Split man/zone coverages

[QuikSand]

So, I'm trying to noodle through some of the points of gameplanning, and this seems intriguing. If I have a mixed bag of skills in my secondary, maybe I could pair up my CBs and safeties into two sides, and split the coverage that way.

So, I guess I'd want to do this so that my zone-coverage specialist CB is always sassigned to, say, the strong side... and the man coverage CB to the weak side.

But I don't see an easy way to do this. I see where I can assign my CBs can be assigned based on the "side" left/right, and I see where I can assign based on the "top" and "second" receiver... but nothing to pin a certain CB to the strong side or weak side.


Has anyone used this coverage scheme with success, and am I missing somethign in the player roles that would help make it work around a particular team's skills?

[albionmoonlight]

Is the strong side always the right side in FOF?

Can you even line up with a TE on the left?

If the strong side is always the right side, then the solution to your problem becomes much easier.

[Drake]

You're trying to nodle?

[QuikSand]

You're trying to nodle?

Sorry, typo.

http://www.esidle.com/travel/yodel.gif

[Drake]

I liked the mental image of you nodling. I bet you'd be a good nodler.

[QuikSand]

So, nothing serious here, I guess...

If the strong side is always the right side, then the solution to your problem becomes much easier.

Looking at the game logs indicates that S/W does not correlate to L/R - I guess the pics are just situated the same way for ease of interpretation.

[Front Office Midget]

This was another question I was getting at in my thread on this page about LCB/RCB.

[nilodor]

I think if you say to orient by top corner on top wideout you will get your top corner against the other teams flanker (it seemed this way from a couple of game logs I checked where the flanker was rated lower than the split end), then you could use the strong-side man/ws zone option in the pass coverage portion under in the gameplanning menu.

Edit: The flanker should be on the strong side of the formation, outside of the tight end, except in unbalanced formations where two receivers are on the same side in a two wide set.

[TimL]

So, nothing serious here, I guess...

Looking at the game logs indicates that S/W does not correlate to L/R - I guess the pics are just situated the same way for ease of interpretation.

Strong side SHOULD be where the Tight End is, but in the case of the secondary, I can see that it might be the side with more receivers.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think if you say to orient by top corner on top wideout you will get your top corner against the other teams flanker (it seemed this way from a couple of game logs I checked where the flanker was rated lower than the split end)

This is probably incorrect. I suggest you compare the targeted passes for the FL and SE to reach the correct conclusion.

[Narcizo]

Hopefully the mess that is strong/weak, left/right, best/2nd best coverages will be all converted into something that is easily understandable and universal at some stage in the future.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree.

[QuikSand]

Dammit.

[DougWyatt]

Editable playbooks ?

[RedKingGold]

Chair?

[Warhammer]

This is probably incorrect. I suggest you compare the targeted passes for the FL and SE to reach the correct conclusion.

From my observations, the 1st and 2nd WR coverage works well. However, you need to compare it based upon the WRs on the field at the time, so you might not get the match up you want.

That said, I have had some success with going with 1st and 2nd DB coverage, and then rolling the double coverage to which ever side needs it. But, once you roll the coverage over, your other DB is going to be seeing a whole bunch of balls his way.

[QuikSand]

So... while we're in a patching mood anyway, I thought this might be worth reviving.

In the game's help files, there is a little bit to go on here -- not regarding cornerbacks, but generally regarding the use of these coverage schemes. Here's what I have there...

Strong-Side Man Cover - This is a combination zone/man-to-man defense with the safeties in two deep zones. On the strong side of the field, defenders are in a man-to-man coverage scheme. On the weak side, the cornerback plays in a short zone along with linebackers, if necessary. This coverage gives you a little variety and is slightly worse against teams with a good receiving tight end.

Weak-Side Man Cover - This is a combination zone/man-to-man defense with the safeties in two deep zones. On the weak side of the field, defenders are in a man-to-man coverage scheme. On the strong side, the cornerback plays in a short zone along with linebackers, if necessary. This coverage gives you a little variety and is slightly better against teams with a good receiving tight end.

I confess that I find it a bit interesting here that there's at leats the suggestion that using zone coverage on the side of a dangerous receiving TE to be "better." But I digress... past that, I don't find too much to see here.

[QuikSand]

I am intrigued, superficially, by trying to use the knowledge that the flanker will, in most formations, be on the strong side of a balanced offense. So, I suppose, if you had CBs with offsetting skills (zone corner and man corner) wou could arrange them as follows:

-Identify the better receiver on the team you play next (here, let's say it's the flanker)

-Slot your CBs to correspond to "top receiver" rather than "side of field"

-Put your man corner in the slot to cover the "top receiver"

-Use the stoing-side man, weak side zone split coverage


As long as the offense is in a standard 2WR, 1TE formation, this ought to assign your players more or less like you wish. However, you will lose control when things go to a non-standard formation -- 3 WR, 2 TE, whatever, as the notion of strong side becomes less obvious.

And, any time your opponent starts seeing substitutions (which can happen at any time, not just later in the game when players tire) and slots in the reserve flanker (who might no longer be the top receiver on the field) you will end up having your players slotted in the opposite setup to what you intend, with your man corner playing zone, and your zone corner playing man.

How often woudl this happen? Let's say your opponent's WRs rank as follows in the "top receiver" order (however that works): FL1, SE1, FL2, SE2. And Let's say that the team has each starter's playing time set to 70%, and the substitution works as indicated (I have no idea if that's true). SO, the chance of seeing different combinations of two receivers in a balanced setup are:

FL1 and SE1 = 49% (defense is setup correctly)
FL1 and SE2 = 21% (defense is set up correctly)
FL2 and SE1 = 21% (defense is set up incorrectly)
FL2 and SE2 = 9% (defense is set up correctly...but if SE2 is better than FL2, this will also be an incorrect setup)

Dependiong on whether the reserves correspond to the starters in skill (whether FL2?SE2) this will turn out to be either about 21% or 30% of the time that your CBs will be used in the exactly wrong way, being called upon to rely on the skills that they don't have.

To me, that just seems way too often, even if I take advantage of every bit of inforrmation available to me. There's no way that an actual coordinator or coach would deliberately do that, send out his guys to do what they do the worst as often as 2-3 plays out of 10. To me, this possibility just kills the effective use of that coverage scheme, for any use other than to "mix things up" as an appeasement to the game's love of balance.

[Dutch]

I'll confess that I put 0's in both of those choices of defense. I have no idea what the benefit, but like you are pointing out now, I can come up with a reason or two why it wouldn't be a good idea to use it.

I wouldn't be opposed to added some % of use to those for a matter of balance, but that's FOF talking, not football common sense or understanding talking.

[QuikSand]

I would add, however, that I *love* the concept of using split coverage schemes... but with the current methods of control at work, I just don't see how it makes much sense.

I suppose if you have CBs who are essentially evenly skilled at man and zone coverages, then you could arrange this sort of coverage based on your OLB skills... if your SLB and WLB have different coverage skills, maybe this would be a way to make better use of them. But, since the entire concept of linebacker and safety coverage skills is itself a gigantic unsolved mystery, I really don't see how that works well, either. (I don't even know whether a linebacker *ever* uses his man or bump coverage skills... and I don't think anyone outside Ann Arbor really knows this, either)

[Dutch]

To be honest, I wasn't even aware that pro teams got that complex with their zone and man coverages until FOF2k7 pointed it out to me.

This is another one of those cases where I would love to see a semi-dynamic X's and O's formation "picture" so I know who's doing what. If I could see a screen/window with one side being an offensive set and one side being a defensive set, where I could pull up a 3WR set and then a 46 Cover-1 and know who's got what going on...that would be helpful. Let me modify it further and put in my nickel package and blitz a couple guys and see what's going on vs that 3WR set. That would answer a ton of my questions, plus I'm a visual person. But I digress.

IRT split coverage, there are some interesting reasons to use them if I (like you) felt comfortable using them exclusively or at least enough to make it worth my while. But they seem to be such rare situations, I wonder if it's worth the trouble.

If you are using strictly a Strong-Side M2M coverage scheme, you won't ever double the SE1 position. And vice-versa for the Weak-Side M2M coverage scheme (this is according to the play call screens). So hypotheically, if you want to ignore doubling a SE1 because he sucks, but they have a pretty good FL and TE, you could run a SS-M2M scheme that will focus it's energy on the FL and TE.

Alternately, if a player had a great SE, but lacked at FL and TE, a WS-M2M could help shut that side down.

Obviously, a straight M2M or Zone would be better if your secondary is more strongly suited for that play (I would presume). And you could just as easily ignore that bad SE1 in the defensive formations screens.

Another question that comes up, if you have a secondary that is just fine at both M2M and Zone, is the split coverage worth your time to research week to week? Maybe if you want to work on the TE with the nugget "WS M2M split is a little better against the TE". (But the little blip about the strong-side not being as good against the TE without showing any added benefit bothers me.)

That's all I got for split-zone/man coverage.

[MalcPow]

I would add, however, that I *love* the concept of using split coverage schemes... but with the current methods of control at work, I just don't see how it makes much sense.

I suppose if you have CBs who are essentially evenly skilled at man and zone coverages, then you could arrange this sort of coverage based on your OLB skills... if your SLB and WLB have different coverage skills, maybe this would be a way to make better use of them. But, since the entire concept of linebacker and safety coverage skills is itself a gigantic unsolved mystery, I really don't see how that works well, either. (I don't even know whether a linebacker *ever* uses his man or bump coverage skills... and I don't think anyone outside Ann Arbor really knows this, either)

Love the concept as well, but yeah, coverage in general is a little less than clear. If you go by the descriptions it seems you can draw the following conclusions:

1. Your FS is constantly in zone coverage no matter the scheme.
2. In 1-Deep Loose and 2-Deep Loose your corners are in Man on a WR (but there's no indication of whether your SS or your SLB are in Man on the TE, or who of the LBs and SS are in Man coverage against any TEs, the RB, the FB, or a third or fourth WR)
3. In 1-Deep Bump and 2-Deep Bump it's basically the same situation as #2 but with Bump coverage (I think people get confused by the Cover-2 mention in the description of 2-Deep Bump as Jim seems to be describing a man-under, or bump-under to be FOF consistesnt, coverage here and not a true zone as most people associate with the Cover-2. Still no indication of who is picking up who, although I could fire from the hip and say the SLB is on the TE in bump and the SS is on the TE in Man)
4. In Strong-Side Man Cover your SLB is in Man on the TE (as both safeties are in deep zones, but even this is just a strong assumption)
5. In Weak-Side Man Cover your SLB is in Zone (could again be classified as just a strong assumption)

There are probably a few other things you can be sure of, but it seems like a lot of the others might vary (because which side is which CB on?) or you don't really know who the player will match up with. And then of course there is the wild card of "double coverage" that makes things really confusing. Is my FS that's coming over to double cover the top WR still in Zone coverage long or is he now in the same coverage as the respective CB? If my FS is in double coverage is someone else in his deep zone now?

Like others I enjoy not knowing everything about everything, but the lack of clarity on these fronts is actually denying us strategic decisions. Hopefully Jim clarifies, I mean it would make sense for us to understand what's happening with the coverages, or when we double cover or blitz as well.

[QuikSand]

1. Your FS is constantly in zone coverage no matter the scheme.
2. In 1-Deep Loose and 2-Deep Loose your corners are in Man on a WR (but there's no indication of whether your SS or your SLB are in Man on the TE, or who of the LBs and SS are in Man coverage against any TEs, the RB, the FB, or a third or fourth WR)
3. In 1-Deep Bump and 2-Deep Bump it's basically the same situation as #2 but with Bump coverage (I think people get confused by the Cover-2 mention in the description of 2-Deep Bump as Jim seems to be describing a man-under, or bump-under to be FOF consistesnt, coverage here and not a true zone as most people associate with the Cover-2. Still no indication of who is picking up who, although I could fire from the hip and say the SLB is on the TE in bump and the SS is on the TE in Man)
4. In Strong-Side Man Cover your SLB is in Man on the TE (as both safeties are in deep zones, but even this is just a strong assumption)
5. In Weak-Side Man Cover your SLB is in Zone (could again be classified as just a strong assumption)

Well, if we go with these conclusions... then are you basically conceding that for a safety playing FS, his visible ratings for "man to man defense" and "bump and run defense" are just pointless? That seems to be the obvious conclusion. And then, your SS and OLBs would occasionally be called into ma coverage on a TE (or other receiver I guess) but by and large play zone, rendering their other coverage ratings pretty close to pointless. That has pretty profound implications for what style of player is worth a damn in this game.

In FOF 2004, there was an option for a "bump and run" secondary. In reality, I think we mostly understood that didn't mean that your sdafeties were pulled up to the line to actually bump someone -- but it was also pretty clear (I think) that safeties with that coverage skill did well in that scheme. So, I always thought a safety employed his "bump and run defenbse' rating as a sort of all-around thing meaning "ability to play his position in a bump and run scheme, even if that means he's techincally playing zone behind bumping corners." Seems that interpretation is still at least conceivable for this game, too.


I've pleaded for clarification on this point in the "suggestions" thread, as our complete lack of knowledge here is a major liability in trying to stock player suitable for a certain defensive style. If I have a free safety who's great in bump and run coverage, but not that good in zone... is he worth anything at all? You tell me.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I would add to this, perhaps another suggestion would be to ditch "cover the top WR" and include the WR's name as selected in a drop down box. Same with the double cover selection. The drop down box would simply include all WR names from the opposition team. Perhaps you could even list them in order of importance (say a list of 3) so when the top guy is substituted (or injured or made inactive), you can still get the right matchups.

[MalcPow]

Well, if we go with these conclusions... then are you basically conceding that for a safety playing FS, his visible ratings for "man to man defense" and "bump and run defense" are just pointless? That seems to be the obvious conclusion. And then, your SS and OLBs would occasionally be called into ma coverage on a TE (or other receiver I guess) but by and large play zone, rendering their other coverage ratings pretty close to pointless. That has pretty profound implications for what style of player is worth a damn in this game.

In FOF 2004, there was an option for a "bump and run" secondary. In reality, I think we mostly understood that didn't mean that your sdafeties were pulled up to the line to actually bump someone -- but it was also pretty clear (I think) that safeties with that coverage skill did well in that scheme. So, I always thought a safety employed his "bump and run defenbse' rating as a sort of all-around thing meaning "ability to play his position in a bump and run scheme, even if that means he's techincally playing zone behind bumping corners." Seems that interpretation is still at least conceivable for this game, too.


I've pleaded for clarification on this point in the "suggestions" thread, as our complete lack of knowledge here is a major liability in trying to stock player suitable for a certain defensive style. If I have a free safety who's great in bump and run coverage, but not that good in zone... is he worth anything at all? You tell me.

It's actually not so limiting in many cases, I mean other than the FS it seems as though every other player could use all of his potential coverage ratings. An SS could be in bump against a TE, 2nd TE, 3rd WR, we really don't know, same with all of the LBs they could be in Zone (in 3 or 4-Deep), in Man (any of the loose or split coverages), or bump (any of the bump coverages). So all the coverage ratings seem to be very applicable for everyone but the FS on the surface, and as discussed above we don't know what's happening when the FS helps in double coverage, seeing as the FS is most often the defender helping in that situation he could spend a lot of time in bump if you're double covering often.

I see your frustration, I'm in the same boat. It very well may be that the safeties are in "bump coverage" even though the description of the bump coverages says they are in a deep zone, I could see it being read both ways (which makes it a poor help file description) and would really only be speculating if I said it meant one or the other. The point remains though, even if you read it as though the FS is constantly in a deep zone, it seems like the issue of 'he has all these worthless coverage ratings' only applies to the FS position, other players seem to face situations where all their coverage ratings might be tested.

Hopefully Jim clarifies, I'm not even sure it's reasonable to think we could test this very effectively without a lot of data.

[Vince]

Would it be too simplistic to do a "brute force test?"

1. Draft an LB corps that is strong in Zone, but nothing else. Sim a bunch of seasons, compare their Pass Defense #'s.

2. Draft an LB corps that is weak in Zone, but strong in either M2M or BnR (or both). Sim a bunch of seasons, compare their Pass Defense #'s.

3. Draft an even-keeled pass coverage LB corps. Sim a bunch of seasons, compare their Pass Defense #'s.

It seems to me that if M2M and Bump are completely useless for LB's, that this test would reflect that in that the Pass Defense statistics for the crappy Zone group would be terrible, while the others would be better. You could probably run a similar test for Safeties.

While this wouldn't be a perfect test, it would probably give us at least a little insight into what is going on in the coverage schemes.

[yabanci]

Strong side SHOULD be where the Tight End is, but in the case of the secondary, I can see that it might be the side with more receivers.

The help file is pretty clear on which side is strong:

The strength is generally the side the tight end lines up on. But if two receivers are on one side and just one tight end lines up on the other side, the strength is with the receivers.

[yabanci]

....I've pleaded for clarification on this point in the "suggestions" thread, as our complete lack of knowledge here is a major liability in trying to stock player suitable for a certain defensive style. If I have a free safety who's great in bump and run coverage, but not that good in zone... is he worth anything at all? You tell me.

you might recall that the "20 questions with Jim Gindin" touched on this subject:

6. When BnR coverage talks about safeties being in a zone, does that mean the safety's zone coverage rating is used (or is it still BnR)?
With '07, pass coverage is a lot more sophisticated than in the past. Each position uses different weights for each rating in each coverage set. Even the pass pattern run makes a difference (that can't be game-planned yet, which is part of why I'd like to add playbooks in the future). I don't talk about engine details a lot, because I want people to figure these questions out for their own teams and learn without my help. But you will see bump skills matter more for a cornerback than a safety in that defense. Not that bump skills are all a cornerback needs to cover a receiver successfully in that situation.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I am intrigued, superficially, by trying to use the knowledge that the flanker will, in most formations, be on the strong side of a balanced offense. So, I suppose, if you had CBs with offsetting skills (zone corner and man corner) wou could arrange them as follows:


Aside from your other criticisms, this also creates another metagaming opportunity in multiplayer for any team with veteran wideouts by flip-flopping their positions on a frequent (but unpredictable) basis.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

you might recall that the "20 questions with Jim Gindin" touched on this subject:

Yeah, and we've discussed it since by parsing it word for word. Suffice it to say that his brief explanation makes it only slightly more clear, but not anywhere close to where it should be. Even that answer is full of ambiguity.

[QuikSand]

you might recall that the "20 questions with Jim Gindin" touched on this subject:

I remember it quite clearly, have read it many times, and have quoted it for others to read it, just as V4P said above. DO you find that it completely answers the questions I'm raising?

"Each position uses different weights for each rating in each coverage set."

and

"But you will see bump skills matter more for a cornerback than a safety in that defense."

- - -

...from those, it sort of sounds like a CB is locked into bump coverage at the start of the play -- so if a pass goes right to the WR he's covering, the bump rating is primarily used. Maybe if the receiver goes downfield a bit, the CB essentially ends up in a zone since he has help (?) the either the CB's zone rating or a combination of the two would be used there. I guess I could buy that for a CB.

But still -- what of my free safety? He's presumably back in a deep zone in practically every situation when I've called a 2-deep bump coverage scheme -- so even if this notion of mixed coverages applies, under what circumstance would he be called on to use the bump portion? So, back to my team-building question -- is a free safety with great bump skills pretty much worthless?

The other possibility is that "each rating" in the first selection above doesn't just mean the coverage ratings - it might include things like run defense and play recognition. If a safety's propperly reading the run/pass matter s lot for his ability to help out in whichever is called (which would make football sense) then what that might be suggesting is not a mix of the bump and zone coverages is used, but rather a mix of *all* the ratings in play for that setup... and then the later comment about "bump skills matter more fora cornerback" would make sense, as the corners are pretty purely in coverage, while the safeties are looking to support against the run of need be, and only to drop into coverage if they see it's a pass play.

Thinking about this purely in football terms is not so productive, I fear. I just think that to allow us to make reasonable decisions about our players, we really ought to know what skills are important, and (if appropriate) what skills are mostly useless. Surely any real football decision maker would know that much.

[Warhammer]

While bump maybe useless for a FS, I would imagine from Jim's comments that a FS would use M2M coverage skills if a player is in his zone. But, since we have no idea how passing is handled and whether or not global aggregates have come into play here it is hard to determine anything for certain. The part that troubles me is that global figures come into play far more than we thought in other areas, they may play a part as well here.

EDIT: Another thought is that if you are in a BnR type of coverage, perhaps your safeties use their BnR skills there rather than M2M if a receiver is in their zone.

[QuikSand]

While bump maybe useless for a FS, I would imagine from Jim's comments that a FS would use M2M coverage skills if a player is in his zone.

Not sure I'm following here... but if you're running a 2-deep Bump Coverage scheme, you're thinking the free safety employs loose man coverage? Hmmm. That was about the only thing I had actually taken off the table.

I mean -- if you're in zone, and any time a guy comes into your zone, you employ man coverage (and rely on that rating)...then what is the purpose of the zone defense rating?

[Warhammer]

Not sure I'm following here... but if you're running a 2-deep Bump Coverage scheme, you're thinking the free safety employs loose man coverage? Hmmm. That was about the only thing I had actually taken off the table.

I mean -- if you're in zone, and any time a guy comes into your zone, you employ man coverage (and rely on that rating)...then what is the purpose of the zone defense rating?

Jim's comments point to all DBs using multiple skills on a play. Otherwise why would it matter what your M2M or BnR skills are if you are exclusively playing 3 Deep or 4 Deep zone, or how would it differ from FOF2k4? You ask that is a FS goes into M2M coverage while a player is in his zone, what good is BnR for a FS, right? My initial response is that the FS doesn't need his BnR skill. My edit is raising the hypothetical that possibly in a BnR Cover 1 or 2 the FS uses his BnR rating rather than his M2M rating when a player is in his zone (only these two coverages, all else would be M2M if a player is in his zone). If he does not, than I cannot think of a reason for the BnR skill of a FS to matter at all.

Regarding zone defense, we don't know how this is all set up. Not everytime a player is in a DBs zone, does the DB lock up in M2M, sometimes there are two players in the zone, maybe they are in a seam, etc. So perhaps what he does is take a % of zone defense and a % of M2M and use that as a cludge of sorts to represent that on some plays the safety might be locked up on the receiver and on others he might not be.

[SchrodingersDog]

I feel it's quite likely the FS would get to use his M2M ability after initially playing zone. We know Jim likes using a combination of skills by each player within each play.

Say the FS starts the play in zone. Say his zone runs sideline to sideline at some certain depth from the LOS. I imagine he'd use his zone ratings to stay mobile and "cheat" closer to potential recievers that are nearing his zone. A horrible zone FS may wind up on the left side of the field when the WR runs a straight go pattern over the right, and vice versa for a great zone FS. Now that this better zone rated FS has "closed" the gap in his zone with his superior rating, he is matched up with the WR and I would expect him to be in M2M for the duration of the play, or at least as long as the WR stayed in his zone.

In this thought experiment imagine that the offense is fully on the field but the only defender is the FS playing some zone. After the snap the recievers run their routes and no pressure is applied to the QB. The play takes five minutes off the clock while they're running around all they want. In my game design, I'd have the FS use his zone rating before any offensive player entered his zone, and for a time afterwards, to simulate his zone "closing" speed. Then he'd switch to M2M when he has a target in this zone. This also works well since he can effectively "cover" more than one reciever entering his zone, as may often happen with multiple deep routes. His zone rating also may let him make a better decision on who to cover (with his M2M) when he has more than one target in his zone. This jives with Jim's statement that the pass pattern makes a difference.

Also remember that we have ratings for QB and WR that could potentially take advantage of a DB not playing zone well, otherwise known as being "out of position".

[MalcPow]

I read Jim's comments to mean that even in Bump coverage, there are going to be routes that force a corner into a dice roll that tests their Man skills. We know that Man coverage ratings have some correlation to 40 speed, both in the draft and the 'Fastest Man' screen, and that speed is also correlated with the WR rating of Big Play Receiving (ability to catch deep and very deep passes). I'm guessing that if you come out in Bump-2 and the receiver runs a short route you're looking at a dice roll that is almost purely the corner's Bump rating, as well as a bonus of some kind for being in a short pass coverage scheme. If it is a deep route, the corner's Bump rating is accounted for, as his ability to jam the receiver will have an impact on how well the route is run, but there's also going to be a heavy dose of his Man rating accounted for as he has to chase that receiver downfield as he releases into his route.

So in that case, I can see how skills might need to be blended, and even fairly significantly blended. It's probably also possible that skills are constantly blended to some degree, no matter how small, on every play. But I'd hope that there's at least some consistency in the sense that, whatever the route, if my FS is in a deep zone, a receiver entering that zone shouldn't trigger a call on much of his Man rating unless it is an extremely deep pass that is going to test his ability to turn and run with the receiver.

We just need to know what's being blended. Jim will never give us an 'on X route cover ratings are weighted in this way' explanation, and I think few of us would really want him to, but it is important for me to know that my FS with an awesome Zone rating and a really crappy Man rating might leave me very vulnerable to another team's stud Big Play receiver and a few very deep shots down the field. I guess all this also raises the specter of ratings being blended across players, that half a play's weight might be my corner's Bump and the other half might be my safety's Zone. I know Jim is hesitant to say too much, but really, this isn't knowledge that unlocks the mystery of the engine or makes things formulaic, it actually adds a level of strategic thought to the game as we're able to make decisions and face a real risk/reward proposition in how we deal with matchups.

[QuikSand]

I will simply interject, again, that a deep analysis of how real football players might (or should) act and react in various situations and what skills they rely on to do so may be intellectually stimulating, but also may not turn out to offer any insight whatsoever into how this computer game works.

[Warhammer]

You know what I find extremely ironic, most players feel that the zone coverage schemes are weaker than the M2M or BnR, yet, the help says that the Strong side zone is better against teams with a good TE.

[JetsIn06]

mega bump

I was curious if anyone, with the new patches coming out since this was last discussed, has any new information regarding the split man/zone coverage?

[strickzilla]

uber bump as i play a lot of this coverage myself

[Dutch]

Nothing new that I'm aware of, just what the FOF instructions state. Basically, if you use it, the one pre-game check you should make is the talent level of the opponents TE. If he's good, use SS Man coverage more often because the TE apparently gets a bonus against short zone coverage (or a penalty in M2M coverage).

[strickzilla]

Nothing new that I'm aware of, just what the FOF instructions state. Basically, if you use it, the one pre-game check you should make is the talent level of the opponents TE. If he's good, use SS Man coverage more often because the TE apparently gets a bonus against short zone coverage (or a penalty in M2M coverage).


thats a new on to me about the TE bonus/penalty where can you point me to that thread?

[Dutch]

thats a new on to me about the TE bonus/penalty where can you point me to that thread?

That's in the helpfile. :p

[strickzilla]

ok i see what youre talking about, not sure if id call it a penalty more than a favorable match up. then again this is one of those things i should just defer to the help file and not think in "football" terms.

thanks tho for making read the help file, good refresher course