Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been working on fixing. An outside coverage player should head outside or stay where he is, not head inside to meet up with the guy, which takes him out of the play and usually gets him blocked.

However, if a player is set to blitz to start the play, we do still want him to blitz, since otherwise there's no liability to blitzing. Contain logic should apply to outside coverage guys and safeties and such mostly.

Of course, it's still all contingent on making the proper read rolls.

Would be best for plays like that to take out the man assignment all together IMO. The play design already makes it useless against any formations pass plays so that cb should just blitz regardless.

Originally posted by bhall43
Especially getting the safeties involved in under zones with man coverage over the top as that would give them some Zone abilities to make use of.

I don't think I've ever seen a football team run a play like that...how do you have man coverage "over the top?" Over the top generally refers to safeties or corners in a coverage shell.

It sounds like something that only makes sense in the realm of trying to exploit video game mechanics, not football sense, which is not something we're interested in focusing on.

Unless you can refer me to some youtube videos or an actual real-life playbook or something to illustrate examples?

Then I really don't see any feasible solution defensively to eliminate how great the weak arm qb is through defensive plays. It would either have to be through coverage style per player or some more penalty to 15-20 yard passes by sub 40 power quarterbacks. Which of course seems less optimal.

While on the discussion of fixing things, this seems like something easy.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/161205/1985436

SB big rollout weak the qb runs directly sideways down the Los while SB big rollout right he makes sort of a loop like the other rollouts in the playbook.

why does it say we're in the off-season, yet I still can't sign anyone as it says I'm still "in the playoffs"

Bort or Corndog - Any changes to Zone defenses coming up?

Originally posted by bhall43
While on the discussion of fixing things, this seems like something easy.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/161205/1985436

SB big rollout weak the qb runs directly sideways down the Los while SB big rollout right he makes sort of a loop like the other rollouts in the playbook.

Yeah, that looks broke. I'll check it out

I say bring back GL hb toss and QB rollout since the LBs will contain now.

Originally posted by bhall43
In line with the contain stuff, is it possible to look into ball carriers cutting inside? Because that seems like it will be a big issue if there is better containment (which I already think is decently easy as it is) and a ball carrier still making a b line for the sidelines no matter the containment in front of him.

This

Originally posted by Bort
I don't think I've ever seen a football team run a play like that...how do you have man coverage "over the top?" Over the top generally refers to safeties or corners in a coverage shell.

It sounds like something that only makes sense in the realm of trying to exploit video game mechanics, not football sense, which is not something we're interested in focusing on.

Unless you can refer me to some youtube videos or an actual real-life playbook or something to illustrate examples?

I don't think it's done on both sides of the field, but the're are teams that will run a double robber with Cover 1 over the top, and the CBs in M2M.

shameless plug: It'd be alot easier to do if we had a legit 4-2-5 defense formation with 3 safeties as an option too. The 3 safety look is getting really popular at the college level now.

Example play design:

4 down linemen rushing passer.

2 LBs in M2M. TE and HB.
2 CBs in M2M. WR1 and WR2.
FS in cover 1 shell.
WS and SS in under half robber zones on either side of the field.

That'd be a "double inverted" look that's pretty effective and run by TCU's defense in college. The FB is left unaccounted for. When there's an extra reciever, the LBs will take them M2M supported by the robber zones and Cover 1 over the top. Lots of variations on this are possible too. You can go to a Cover 2 shell with the FS and WS/SS. The CB on the side where the safety too the extra deep shell spot stays in M2M. Then on the opposite side of the WS or SS in cover 2 shell, you can have the Safety and CB play under 4ths, so you get a zone triangle on that side. That'd be a real Man/Zone look. You can also use the LBs in drop zones instead of M2M without compromising the field coverage in significant ways. Or you can blitz a robber/LB/CB too and still maintain some integrity in the coverages.

You don't have to have the 4-2-5 to do this. You can have a LB provide a robber zone obviously. It's just not as fun with a LB backing up as it is with a safety coming downhill into a zone.

galithor channelling his inner xars here...



new formations would be awesome -- but I think they are a long way out (close to never).


I'd say new plays with current formations -- including using some of the new mechanics (presnap movement / way points / etc) would be the simplest...and thus the most likely to occur sometime in the next 3 seasons

Originally posted by TxSteve
galithor channelling his inner xars here...



new formations would be awesome -- but I think they are a long way out (close to never).


I'd say new plays with current formations -- including using some of the new mechanics (presnap movement / way points / etc) would be the simplest...and thus the most likely to occur sometime in the next 3 seasons

Hey, we got diamond on offense relatively recently The 4-2-5 defense with 3 safeties is easily the one formation on defense we're really lacking. It's a hybrid 2WR/3WR base formation. You can go with a 3-3-5 look too that's the same way for 3WR/4WR hybrid formation.

As for Cover 1/ 2 Robbers, it's not unprecedented for us to have a 3 zone, 4 M2M look in the secondary. Nickel 2 Man Under Robber already does that. I'm just proposing the reverse of that look where it's Cover 1/ 2 Robbers instead of Cover 2/ 1 Robber. It's a defense that does get run in real life. Those looks can be run from any formation really, they're just more fun from a 4-2-5.

Originally posted by Bort
Yeah, that looks broke. I'll check it out

thanks sir