Originally posted by william78
To your first point I'd say not really. The build should absolutely have an effect but just for example: Morgan Burnett in GB gave up 77.5% of passes thrown at him ; Earl Thomas gave up 56.5%. Even adjusting for video gaming I wouldn't mind if a SS* safety is giving up 40% or so while iso'd on the receiver, or if the build was 100% pass coverage I could see that. Having knock out guys stay with route running TE's or slot WR's and deflecting passes on a routine basis looks goofy.
Right now you have a better chance to complete a 25 yard pass running Chalice from Diamond sets against a cover 2 shell with a safety and CB on the WR than you do of completing a 6 yard crossing route to the WR3 against ZEB even if the defense doesn't rattle the QB.
I'm really more disappointed that the solution was a "nerf" rather than answering the question how do we make the passing more realistic? To me it looks much much further from realism today from a play interaction perspective.
There is definitively a huge difference between a run stopping LB and a coverage LB. And guys with lack of coverage skills absolutely get torched by TE's and WR's.
To your second point coverage certainly has its ups and downs. Safeties have zero AP points helping them in Zone Cover 2 Shells. Often times they aren't fast enough to make the coverage or aren't playing the ball but rather playing protect from YAC. Certainly some things could be better there and I am unsure how hard that is to portray from a coding perspective. It took GLB1 30 or so seasons to somewhat stop defenders from overrunning the route in man coverage leading to the same 25+ yard plays you are talking about here. In fact the only thing that really was done for prevention of constant 30 yard bombs in GLB1 was giving interception builds and route fakes crazy boosts to the point where you were better off dinking and dunking underneath through fakes than throwing 6 interceptions in a game.
To your first point I'd say not really. The build should absolutely have an effect but just for example: Morgan Burnett in GB gave up 77.5% of passes thrown at him ; Earl Thomas gave up 56.5%. Even adjusting for video gaming I wouldn't mind if a SS* safety is giving up 40% or so while iso'd on the receiver, or if the build was 100% pass coverage I could see that. Having knock out guys stay with route running TE's or slot WR's and deflecting passes on a routine basis looks goofy.
Right now you have a better chance to complete a 25 yard pass running Chalice from Diamond sets against a cover 2 shell with a safety and CB on the WR than you do of completing a 6 yard crossing route to the WR3 against ZEB even if the defense doesn't rattle the QB.
I'm really more disappointed that the solution was a "nerf" rather than answering the question how do we make the passing more realistic? To me it looks much much further from realism today from a play interaction perspective.
There is definitively a huge difference between a run stopping LB and a coverage LB. And guys with lack of coverage skills absolutely get torched by TE's and WR's.
To your second point coverage certainly has its ups and downs. Safeties have zero AP points helping them in Zone Cover 2 Shells. Often times they aren't fast enough to make the coverage or aren't playing the ball but rather playing protect from YAC. Certainly some things could be better there and I am unsure how hard that is to portray from a coding perspective. It took GLB1 30 or so seasons to somewhat stop defenders from overrunning the route in man coverage leading to the same 25+ yard plays you are talking about here. In fact the only thing that really was done for prevention of constant 30 yard bombs in GLB1 was giving interception builds and route fakes crazy boosts to the point where you were better off dinking and dunking underneath through fakes than throwing 6 interceptions in a game.
