terrible DC who runs single coverage deep 24/7 please do a little research and maybe look at the teams i DC for before you make a comment like that telling me to double cover them or play deep zones to help. If you did look you would see thats all i do and all ive done all season.

Im tired of these cookie cutter defense's because everyone runs cover 2 deep all the time, every team has a similar look becuase those safeties are always deep like that.

QBs can be 15 for 35 in this sim but have 400 yards because its just that easy to throw deep all the time into double coverage ect.

So you would rather see 7 for 35 for 50 yards?

And you are stretching a bit how easy throwing into coverage is. As builds continue to push from hard hitting to INT specialists and blitzing becomes viable again, things will get a little more difficult to just pop it deep all day.

Originally posted by bhall43
And you are stretching a bit how easy throwing into coverage is. As builds continue to push from hard hitting to INT specialists and blitzing becomes viable again, things will get a little more difficult to just pop it deep all day.

I call BS. But, what do I know. You're just propping the prow on a reef and praying what you say will actually happen. Best of luck when the ship sinks.

BS on what?

Originally posted by bhall43
So you would rather see 7 for 35 for 50 yards?

If an OC is stupid enough to continue to throw deep like that then yes i don't care. Its kind of boring to watch offense's just throw deep all the time.. Taking 20 shots down the field and hitting say 10 of them is pretty unrealistic.

yes if they brought back blitzing I wouldn't care as much but the build i always roll with on defense are PD/INT specialist builds. I hardly ever used hard hitting/KL builds in the secondary.

Originally posted by bhall43
And you are stretching a bit how easy throwing into coverage is. As builds continue to push from hard hitting to INT specialists and blitzing becomes viable again, things will get a little more difficult to just pop it deep all day.

I agree. Some teams we rip, but others close on our receivers us before we can stick the ball in there on long plays and passing underneath isn't really optimal as a strategy, one incomplete or sack and now you need a long pass.