3 man deep from quarter
It double covers the hb but leaves the tight end wide open? That has to be a bug right?
It double covers the hb but leaves the tight end wide open? That has to be a bug right?
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Simple fix for the magnitude of plays that double a receiver - have the secondary/LBs make a pre-snap check on man coverage. 5 guys assigned to man = 5 receivers single covered. If they fail the check, based on def consistency, then very rarely they should randomly double a receiver they normally wouldn't.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Simple fix for the magnitude of plays that double a receiver - have the secondary/LBs make a pre-snap check on man coverage. 5 guys assigned to man = 5 receivers single covered. If they fail the check, based on def consistency, then very rarely they should randomly double a receiver they normally wouldn't.
The logic isn't as easy as it sounds.
I had something like that in place, but then you'd still get weird orders of operations where the CB on one side of the field would end up covering the WR on the other side of the field. I ended up deciding to scrap it because it likely would have taken a complete rewrite of the assignment logic to fix.
Simple fix for the magnitude of plays that double a receiver - have the secondary/LBs make a pre-snap check on man coverage. 5 guys assigned to man = 5 receivers single covered. If they fail the check, based on def consistency, then very rarely they should randomly double a receiver they normally wouldn't.
The logic isn't as easy as it sounds.
I had something like that in place, but then you'd still get weird orders of operations where the CB on one side of the field would end up covering the WR on the other side of the field. I ended up deciding to scrap it because it likely would have taken a complete rewrite of the assignment logic to fix.
Edited by Corndog on Feb 11, 2014 20:58:17
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
