Warrior General Games

Nickel 3-3-5 2 Man Will Fire has 2 CBs on WR1 and no coverage on TE, 2WR set.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/12006/2151130

Quarter Inside Blitz has the HB uncovered, hard to tell which defender is doubled up but looks like CB4, 2WR set
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/12006/2150516

I'll look into fixing these for next season, we finally have a system setup so I can modify the plays into SQL code for Bort to run.

Originally posted by Corndog
I'll look into fixing these for next season, we finally have a system setup so I can modify the plays into SQL code for Bort to run.

A larger project would be trying to make sure the man coverages actually work against any number of receivers and the checkdowns work properly for it. That'd take a lot of time though, so yeah.

Originally posted by Corndog
A larger project would be trying to make sure the man coverages actually work against any number of receivers and the checkdowns work properly for it. That'd take a lot of time though, so yeah.

I've made my opinion known on this. If a defensive play is labeled to cover 2-3WR a reasonable person shouldn't expect it to cover WR4 or WR5 if they use it against a 4 or 5 WR set. I guarantee those who are complaining about it now had GLB Classic plays that left people uncovered if they used them against certain sets. No reason to expect more from the base plays.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
I've made my opinion known on this. If a defensive play is labeled to cover 2-3WR a reasonable person shouldn't expect it to cover WR4 or WR5 if they use it against a 4 or 5 WR set. I guarantee those who are complaining about it now had GLB Classic plays that left people uncovered if they used them against certain sets. No reason to expect more from the base plays.

Why?

It's just a case of making a logical checkdown instead of just ending.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
I've made my opinion known on this. If a defensive play is labeled to cover 2-3WR a reasonable person shouldn't expect it to cover WR4 or WR5 if they use it against a 4 or 5 WR set. I guarantee those who are complaining about it now had GLB Classic plays that left people uncovered if they used them against certain sets. No reason to expect more from the base plays.

Yeah, unless you are running zones, you should never send out 'fewer' CBs than the other team is sending WRs.

However, in cases where you are calling, say, a Quarter D against fewer WRs, there should be logic in place to have coverage. Even if you are blitzing two of those CBs, if the SS and FS are supposed to be in man coverage, they should cover the men vacated by the blitzing CBs instead of double coverage (unless that is specifically what the play is drawn up to do).

Originally posted by Time Trial
Yeah, unless you are running zones, you should never send out 'fewer' CBs than the other team is sending WRs.

However, in cases where you are calling, say, a Quarter D against fewer WRs, there should be logic in place to have coverage. Even if you are blitzing two of those CBs, if the SS and FS are supposed to be in man coverage, they should cover the men vacated by the blitzing CBs instead of double coverage (unless that is specifically what the play is drawn up to do).

I just wish the # of WR rule would just be thrown out all together. If I want to call a 4-4 zone blitz against 5 WR on 3rd down let me fuckin do it.

Originally posted by bhall43
I just wish the # of WR rule would just be thrown out all together. If I want to call a 4-4 zone blitz against 5 WR on 3rd down let me ****in do it.

You can. Everyone won't be covered, though. Unless Corndog gets all the updates done.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
You can. Everyone won't be covered, though. Unless Corndog gets all the updates done.

No you can't. It will just pull up a play close to recognition instead. The only way you can do it is if it is the ONLY play to recognize.

Originally posted by bhall43
No you can't. It will just pull up a play close to recognition instead. The only way you can do it is if it is the ONLY play to recognize.

Yeah. The 0-5 WR label should be removed because you are already deciding whether or not it belongs in your 2 WR, etc. playbook.

They should also get rid of the short/medium/long label, as it forces certain plays to be unused in certain situations.

Like, let's say you want to declare under 3 yards as "short" for the purposes of your play calling tactics. That means that your playbook will not call the Will Fire Seam 3 play in under 3 yard situations, unless you have no actual "short" plays listed.

Remove the forced label of "short/medium/long" and let us put no label (can be called in any situation) or add a label (will only be called in those situation).

Originally posted by Time Trial
Yeah. The 0-5 WR label should be removed because you are already deciding whether or not it belongs in your 2 WR, etc. playbook.

They should also get rid of the short/medium/long label, as it forces certain plays to be unused in certain situations.

Like, let's say you want to declare under 3 yards as "short" for the purposes of your play calling tactics. That means that your playbook will not call the Will Fire Seam 3 play in under 3 yard situations, unless you have no actual "short" plays listed.

Remove the forced label of "short/medium/long" and let us put no label (can be called in any situation) or add a label (will only be called in those situation).

THIS^

It's like they are trying to make it look like the defense has a choice when the offensive play and formation dictates what play and formation the defense runs.

Originally posted by Corndog
A larger project would be trying to make sure the man coverages actually work against any number of receivers and the checkdowns work properly for it. That'd take a lot of time though, so yeah.

AKA making the plays actually do what they say they do (remove the stupid #WR tags and length tags). If there are 5 guys assigned to man coverage, then 5 receivers that go out for routes are covered. Not 3 or 4, with a couple double covered and a couple totally uncovered.

Show me your tots.