Warrior General Games

Doesn't have to be exactly like this, and the FS and SS roles would switch for Weakside run D. You'd still have Man on the linebackers and corners.

But 4-3 version:
http://i.imgur.com/7C0tsgs.jpg

3-4 version:
http://i.imgur.com/op2jO7W.jpg

I guess it'd be listed as something like "Short 1-2 WR Outside Run Man Defense".

I agree in concept, but the 4-3 one shouldn't happen as is - don't have the LBs zone and the CBs in man, doesn't work with the current way the game is right now.

But the thrust of your idea, definitely.

Originally posted by pottsman
I agree in concept, but the 4-3 one shouldn't happen as is - don't have the LBs zone and the CBs in man, doesn't work with the current way the game is right now.

But the thrust of your idea, definitely.

It's my understanding that if a defender isn't A) blitzing or B) doesn't have a man to cover at the snap, they'll fall back into predetermined zones. So they'd be following the HB or FB if they went out on routes (or it was a running play), but if the HB or FB stayed in to block, the defenders would then do what they normally do.

The playart would look like it was man coverage for everybody but the FS (Cover 1) and the SS (Flat or Under on the Strong side).

I'd love to know if offensive or defensive play suggestions are even being considered, or are our thoughts on them would be a waste of time?

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
It's my understanding that if a defender isn't A) blitzing or B) doesn't have a man to cover at the snap, they'll fall back into predetermined zones. So they'd be following the HB or FB if they went out on routes (or it was a running play), but if the HB or FB stayed in to block, the defenders would then do what they normally do.

The playart would look like it was man coverage for everybody but the FS (Cover 1) and the SS (Flat or Under on the Strong side).

The predetermined zones are just immediate zones. The SS wouldn't ever fall into a predetermined zone like you are suggesting. The art you propose though is something I feel zone defenses should be more like in a way though because the game can't match actual zone defense with all the predetermined gaps and hot spots. Thus you really need at least a couple players in man to mask those huge gaps. Even if you only manned up on a couple of different players to put a mask on the primary guy and zoned up the rest of the guys around another area of the field giving the impression that a guy was open it would be more interesting and appealing than it currently is.

Originally posted by bhall43
The predetermined zones are just immediate zones. The SS wouldn't ever fall into a predetermined zone like you are suggesting. The art you propose though is something I feel zone defenses should be more like in a way though because the game can't match actual zone defense with all the predetermined gaps and hot spots. Thus you really need at least a couple players in man to mask those huge gaps. Even if you only manned up on a couple of different players to put a mask on the primary guy and zoned up the rest of the guys around another area of the field giving the impression that a guy was open it would be more interesting and appealing than it currently is.

Yeah, that's one of the defenses I really want to try out in GLB. Man outside with zone inside. I mean, even in the NFL, a lot of the "Cover 3" you see is basically man coverage by the corners. If the receiver does an in route or a slant, they'll then drop back into their deeper zone. Otherwise they stick with their guy on posts, corners, out routes, basically anytime the receiver goes vertical or away from the middle of the field.