Warrior General Games

Let's also disregard the fact that half of those links aren't even Double Lurk.

I'm thinking what you meant to say is "My SS sucks at covering the BTE", because that's the only thing I'm seeing break down in the actual Double Lurk links.

Originally posted by Corndog
I'm thinking what you meant to say is "My SS sucks at covering the BTE", because that's the only thing I'm seeing break down in the actual Double Lurk links.

wasnt paying attention to a few my bad but the double lurk plays dont work properly, it leaves the tes wide open which i can tell you no coach ever in football would have cbs covering the hb and fb over the tes. check the build yourself http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/108851 ss has pretty good coverage skills.

also cdog natural progression of coverage would have the ss on the hb not the blocking te. bte would be picked up by cb 3. that is if were are talking about american football coverage progressions. so unless glb2 is using rules from some different kind of game the coverage is busted

Nickel C1 TE Smother
Medium 2WR Pass Man Defense

Nickel C1 Double Lurk
Medium 2-4WR Pass Man Defense

Originally posted by Rob.
Nickel C1 TE Smother
Medium 2WR Pass Man Defense

Nickel C1 Double Lurk
Medium 2-4WR Pass Man Defense

2 Man Press
Medium 3-5WR Pass/Run Man Defense tons of people run it vs 2 te doesnt have the issue lurk does http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/218127/187153 hey look it follows normal coverage progression.

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
2 Man Press
Medium 3-5WR Pass/Run Man Defense tons of people run it vs 2 te doesnt have the issue lurk does http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/218127/187153 hey look it follows normal coverage progression.

You mean the SS in a zone doesn't cover the BTE?

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
2 Man Press
Medium 3-5WR Pass/Run Man Defense tons of people run it vs 2 te doesnt have the issue lurk does http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/218127/187153 hey look it follows normal coverage progression.

If you are going to insert plays that aren't designed to defend certain formations it's a good idea to test them or find examples of them being used prior to putting them in for a real game.

Originally posted by Corndog
You mean the SS in a zone doesn't cover the BTE?



http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/200216/2017864 ss not in zone still doesnt go for the bte.

I tried running C1 Double Lurk vs 2TE before... did not go well as you noted. I didn't have to whine and bitch about it because I didn't foolishly try it in a big game without testing it.

Originally posted by Rob.
If you are going to insert plays that aren't designed to defend certain formations it's a good idea to test them or find examples of them being used prior to putting them in for a real game.

when you develop a game you should make sure plays work properly vs other formations. hell go play a game of madden. you can run dime plays vs goal line and it will still get coverage right. its a very easy system. Cb1>2>3>3>4>5>FS>SS>lbs and the coverage progression goes wr1>wr2>wr3>wr4>wr5>te>bte>hb>fb. granted this isnt always absolute there are special cases where hb will get priority over the te if hes a big enough threat. but most of the time coverage schemes will follow this logic.

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/200216/2017864 ss not in zone still doesnt go for the bte.

Yeah, the FS who wasn't in a zone covered him instead.

Are we really going to keep doing this? The Double Lurk plays aren't really designed for Big I. I'm sorry that you feel you lost a game because of it, but it says in the description that they aren't intended for that formation.

Originally posted by FairForever
I tried running C1 Double Lurk vs 2TE before... did not go well as you noted. I didn't have to whine and bitch about it because I didn't foolishly try it in a big game without testing it.

im sorry i want to bring attention to a broken play to help other people and bring attention to broken coverage logic. I came here to play a football sim so if something defies standard football logic im going to point it out. seriously look how much better and realistic pitches look now that a few people "bitched and whined" about it to get attention called to bad play design

The double lurks should be the most reasonable 2 te defenses in the game.

Originally posted by Corndog
Yeah, the FS who wasn't in a zone covered him instead.

Are we really going to keep doing this? The Double Lurk plays aren't really designed for Big I. I'm sorry that you feel you lost a game because of it, but it says in the description that they aren't intended for that formation.

by your logic coaches shouldnt be running nickel vs 2 wide sets which happens a lot at the highschool, college, and NFL levels. defensive packages arent restricted to any formation they merely indicate the personnel. its really not like its rocket science either the coverage progression is a no brainer no matter what formation I chose to run it against. It happens all the time in the NFL. this is nothing more than broken coverage progression logic there is really no dancing around that.