Warrior General Games

There was recently a thread posted rehashing an oldy but goody idea of assigning a particular defender or defenders to defend a particular receiver. This is a good idea, because teams DO that particularly with a super star wide out, making sure they do not have a mismatch on defense. Its particularly important in GLB because you can move your WR around the DC to make a mismatch on defense at times.

But, it could be said that this might hurt the offense too much. Okay, so what if we have a counter balancing change to the assignments? Allow a QB to "pick on" a defender, which also happens in real football. It could be done in two ways, either one or the other or both.

Favorite Defender

Add to a Quarterbacks Tactical Options a "Favorite Defender" setting with one or two receivers the QB can pick on. The result of having a Favorite Defender would be to reduce the effect of that defender upon the formula that says whether or not a receiver is open the same way a Favorite Receiver increases his chances of being open. Thus you may not always throw at the Favorite Defender but its more likely even if he is tightly covering his man.

How you select a Favorite Defender target could be challenging. You could have a player search like feature where you type the players name in, and the game then either tells you no such player exists, or enters that name as the Favorite Defender. Or perhaps you could have a drag down of scheduled games for your team and then a drag down of defensive players on the selected team. Or it could just be limited to a drag down of the players on the upcoming team. OR it could be a drag down of defensive depth chart positions (CB1 CB2 CB(1) CB1(2) etc etc).

The benefit of this is that it gives the QB more to do, scouting wise and choice wise. It also has no negative effect if left set to a player from a prior game, meaning you do not need to do it before every game (unlike the Check Down below). Another negative is that it can step on the OCs toes some but so can Favorite Target.

Defensive Depth Chart Positions or Defensive Players in Custom Check Downs

Add to the drop down menus in the Custom Check Down boxes (where we now have the receivers TE1 TE WR HB etc) the depth chart positions of defenders (CB1 CB2 CB1(1) CB2(2), CB(3) SS FS(1) etc). The QB will then first look to whatever receiver is being man covered by that depth chart position, if any, and make a normal open check to see if he throws to that receiver. If the defender is not on the field or not in man coverage the QB moves to the next check down normally.

The benefit of this is that it puts the choice in the hands of the OC who is more likely to have scouted the opponent. The downside is that it does not make the throw more likely in terms of open or not and it does not allow for a specific defender (unless you add that somehow). Finally it requires the Package or AI to be changed every game.

since I posted something similar in the thread where Catch was asking for advice on what the users wanted to see added/changed, I'm going to +1 this bitch

if rob's idea (man locking) is implemented then in theory the "worst defender" would cover the "worst receiver"

so whats the point of adding this besides adding more work for coordinators?

Originally posted by Diamond Spade


if rob's idea (man locking) is implemented then in theory the "worst defender" would cover the "worst receiver"

so whats the point of adding this besides adding more work for coordinators?


IT would be his version and not a rehash of the last over 9000 versions already suggested. I'll +1 cause I believe some form of this needs added no matter what version.

Originally posted by Diamond Spade


if rob's idea (man locking) is implemented then in theory the "worst defender" would cover the "worst receiver"

so whats the point of adding this besides adding more work for coordinators?


Because its two different things, and more tactical choices. Its not "work".

Work is scouting with the clunky system and the click fest that is 90% of the building and maintenance and navigation of the interface.

PLAY is making the tactical choices that should drive the game.

And the more play options the better.

As for the idea that its all moot if the defender has the worst D cover the worst receiver, maybe. Or maybe the D uses his receiver specializing to have his best defender cover the best receiver and hides his worst defender in zone as a way to avoid this tool? Tactical choices, see? Its fun.

There is already a tactics for "worst defender".....it called "release this player"

-1 and not just because it is a yello1 suggestion. I am saying no to this because if implemented then we would have Yello1 coming in here and crying saying it was overpowered and that his teams are losing because of this. seriously and not poking fun at Yello1 here. basically this would be yet another example of where the better players on the game get better and the mediocre and poor players would get worse. thus widening the gap between the top players and the bottom players. to coin the phrase Yello1 himself likes to use the rich get richer with this suggestion.

Originally posted by Diamond Spade


if rob's idea (man locking) is implemented then in theory the "worst defender" would cover the "worst receiver"

so whats the point of adding this besides adding more work for coordinators?


because your best match up may be what some see as the 3rd WR and 3rd Corner.... or something of that nature. See Laurent Robinson for the Cowboys last year.

Originally posted by hatchman
-1 and not just because it is a yello1 suggestion. I am saying no to this because if implemented then we would have Yello1 coming in here and crying saying it was overpowered and that his teams are losing because of this. seriously and not poking fun at Yello1 here. basically this would be yet another example of where the better players on the game get better and the mediocre and poor players would get worse. thus widening the gap between the top players and the bottom players. to coin the phrase Yello1 himself likes to use the rich get richer with this suggestion.

I do have to say I agree with the idea here though... not calling out yello1 but that the gap would likely be widened because of several reasons. -1 yello.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

STOP IT

Originally posted by Dub J
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

STOP IT




+1

Originally posted by Dub J
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

STOP IT




Easy Dubness. Yer gonna pop a vein. Seriously though, the real reason not to support this is how it would work with/against what is already in place... especially since they've gone to great lengths to enhance the blitz read and recognition and subsequent actions. Think of it like this; I got a beer in my left hand, a hooter in my right, a bucket of chips in my lap, the remote beside me, and my butt firmly planted in my favorite recliner... and now someone wants me to answer the phone. Whatta mess. It's this kind of stuff that causes bugs and other WMD's to happen in GLB. I don;t wanna give the coders any more headaches than they already have.
-1

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Easy Dubness. Yer gonna pop a vein. Seriously though, the real reason not to support this is how it would work with/against what is already in place... especially since they've gone to great lengths to enhance the blitz read and recognition and subsequent actions. Think of it like this; I got a beer in my left hand, a hooter in my right, a bucket of chips in my lap, the remote beside me, and my butt firmly planted in my favorite recliner... and now someone wants me to answer the phone. Whatta mess. It's this kind of stuff that causes bugs and other WMD's to happen in GLB. I don;t wanna give the coders any more headaches than they already have.
-1

I would not suggest they toss it in untested and in a hurry, yes I concur.

But at some point if they could work this in without bugs, I think it would be an added level of tactical choices to consider that would add to the enjoyment of the game for OCs and QBs and even DCs who would need to keep it in mind.

-1

I don't need any more work as a coordinator.