Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I think you should probably think outside the box a little bit. you're operating under the misconception that 4-4 Big is using 2 DE, 2 DT, 4 LB, 1 SS, 1 FS and 1 CB when in game its played more like 4 DL and 7 DB.

4-4 Big is getting looked at for trips simply because there isn't a CB positioned opposite side of the trips. 4-4 Big cover 3 has four Defenders in coverage on the trips side usually bracketing the pass on that side and 3 on the left side one generally covering the TE and two covering air for the most part. Once the HB breaches the line and proceeds upfield the LILB plays up leaving the TE free in the seam.

I suspect this is do to the weak side Deep Zone playing at the same depth as the strong side rather than playing more shallow on the non overloaded side. That's kinda the thing with zone right. coverage is pretty good for the first 30 ticks and then it falls apart.

Man does not have that problem coverage works a bit better throughout the play at least until a ball is thrown for some reason lol

How is 4-4 Big using 7DB? you literally have to put 4 LB in the LB spots. The system wont let you put CB there. If you are going on the presumption that the LB are built like DB well then that is half the problem. You can't build LB or at least shouldnt be able to and still have a good defense. If they are built like CB then they should be absolute ass in the run game and your defense should get destroyed by star HB every single game. But you want your defense to be the best at run and pass defense. That is just not possible, that does NOT speak anything about balance of the game. Yes i prefer running a defense of only zone or man, but the best BALANCED defenses should be they BSB hybrid because they can use the best of both worlds.

Originally posted by Xars
Right because no one else can cover the Strong side pitch....

Then you're asking to be lit up in the Passing game, which is precisely my point.

An Overload formation is the Offense's attempt to force the Defense to make a choice: Those choices come with risk.

You can protect against the Strong Side pitch and get lit up in the Passing game
OR
You can match the formation and be exposed to the Strong side pitch.

The problem with Zone today is that the people are trying to defend using plays that don't have anywhere near enough risk, when there clearly is for Man.

You don't get both. Man Defense doesn't get both. So how can you be all for "Game Balance" when you refuse to have the same risk/reward?

Say it everyone. Just say it.

"Xars is right."


Brah....

1st of all, you can cover 3 WRs with 2 CBs because they are playing zone and not man. Do you know the definition of zone? You play an area and not a player. You can put 4 WRs in a zone and theoretically cover them all with 1 DB...because they are defending an area. Also, those trips are actually being guarded by 3 or 4 DBs because the OLB and FS are defending adjacent areas. Those WRs don’t stay in the same area the entire play.

2nd, you always leave out half of the equation....player builds. You act like every DBs is built the same way. Maybe I can build CBs who can defend a zone against 1 or 2 WRs? My hard hitting DBs can knock the ball loose or with Gold EOTP, jump a pass and pick it off.

Originally posted by dredgar
How is 4-4 Big using 7DB? you literally have to put 4 LB in the LB spots. The system wont let you put CB there. If you are going on the presumption that the LB are built like DB well then that is half the problem. You can't build LB or at least shouldnt be able to and still have a good defense. If they are built like CB then they should be absolute ass in the run game and your defense should get destroyed by star HB every single game. But you want your defense to be the best at run and pass defense. That is just not possible, that does NOT speak anything about balance of the game. Yes i prefer running a defense of only zone or man, but the best BALANCED defenses should be they BSB hybrid because they can use the best of both worlds.

I mean, the LBs can't cover. Which is why Zone routinely gives up huge yardage through the air. They're just hoping by putting guys in the right spot that the TOs can make up for that. If CBs had tackling comparative to LBs, which is the most crucial part of Zone, they'd get used more. That's pretty much it. I have a S* CB on Sacramento Salvo. I'd have liked another S* LB, but I couldn't take them because a non S* CB just couldn't get to a level of tackling I was comfortable with to anchor the weak side.

I honestly believe people are more upset about how Zone "feels" to play than it's actual balance. I think Zone and Man are more or less equal. However, when I'm playing with, or against Man its a very consistent feel - for the most part. Things tend to go as you expect and the variability comes down to a tackle here or there or a read or pursuit roll, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, the game generally plays out how you might expect.

With Zone, this isn't the case. Sometimes I'm watching a game I called with Zone and I feel incredible. The blitzes, the INTs, the run defense - everything is going my way. It feels awesome. Then other times, the dark times, QBs march down the field completely unobstructed and score and it looked effortless. And I feel powerless and that my playcalling did nothing.

Its the same when I play a game against Zone. I know I called what I think is a winning gameplan. But I never know when the slot machine might just hit right and screw me over. Every drive is a nail biter on offense as I wonder, is this the pass that gets picked? Its much more anxiety inducing and feels worse to play against.

But that doesn't mean their overall performance is drastically different from one another - they just feel different. And, that's OK.

Originally posted by dredgar
How is 4-4 Big using 7DB? you literally have to put 4 LB in the LB spots. The system wont let you put CB there. If you are going on the presumption that the LB are built like DB well then that is half the problem. You can't build LB or at least shouldnt be able to and still have a good defense. If they are built like CB then they should be absolute ass in the run game and your defense should get destroyed by star HB every single game. But you want your defense to be the best at run and pass defense. That is just not possible, that does NOT speak anything about balance of the game. Yes i prefer running a defense of only zone or man, but the best BALANCED defenses should be they BSB hybrid because they can use the best of both worlds.

thats a lot of presumptions right there. I mean you shouldn't be able to break 40 tackles in a game, you shouldn't be able to have a 50%+ catch rate in blanketed man coverage with a player and the best balanced defense should be great at both but not the best at either. most zone plays win on running plays based on man advantage not run defense skills.

Originally posted by ellix
I honestly believe people are more upset about how Zone "feels" to play than it's actual balance. I think Zone and Man are more or less equal. However, when I'm playing with, or against Man its a very consistent feel - for the most part. Things tend to go as you expect and the variability comes down to a tackle here or there or a read or pursuit roll, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, the game generally plays out how you might expect.

With Zone, this isn't the case. Sometimes I'm watching a game I called with Zone and I feel incredible. The blitzes, the INTs, the run defense - everything is going my way. It feels awesome. Then other times, the dark times, QBs march down the field completely unobstructed and score and it looked effortless. And I feel powerless and that my playcalling did nothing.

Its the same when I play a game against Zone. I know I called what I think is a winning gameplan. But I never know when the slot machine might just hit right and screw me over. Every drive is a nail biter on offense as I wonder, is this the pass that gets picked? Its much more anxiety inducing and feels worse to play against.

But that doesn't mean their overall performance is drastically different from one another - they just feel different. And, that's OK.

Exactly this. Zone is wild playstyle and much less predictable than man. for me its more exciting even when we are giving up big plays. Passing against man is basically "did i win the cit roll? yes! im such a good coach " or "i lost the cit roll? nerf zone"

Originally posted by ellix
I mean, the LBs can't cover. Which is why Zone routinely gives up huge yardage through the air. They're just hoping by putting guys in the right spot that the TOs can make up for that. If CBs had tackling comparative to LBs, which is the most crucial part of Zone, they'd get used more. That's pretty much it. I have a S* CB on Sacramento Salvo. I'd have liked another S* LB, but I couldn't take them because a non S* CB just couldn't get to a level of tackling I was comfortable with to anchor the weak side.

This is exactly why Xars is saying running 4-4 Big against a 3trips passing formation absolutely should get destroyed by the passing game. In no way should a defense full of LB that does not cover well be able to defend against a passing set like that. They are at a huge disadvantage. It is the same reason in high school, college, and the NFL football is a match-up game. You have to pick your poison and defend with logical defenses. If someone says its a game i am going to stab someone like stabby from futurama. It is a game all about game planning, builds, and MATCHUPS! Matchups mean you have to match the best scheme against what the other team is doing. When i gameplan on offense I am going to find the weakness in defense and attack that, the exact same way I am going to look at an offense and set my defense to attack and stop their best plays. On offense, if you attack a defense's weakness you should win, on defense if you can shut down the offense's best plays you should win. Ergo you use the best match-ups, you do NOT use the worst possible matchup like 4-4 Big against shotgun trips.

Originally posted by dredgar
This is exactly why Xars is saying running 4-4 Big against a 3trips passing formation absolutely should get destroyed by the passing game. In no way should a defense full of LB that does not cover well be able to defend against a passing set like that. They are at a huge disadvantage. It is the same reason in high school, college, and the NFL football is a match-up game. You have to pick your poison and defend with logical defenses. If someone says its a game i am going to stab someone like stabby from futurama. It is a game all about game planning, builds, and MATCHUPS! Matchups mean you have to match the best scheme against what the other team is doing. When i gameplan on offense I am going to find the weakness in defense and attack that, the exact same way I am going to look at an offense and set my defense to attack and stop their best plays. On offense, if you attack a defense's weakness you should win, on defense if you can shut down the offense's best plays you should win. Ergo you use the best match-ups, you do NOT use the worst possible matchup like 4-4 Big against shotgun trips.

do you mean Roberto my dood?

i feel like your not adequately describing why 4-4 Big is bad against trips. like what makes it bad against trips specifically? all im getting is its 4 LB its bad

Originally posted by dredgar
This is exactly why Xars is saying running 4-4 Big against a 3trips passing formation absolutely should get destroyed by the passing game. In no way should a defense full of LB that does not cover well be able to defend against a passing set like that. They are at a huge disadvantage. It is the same reason in high school, college, and the NFL football is a match-up game. You have to pick your poison and defend with logical defenses. If someone says its a game i am going to stab someone like stabby from futurama. It is a game all about game planning, builds, and MATCHUPS! Matchups mean you have to match the best scheme against what the other team is doing. When i gameplan on offense I am going to find the weakness in defense and attack that, the exact same way I am going to look at an offense and set my defense to attack and stop their best plays. On offense, if you attack a defense's weakness you should win, on defense if you can shut down the offense's best plays you should win. Ergo you use the best match-ups, you do NOT use the worst possible matchup like 4-4 Big against shotgun trips.

OK, but what is your solution? As long as CBs are worse at playing Zone than LBs, people are going to continue to use 4 LB sets every chance they get. CBs have the worst tackling on the field, and also tend to get put in undesirable Zones a lot of times where they can't have impact. Why would I choose to use more of them?

You can't be mad at Zone coaches for doing what they have to do to give themselves the best chance to win. Should we complain about Man coaches who call Dime sets against I formation? No one seems to care when that happens.

Originally posted by ellix


You can't be mad at Zone coaches for doing what they have to do to give themselves the best chance to win. Should we complain about Man coaches who call Dime sets against I formation? No one seems to care when that happens.

Not true, it baffles me how it works on here and Madden when i Run simple run plays. But we also dont know how those dbs are built, maybe they are hybrid players?

Originally posted by dredgar
This is exactly why Xars is saying running 4-4 Big against a 3trips passing formation absolutely should get destroyed by the passing game.

I agree...it should get destroyed. And with the recent changes, that could happen. Let the wide WR run a fly pattern and if the FS takes anybody else, it should be a TD all day long. Or have 2 of the WRs run a fly. Basically send all receivers down field and one should be open. You need a powerful arm QB though...so I see this happening in the future.

Originally posted by ThePh33P

i feel like your not adequately describing why 4-4 Big is bad against trips. like what makes it bad against trips specifically? all im getting is its 4 LB its bad

He is saying in real life, it would get destroyed...which it would. But like I mentioned above, with the new changes to the arc and pass power, I think it will get destroyed in the near future by trips.

Originally posted by ellix
Should we complain about Man coaches who call Dime sets against I formation? No one seems to care when that happens.

Now that has always pissed me off. No way should my run blocking line not crush a dime package from my I formation set.

Here you go. Should have been a TD if WR caught the ball.

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/817124/250014

Originally posted by Cybertron
Here you go. Should have been a TD if WR caught the ball.

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/817124/250014

probably knocked loose