Warrior General Games

Originally posted by BoDiddley

Everyone knows Zone is better against the run in general.



Not if you toss to the weak side in a trips formation. Theoretically, that should kill a zone.

Originally posted by Xars

I postulated that the INT% on Short Passes being higher than Long Passes feels wrong.

In my view, if the Short Pass target isn't open, the QB should move his read to someone who is OR take a Sack. But he wouldn't be throwing more INTs (%-wise) than if he was launching bombs downfield.

And yet, that's what was happening.



Zone's only good SA EotP doesn't help with those long throws and how many QBs have actually invested any significant amount of Pass Awr? I know I don't, 25 tops, because I have specific targets on pass plays I want to throw too. I would surmise that if EotP fired anywhere on the field the Int rates would be more consistent regardless of distance.

Originally posted by Xars

The problem is that you speak imprecisely using words that can have a range of meanings rather than speaking in specific math terms in a debate against people speaking in specific terms.



I told you no one wants to read an essay, and I especially don't so that's on me.

Originally posted by Xars

But because you think you're a mind reader, you assume I'm trying to nerf Zone.


Sure, I will own that I was aggressive but its not like you haven't been the most gracious in our debates.

You are trying to nerf Zone even if you have good intentions overall, so I'm sticking to my point. EotP being geared toward underneath coverage has everything to do with why Zone gets those Ints short vs long. I don't think making zone weaker against short passing/buffing vs long is the way, even if you compensate with more sacks... the most simple solution is to prob change EotP to just function in zone coverage with help period. Then zone cbs would actually start being worth their expensive cost and teams may stop using extra FS to save cap space. The only deep ball SA zone has that's effective is MH on our FS/S builds.

"the most simple solution is to prob change EotP to just function in zone coverage with help period."

Already functions that way FWIW
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/814865/1647789

Originally posted by Cybertron
Not if you toss to the weak side in a trips formation. Theoretically, that should kill a zone.

There are Zone plays that can counter HB trips weak. Same way there are Man plays that can counter HB trips strong even though that typically hurts Man defenses.

Overall zone is a bit stronger against the run, you know that well.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
There are Zone plays that can counter HB trips weak. Same way there are Man plays that can counter HB trips strong even though that typically hurts Man defenses.

Overall zone is a bit stronger against the run, you know that well.

Zone is good vs outside runs and middle of the field passes.
Man is good vs Interior runs and outside throws & deep routes.

Originally posted by Adderfist
"the most simple solution is to prob change EotP to just function in zone coverage with help period."

Already functions that way FWIW
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/814865/1647789

I believe that's because of his starting position he is underneath the Safety. As much as I've argued for that change, I've suspected this was the case as the season went on and my argument might be moot. I've ran a lot of Cover 3 this season and I've not seen it fire enough to know for certain though.

Maybe CDog can confirm this for us?

Originally posted by BoDiddley


How is Southside "pretty close"? That's three times less than the other top defenses


I was going off Ph33p's data.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

Zone defense don't have to match up man for man. They can apply more pressure to the QB on blitzes.


The blitzing mechanics in this game are exactly the same for Man or Zone. I still have to pick blitzes that give my LB the best path to the QB and the DL still just goes straight to the QB the same exact way as when I ran Man. It makes no difference.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

Everyone knows Zone is better against the run in general


Actually I believe Zone is better only against Outside rushing, but that could because a lot of us DCs call 4-4 DE Flats... I don't see many people using the Man version so I dunno if that could change how we view things.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

I've ran zone. In fact I'm the one who told you that Cover Expert fires with zone players when you didn't know.


Ah, I forgot about that, my bad. I also recall you were hesitant to tell me because you had to play Lexington, but I appreciate that nonetheless.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

Both Church and BSB have the same passing comp% as the Rebels, and three times the Ints. Tell me again why Zone players need a Swat Down like SA on top of that. They already have the best SA in the game with EotP. They also get to use Cover Expert. Zone defenses aren't supposed to deflect passes like Man defense where DBs are sticking to receivers.


I agree with you, Zone is supposed to get Ints while Man deflects passes.

BSB is a Hybrid defense, you'd need to break down their performance by play calling like Ph33P did.

SS:
Short Pass 40% comp
Md Pass 43% comp
Long Pass 37% comp
Total Fumbles: 39


CoHZ
Short Pass 45% comp
Md Pass 44% comp
Long Pass 41% comp

They only look to be about the same on medium passes which is where they get the majority of their Ints. I'll also say that Church is built to defend passing and correct me if I'm wrong isn't nearly as strong vs rushing.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I believe that's because of his starting position he is underneath the Safety. As much as I've argued for that change, I've suspected this was the case as the season went on and my argument might be moot. I've ran a lot of Cover 3 this season and I've not seen it fire enough to know for certain though.

That could be the case. Huge shoutout to pheep for the testing though.

I'd like to see swatdown be a universal SA for CB's, FS/SS, and LB's. Zone Shark just make it available for all players in zone - It makes way more sense than taking monster hit thematically .

Originally posted by Adderfist
That could be the case. Huge shoutout to pheep for the testing though.

I'd like to see swatdown be a universal SA for CB's, FS/SS, and LB's. Zone Shark just make it available for all players in zone - It makes way more sense than taking monster hit thematically .

Originally posted by Bort
- Zone Shark and Eyes on the Prize SAs now just require help over the top while in any type of zone, as opposed to requiring underneath zone coverage only

I just didn't see it fire for whatever reason, so maybe its bugged or I didn't notice. I know on Cover 3 I didn't see it fire and I've had to run lots of Cover 3. If its the distance that the CB is in relation to the FS/S, then its only gonna fire if he's not hit his zone area yet while he's dropping back. Then I'd like to see the help part be removed.

I agree on the SAs with you.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I know on Cover 3 I didn't see it fire and I've had to run lots of Cover 3.


The stuff I've seen is cover 3/4 and some of the sky stuff. Not sure the method it was tested or that i'm 100% correct.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Sure, I will own that I was aggressive but its not like you haven't been the most gracious in our debates.

You are trying to nerf Zone even if you have good intentions overall, so I'm sticking to my point. EotP being geared toward underneath coverage has everything to do with why Zone gets those Ints short vs long. I don't think making zone weaker against short passing/buffing vs long is the way, even if you compensate with more sacks... the most simple solution is to prob change EotP to just function in zone coverage with help period. Then zone cbs would actually start being worth their expensive cost and teams may stop using extra FS to save cap space. The only deep ball SA zone has that's effective is MH on our FS/S builds.

Cover Expert is the best SA defensively; it’s great on any position, any scheme.

It frees up a good amount of points which makes it great for multi coverage defense opportunities. As more defensive plays and sets are added, you’ll change your mind

Data doesn’t account for weather or difference between opponents.
- Pass has already been better against the zone fwiw, QBs are important again

It’s either home run bombs or a pick, as it should be. Objectively, if your QB is not great at being a QB or your receivers aren’t the most consistent at receiving, zone is going to kill you. Especially if the other side is lining up better playmakers.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

I've ran zone. In fact I'm the one who told you that Cover Expert fires with zone players when you didn't know. Both Church and BSB have the same passing comp% as the Rebels, and three times the INT



That's what the hell I want to know too!

In the test xars ran bsb had 5.7% rate in man coverage and a 6.3% in zone but gave up 8.3% more completions for more yards.

Isn't the fact that a team can run a hybrid defense good enough for both man and zone defenses? Nerfing one, just limits the ability to expand the defensive PB immensely.

Personally, I really enjoyed making a hybrid defensive playbook and having success with it. Admittedly, I did not gameplan for any games at all, but I did share the offensive and defensive PBs publicly on glb2scout in the "Strategy Library".

Additionally, our only loss of the season came against The Seven, who used the very same PBs against BSB. They used them again in our 2nd game and BSB eeked out a close win.

Just like how teams stopped using pure passing or pure running offenses, people should probably move forward and use hybrid defenses IMO. Play diversity is good!