Warrior General Games

I believe that a lot of the Defensive issues in dealing with Specialized Offenses is not having the right players on the field in the right spot. So with that I'd like to propose some new Defensive plays.

I'll keep each of them in their own thread based on the WR set they go up against.

This is the 4WR Spread set discussion.

New D Plays against 4WR Spread

5-2 Man Base with CB1, CB2, CB3 and CB4 with no FS and no SS to match 4WR Spread. No TE on the field and yet I have to have a SS on it?

4-2 Man Base with CB1, CB2, CB3 and CB4 with FS and no SS to match 4WR Spread. Again, there’s no TE on the field so why does my SS have to be? A version with RO & MLB where the RO blitzes and a version of MLB & LO playing coverage. Or have a MLB-LO version that is coverage base (regular Man D) and a version where MLB-LO where the LO blitzes and it's tagged a Blitz.

3-3 Man Base with CB1, CB2, CB3 and CB4 with FS play Zone over the top and no SS. Again, there’s no TE on the field so why does my SS have to be? A base no blitz version; a RO blitz version; a RO and LO blitz version and finally, a RO, MLB, LO blitz version. This way I can rush between 3, 4, 5 or 6 against a 4WR set. And don't categorize them all as Inside Runs. In fact, I'm not sure any of them should be Inside run tagged.

The above give me the option of putting 6-7 in the box, while having elite cover CBs match-up properly against WRs.

Personally, I hate the current plays where my CB4 is blitzing when the most dangerous play in 4WR sets is 4WR Unders and the primary QB read is WR4 and my choice of blitzing is sending in my best cover CB (who isn't built to blitz) and taking him out of covering the most dangerous route/receiver on the field.

These aren't "defensive plays", as much as they are "new formations".

Does that effect whether they can be added?

And ..

Yes formations, but there are also plays listed and I'd have more listed if the formations were available.

Think of this concept:

I want 2 FS and 2 SS: One is Man Based and One is Zone based.

In Dime packages, I want to use a 4-1 setup with the FS and SS playing Zones and dictate that on the Depth Charts.

In Dime 3-2 packages, I want the FS and SS to be in Man coverage.

That way I can also blitz or play cover by switching between 3-2 and 4-1 Dime. In looking through the current plays, I can't get the mix of blitz, cover, man and zone from the current plays so I think more are needed.

This allows us to customize the Defense more than currently. I know in GLB2 you're trying to not replicate some of the GLB1 issues, but I think that it's becoming necessary for the more generically built Defenses to handle Specialized Offenses.

I dont like these formations. They are really specialized and you probably wont see them very often.

Five DL vs 4+ WRs... seems very odd. No safeties are even more weird.

4-2 Dime with no second safety...

There is already a 3-3-5 nickel formation, you just switched the SS for a fourth CB.

I think we need additional plays for the existing formations. But I dont think you need to add one situation formations. Thats what plays are for.

Originally posted by Xars
And ..

Yes formations, but there are also plays listed and I'd have more listed if the formations were available.

Think of this concept:

I want 2 FS and 2 SS: One is Man Based and One is Zone based.

In Dime packages, I want to use a 4-1 setup with the FS and SS playing Zones and dictate that on the Depth Charts.

In Dime 3-2 packages, I want the FS and SS to be in Man coverage.

That way I can also blitz or play cover by switching between 3-2 and 4-1 Dime. In looking through the current plays, I can't get the mix of blitz, cover, man and zone from the current plays so I think more are needed.

This allows us to customize the Defense more than currently. I know in GLB2 you're trying to not replicate some of the GLB1 issues, but I think that it's becoming necessary for the more generically built Defenses to handle Specialized Offenses.


Thats basically backdoor tagging.

A more specific request.

Dime 3-2 Zero Sam Fire blitzes the LO, however it is not categorized as a blitz.

Thus if you want to run a 100% blitz D, you don't have an option to blitz the outside LB. This play does it, but it's not categorized as a blitz.

Can we get a blitz version of this play?

Can we get a blitz version where both the MLB and LO both blitz? It would be a 5 man blitz just like the 4-1 Man Mike Fire, just in a 3-2.

Can we get a MLB, LO and SS Blitz with FS over the top and not have it coded as an Inside Run Blitz? This would allow us to blitz 6 while still having each WR covered by a CB.

I think you might just have to build your safeties to play some single coverage

Originally posted by mrm708
I think you might just have to build your safeties to play some single coverage

I do and like most people they are designed to cover a TE more than WR4, which is where they get pushed to if the CB4 blitzes. The reality is it's better to have a Zone SS and play 2 Man Under so at least the SS will double the WR4 with the CB. If you can't get pressure, you're only real choice is to double the deep route.

To Corndog/Bort:

No NFL DC worth his salt his going to have Man based Cover TE SS type try to cover a Percy Harvin in a wide slot setup. Go ahead and put any HoF SS in his prime in that spot on every single play and let's see how long you keep a job in the NFL. It's a guaranteed mismatch.

In EVERY Man Dime play (all of the 4-1 and all of the 3-2 packages), the SS is on the field for every single play. There's not even a SINGLE option to get him off the field. We can get him (the SS) off the field vs 2WR sets by using plays like ZEB against 2WR sets and still have CBs on each WR. So let's not act like it's ok to take the SS off the field when a TE or even two are on the field, but it's somehow an atrocity that the SS is off the field when there's no TE on it.

What's worse is that there is also no play where the SS blitzes that is tagged as a regular Blitz vs. a Inside Run Blitz. I can't adjust the Defense Tactics to Inside Run Blitz only in 4WR Sets and NOT Inside Run Blitz in every other set.

Thus, a SS blitz out of 4-1 or 3-2 Man Dime packages is absolutely needed that is categorized as a regular blitz. All of the regular blitzes are based on a blitzing CB, usually CB4 - who is precisely the CB you want to cover WR4 since the most dangerous passing play in 4WR sets is 4WR Unders and the first read is WR4. Why would I blitz my best cover CB and force a SS to cover the most dangerous player and route on the field?

I'd prefer no SS on the field and be able to go 4-2 or 3-3 in the box. Out of the current 3-2 Man Dime Options, the only blitz is Edge 1 LB Dogs. There's one choice and it forces my CB4 to blitz instead of cover.

There are 4 other blitzes and they are all Inside Run blitz. Why are there 4 Inside Run Blitzes and only 1 Regular Blitz in 3-2 Man Dime? Doesn't that seem imbalanced?

If HOF ROLB Lawrence Taylor was on your team, what play could you call to use him? None, because RO isn't on the field for even ONE play in 4-1 or 3-2 Man Dime. So you'd have play him at LO and how many play options do you have to blitz him? One. That's it. Edge 1 LB Dogs. And it forces you to not cover the most dangerous WR. And the LO blitz is a dotted line so he's not even guaranteed to blitz, while the CB4 does. UGH!

Finally Zero Sam Blitz, which is at least a better setup for a LB Blitz though it only rushes four, isn't categorized as a blitz either.

You say it's beta and things can change. Please, please, please add a new formation and/or some new Defensive plays.

You basically say, we need more plays... I dont like a dime formation with only one safety. If you want to play 5 CBs, use the quarter formation (and yes as the only 5 CB formation we need some more plays). Just getting some weird formations to get 5 CBs on the field is not a good option IMO. We need more plays. Additionally I would like to see the option to declare certain plays (5 blitzers) as blitzes or not.