Double team on strong/weak side?

[Passacaglia]

So here's my thought. You've got separate options for double teaming on the strong or weak side. I'm assuming the flanker plays on the strong side (offset by the TE), and the slip end plays on the weak side. Right?

But it seems like we've discussed that it pretty much doesn't matter which WR you line up where..right?

So why don't I switch my best WR from FL to SE, so that my weak WR gets double-teamed more, and my better WR gets double teamed less often?

Doesn't this eventually lead to a chess match about where the offense will line up its best WR, leading an intelligent defensive gameplanner to set the weak/strong double teams to the same number?

[Daimyo]

Isn't there still the option to align your best CB on the best WR instead of using S/W? I'm pretty sure that's what I always use (unless I'm thinking of 2k1 - haven't played 2k4 in a while now).

[Passacaglia]

QS-style dola in the house.

I think that there is one note to this -- that you have the choice to orient CBs my "side", or by "WR covered." So you can attempt to match your CBs up to correspond to your opponent's strong or weak side, but if you orient your CBs by "side," you can't be sure where they wil end up -- because it depends on which side is the strong one (although I suppose you can assume if your opponent's best WR is the flanker, your best CB will always be on the "strong" side. But on the other hand, there's no way for the offensive gameplanner to set which side his TE lines up. Is there?

I dunno, just some random thoughts.

[Passacaglia]

Thanks for ruining my dola, Daimyo. :P Anyway, the option is to use either left/right, or best/worst -- nothing about strong/weak as far as CBs are concerned -- except for the double team.

It just seems odd, that you can orient your CBs in to ways, then set your double teams in one different way.

[cthomer5000]

I don't know about FOF2004, but I felt in FOF2001 that I could basically cheat the computer by making my best receiver the #2 receiever. Their top cover man would more than likely blanket my #2 (who was disguised as #1), but my "real" #1, playing from the #2 slot would usually smoke their 2nd corner.

My whole basic philosophy in 2001 has been radically altered for this version of the game though. I just can't get ANY wide receiver to put up good stats.

[Daimyo]

Hmm... I never thought of that. I guess I always assumed that when you switched to "best/worst" it always changed the S/W thing for double coverage. That is pretty weird if it doesn't.

I think back in 2k1 you had the option to orient your CB by W/S, L/R, or best/worst and I thought double coverage worked the same way. I wonder why Jim changed that?

[Passacaglia]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I don't know about FOF2004, but I felt in FOF2001 that I could basically cheat the computer by making my best receiver the #2 receiever. Their top cover man would more than likely blanket my #2 (who was disguised as #1), but my "real" #1, playing from the #2 slot would usually smoke their 2nd corner.

My whole basic philosophy in 2001 has been radically altered for this version of the game though. I just can't get ANY wide receiver to put up good stats.

I'm assuming that worked for you? I'd be a little worried. I mean, switching your WRs to avoid the double team is one thing, but weren't you worried that having their top CB on your #1 WR would cause for more incomplete passes, even interceptions? Or did you just assume your QB was wise enough to not throw it to him? Maybe the route running attribute that has been discussed plays into this. A poor WR with pretty good route running might end up luring the QB into throwing into a bad matchup.

[Passacaglia]

Figure I'd give this a bump for the Monday morning crowd. Anyone else have any comments?

[cthomer5000]

I'm assuming that worked for you? I'd be a little worried. I mean, switching your WRs to avoid the double team is one thing, but weren't you worried that having their top CB on your #1 WR would cause for more incomplete passes, even interceptions? Or did you just assume your QB was wise enough to not throw it to him? Maybe the route running attribute that has been discussed plays into this. A poor WR with pretty good route running might end up luring the QB into throwing into a bad matchup.

I haven't tried this in 2004. In regards to 2001 I felt the decision-making happened like this :

The QB looks for an open receiver, then throws it in his direction.
The pass is either thrown well, or off the mark.
When thrown well, the game then basically matches up the WR vs. CB to decide if the ball if caught, incomplete, or intercepted.

My logic was that my WR would be more likely to be open against the #2 CB, and then more likely to make the catch against him. While it might have limited my WR options, I felt it would essentially lead to exploiting a great matchup over and over.

It'd be pretty easy to run tests on this.

[Daimyo]

I checked this out over the weekend and confirmed what I thought earlier. If you set the game to align your CB's by "best/worst" it also changed the dialoue ont he double team option. So you can chose to align your CB by L/R and assign double teams by S/W or you can align your CB by best/worst and assign double teams by best/worst.

I'm curious if L/R and S/W mean the same thing and are just labeled incorrectly? I have this issue with DE and LB too... if I have a pass rush specialist DE with no run stopping ability I'd like to be able to put a run stopping LB behind him. But since DE are done L/R and LB are done S/W I don't know that this can be done.

[Passacaglia]

Wow, I'm such an idiot for not noticing that if you change your CB alignment, the double cover options change!

But that is a good point about your DE and LB. When I think about my LE and RE, I assume a typical formation, which has the right side strong. Obviously, there's a lot of variables to messing with flipping your strong side (right or left handedness of QB, ability of LE and RE to rush the QB behind his back, etc.) -- I wonder how detailed the game is in these aspects.