Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Parab00n

My opinions on it was that Zone Defenders should play area's of the field instead of putting to much emphasis to players entering or leaving Zones. I didn't think that they should be leaving area's to chase 1 Receiver around in essentially Man Coverage. I would prefer to see that defenders are for the most part locked in on the QB trying to judge Receiver positions with peripheral vision and reacting to the pass being thrown as quickly as possible.


This is my thinking as well. Zone defenders should defend the zone not the player. They are reading the QBs eyes not playing the WR. It isn't a match up zone. They should be aware of the WR and use peripheral vision but not follow them around.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Cover 6 is a good option to use if you expect Trips.

That was just an example. I think if zones could move, it would help zone. Maybe even make zone awareness the skill have more to do with zone movement, and make defender movement within the zone more to do with coverage tech.

Going back to a trips example, perhaps if you had 3 zone defenders in short thirds of the field, the guy on the trips side would move a bit closer to the sideline, the guy in the middle short third would shade over to the slot area, and the guy on the open side would basically now be playing in a short half zone covering that entire side of the field in case of a QB rollout, or a HB coming out into the flat, or to be in position for the drag, or whatever.

Originally posted by dredgar
okay only part of this is that te drive is a zone beating play. i dont care what defense you play. i am a DC in real life. te drive would be cover 2 with the wr post or cover 3 with the te up the midle

Cover 2 and Cover 3 are both very weak vs 4 Vertical Routes which is what essentially this version of TE Drive is.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Not picking on GE, but I'll post what I thought was a great example of a terrible defensive play call vs this certain offensive play.

4-3 - Under Cover 3 - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/defense_plays/419.jpg


I don't use that play anymore because of that exact example.

Originally posted by Corndog
Because, as previously stated, zone allows more flexible assignments.

The only players in man coverage that you can sacrifice to blitz are the deep defenders. Man coverage is man coverage. Man coverage without deep defenders is a short yardage defense.

Cdog -

Thank you for posting this. From a football play perspective, I won't disagree.

From a GLB2 DC perspective this is unfortunately the problem with getting the Tactics Matrix to line up with the Defensive Playbook. Rob and I got into this with DD in another thread.

In GLB2, the DC calls plays based on *situation*, not effect. Specifically, down and distance.

Now I could point out that Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Blitz against 3WR has both the LO and SS to cover the TE (or one peels off to take the HB), CB1-CB2-CB3 on their respective WRs and a FS playing zone over the top - a deep defender - and yet it's a Short Blitz.

But that doesn't matter.

In GLB2:

DCs don't call plays based on the effect you think the play, once it's run (on the field) generates. DCs call plays based on the Down & Distance Situation. I can not stress this enough.

We can't mix Nickel 3-3-5 MLB Cloud - a Long play - with Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Blitz (Pass Short Blitz) on 3rd and 17 appropriately in 3WR sets and not screw up the settings for the 2TE, 2WR, 4WR and 5WR sets.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Your logic isn't wrong about the play once it's run (on the field), but it is wrong about getting the play called (the DC perspective).

Originally posted by Xars
Cdog -

Thank you for posting this. From a football play perspective, I won't disagree.

From a GLB2 DC perspective this is unfortunately the problem with getting the Tactics Matrix to line up with the Defensive Playbook. Rob and I got into this with DD in another thread.

In GLB2, the DC calls plays based on *situation*, not effect. Specifically, down and distance.

Now I could point out that Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Blitz against 3WR has both the LO and SS to cover the TE (or one peels off to take the HB), CB1-CB2-CB3 on their respective WRs and a FS playing zone over the top - a deep defender - and yet it's a Short Blitz.

But that doesn't matter.

In GLB2:

DCs don't call plays based on the effect you think the play, once it's run (on the field) generates. DCs call plays based on the Down & Distance Situation. I can not stress this enough.

We can't mix Nickel 3-3-5 MLB Cloud - a Long play - with Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Blitz (Pass Short Blitz) on 3rd and 17 appropriately in 3WR sets and not screw up the settings for the 2TE, 2WR, 4WR and 5WR sets.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Your logic isn't wrong about the play once it's run (on the field), but it is wrong about getting the play called (the DC perspective).

this is the exact issue to the point. there are times just for one formation i want two plays call equally but to do that i mess with al lof the tactics for all formations and you are screwed then.

Honestly I don't think tagging some other plays fixes the problem. There will always be subsets of plays where an issue exists. Robs solution of self tagging plays makes more sense in my opinion because then a DC has full flexibility.

Originally posted by FairForever
Honestly I don't think tagging some other plays fixes the problem. There will always be subsets of plays where an issue exists. Robs solution of self tagging plays makes more sense in my opinion because then a DC has full flexibility.

that is what i was wanting too. but it needs to be formation oriented. still would be hard to call two different plays in every formation at the exact time.

Originally posted by FairForever
Honestly I don't think tagging some other plays fixes the problem. There will always be subsets of plays where an issue exists. Robs solution of self tagging plays makes more sense in my opinion because then a DC has full flexibility.

Same plays. More tags available.

Either "choose" the distance via drop-down whatever OR copy the Pass Short Blitzes and make a Medium and Long versions of the same play.

The first is more elegant; the second is easier to do (I think).

Originally posted by Xars
Same plays. More tags available.

Either "choose" the distance via drop-down whatever OR copy the Pass Short Blitzes and make a Medium and Long versions of the same play.

The first is more elegant; the second is easier to do (I think).


I think the second is easier to do from Corndog's perspective - but might lead to confusion for new DC's (why are there repeats of the same plays) as well as higher likelihood of error (selecting the Short version of Over Will instead of the Medium version).

You could just take away the labels altogether and allow people to add any defensive play to any playbook. Just sort stuff by formation.

Hell, I could add a bunch of man plays to my zone book, and set my tactics so I basically have two different man books to run.