Warrior General Games

Problem: Right now a defense can decide to blitz a DB and sack the QB at random. This makes it impossible for the OC to plan for unless he has someone blocking on all, or a percentage of plays.

Solution: Have an adjustment in each play that will allow a back or TE to run a route if there is no pressure. No pressure would be defined as having more blockers, or equal blockers, to the number of defenders after X number of ticks.

Better solution: Allow the back or TE to block and release and run a 'dump route' to the outside. This could also be a setting in the play.

The sucess of any of these settings would be based on the player's attributes.

So... the problem is that when a DC blitzes, an OC needs to keep blockers in to counter?

LOL

-1

Originally posted by boondocksaint
So... the problem is that when a DC blitzes, an OC needs to keep blockers in to counter?

LOL

-1

Noooo the problem is that when a DC does not blitz the blockers just stand there which, currently, only happens in GLB.

Originally posted by The Hitman
Better solution: Allow the back or TE to block and release and run a 'dump route' to the outside. This could also be a setting in the play.

The success of any of these settings would be based on the player's attributes.

+1

the offense does need more play types. designed roll out pass plays, play actions, chip & release plays, option plays. things of this nature. when a defense can get away with only sending 3 pass rushers while using man to man coverage and not get burnt by underneath passes....something has to be done.

Originally posted by The Hitman
Originally posted by boondocksaint

So... the problem is that when a DC blitzes, an OC needs to keep blockers in to counter?

LOL

-1

Noooo the problem is that when a DC does not blitz the blockers just stand there which, currently, only happens in GLB.

Basically, what you're asking for is this:

If a TE, HB or FB is held back in to block and the defense doesn't blitz enough guys to justify having the extra blockers, the players who were held back to block should be able to run a route after passing a Vision check to recognize that they're not needed as a blocker.

If so, I like it. +1. Would certainly make me more willing as an OC to hold dots back in to block. I'm hesitant to do so now, because I'm more likely to get burned by having too MANY blockers (and not enough route-runners) on a given play than I am to get burned by not having ENOUGH blockers. But maybe that's just because I have a killer O-line that's actually somewhat capable at pass-blocking.

ok, so you have a defense going "cover hb strong, FB strong, Zone" HB stays in to block, FB goes weak, LB drops to zone" oh, lets just let the HB go run a dump route strong with no one covering him. GLB logic FAIL.

Originally posted by gbororats
ok, so you have a defense going "cover hb strong, FB strong, Zone" HB stays in to block, FB goes weak, LB drops to zone" oh, lets just let the HB go run a dump route strong with no one covering him. GLB logic FAIL.

Looks like you'll need to split up those HB and FB responsibilities on D then, champ.

Originally posted by Novus
Basically, what you're asking for is this:

If a TE, HB or FB is held back in to block and the defense doesn't blitz enough guys to justify having the extra blockers, the players who were held back to block should be able to run a route after passing a Vision check to recognize that they're not needed as a blocker.

If so, I like it. +1. Would certainly make me more willing as an OC to hold dots back in to block. I'm hesitant to do so now, because I'm more likely to get burned by having too MANY blockers (and not enough route-runners) on a given play than I am to get burned by not having ENOUGH blockers. But maybe that's just because I have a killer O-line that's actually somewhat capable at pass-blocking.

This (which is pretty much what the OP says). And it doesn't matter if you OL is great or not. It never makes sense to hold a guy back now. If someone is blitzing and all the backs go out, then someone is bound to be open quicker and you don't need the extra blocker - you'll at least be able to get a quick dump out to avoid the sack. If someone is not blitzing and everyone goes out, then the OL has enough people to cover the rush and you're still better off with everyone out.

With this option added, (and I like the vision check idea) you might hold someone back to give more time for a long play, but if it ain't happening, then the man can jump out and make a quick grab before the pocket collapses.

Logic thread would be "Block - if help is near, then release to <route>". Low vision would make interesting mess ups, too if a FB and TE both get on the same guy and both think the other guy is going to hold the block and both release to do a route. So with the chance of that in there, it wouldn't turn the balance too far in favor of the offense.

Originally posted by Novus
Looks like you'll need to split up those HB and FB responsibilities on D then, champ.

ok, so explain to me how splitting the responsibilities helps the fact that once your defender reads that the HB stayed in to block... and moves on down his list will allow him to magically go backwards in his progression to see a HB sneak out of the backfield? No matter who you have set to cover the HB, you can have the entire defense set to cover HB and they are all going to read that he stayed in to block and move on.

Progression/responsibilities are a one way street... they dont go back to the first read. so yes, logic fail.

edit the OP with information on how to actually combat this from a defensive standpoint, champ

+1
Definitely a nice option.

Originally posted by gbororats
edit the OP with information on how to actually combat this from a defensive standpoint, champ

I'm not the OP, so I can't edit the OP, champ.

As for how to cover the HBs and FBs in the scenario, not my job to tell you how to do it. Get creative. I've been a DC before, and I already have several ideas for how to defend against this, and if this gets implemented, I'd have to try them out and experiment until I find something that works. Y'know, kinda like what DCs have to do anytime anything new is added to the offense anyway?

I also certainly wouldn't be opposed to improvements to pass-coverage progressions or even a complete overhaul. But in real life, players who are held back to block and aren't needed can release and run a route. And in real life, defenses adjust and cover those guys, or sometimes miss them and leave them uncovered.

Don't automatically reject a realistic offensive improvement just because you can't think of a way to stop it on defense.

Originally posted by gbororats
ok, so explain to me how splitting the responsibilities helps the fact that once your defender reads that the HB stayed in to block... and moves on down his list will allow him to magically go backwards in his progression to see a HB sneak out of the backfield? No matter who you have set to cover the HB, you can have the entire defense set to cover HB and they are all going to read that he stayed in to block and move on.

Progression/responsibilities are a one way street... they dont go back to the first read. so yes, logic fail.

edit the OP with information on how to actually combat this from a defensive standpoint, champ

Just the fact that the defensive players have 'options' and the offensive players do not pretty much explains the discrepancy.

Originally posted by Novus
I'm not the OP, so I can't edit the OP, champ.

As for how to cover the HBs and FBs in the scenario, not my job to tell you how to do it. Get creative. I've been a DC before, and I already have several ideas for how to defend against this, and if this gets implemented, I'd have to try them out and experiment until I find something that works. Y'know, kinda like what DCs have to do anytime anything new is added to the offense anyway?

I also certainly wouldn't be opposed to improvements to pass-coverage progressions or even a complete overhaul. But in real life, players who are held back to block and aren't needed can release and run a route. And in real life, defenses adjust and cover those guys, or sometimes miss them and leave them uncovered.

Don't automatically reject a realistic offensive improvement just because you can't think of a way to stop it on defense.

you're not understanding. the way the sim is it checks down in order... if the defender sees a halfback stay in to block... he will progress to his next option and lock on to that... he can NEVER go back to covering a HB once hes locked into that next progression. Creative or not means you cannot do it. The sim doesnt allow it. This is what im trying to say. They will need to change the DPC and defensive dots behavior when dealing with coverage.

Originally posted by SeattleNiner
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4791529

A better version of this IMO.

Originally posted by gbororats
ok, so explain to me how splitting the responsibilities helps the fact that once your defender reads that the HB stayed in to block... and moves on down his list will allow him to magically go backwards in his progression to see a HB sneak out of the backfield? No matter who you have set to cover the HB, you can have the entire defense set to cover HB and they are all going to read that he stayed in to block and move on.

Progression/responsibilities are a one way street... they dont go back to the first read. so yes, logic fail.

edit the OP with information on how to actually combat this from a defensive standpoint, champ

And spot on. This would be logistically impossible unless they'd add some further depth to defensive playcalling along with it. As is now, this would be impossible to defend for any team at any level of the game.