Coverage Linebackers

[stevew]

Anyone have any tips on defensive gameplanning your linebackers for coverage? Mine seem to get abused. Obviously you're going to be looking for ones with good coverage skills, but what else?

[Narcizo]

Firstly, I think the nature of the passes that a linebacker normally is likely to be defending (a lot more screen and short passes) means that a linebacker is always going to look bad in terms of pass defence percentage compared to a cornerback.

I would guess that play diagnostics has an effect. Although I've never seen it actually tested I imagine play diagnostic means that a player will be more likely to react appropriately to a pass even if the defence play call is to expect the run. I think it's been shown that bump and run is more effective against short passes so you might want to target linebackers primarily for BnR, although I'm not sure about the logic for that. (It would depend on what coverage system you use). My logic is this. Say on a short passing play you call M2M - chances are that a short pass is going to be completed anyway, no matter how great your linebacker is at M2M. (and linebackers are very rarely great at M2M). If you call BnR there's a better chance of stopping the short pass and then a linebacker with great BnR skill will improve that chance. Really have little idea how well that theory actually stands up though. But it makes sense to me.

Also you want your best coverage OLB (modified by their positional ability) playing Strong in nickles and dimes, which means that you should prefer SLBs with good coverage skills to WLBs.

[Hammer]

Firstly, I think the nature of the passes that a linebacker normally is likely to be defending (a lot more screen and short passes) means that a linebacker is always going to look bad in terms of pass defence percentage compared to a cornerback.


Spot on here I think. My all world LB in the NAFL is a great pass defender. While he defends plenty, he tends to lead the team in passes caught against him.

[QuikSand]

Candidly, the lack of clear information about the use of coverages by linebackers (and safeties, for that matter) make this question really hard to answer comfortably.

I *believe* that in FOF 2004, when you called a bump-and-run coverage scheme, then your linebackers were primarily drawing from their own BNR coverage ratings for their successes. I don't *know* this was true, but I *believe* it was true.

I *believe* that in FOF 2007, coverage is at the very least more nuanced than it used to be. I *believe* that it's no longer a matter of matching up LB coverage skills with the coverage style that you call.

But, as has been pointed out by quite a substantial number of people in this sub-forum and elsewhere, we really have precious little clear information to go on, absent some pretty rigorous testing of our own. A survey of comments made publicly directly from the developer seem to suggest that a defensive player employs all of his coverage ratings, or at the very least it's no longer as simple as just the rating sharing the label with the coverage scheme called for by the defense.

Personally, I now really try to look for a mix of coverage ratings in my LBs, and pay a lot more attention to zone coverage than I once did, even on teams that tend to use very little "zone coverage" per se. I don't really claim to know what I'm doing on defense (in no small part due to my lack of conviction on questions like this one) but that's my own approach, as a best reaction I can muster to the very limited insight we have gotten on this. (But, my MP teams are earning a bit of a reputation for defensive collapses in critical playoff games, too, so maybe my misguided approach here is part of my own undiong)

It's really frustrating to have a sense that the SLB spends a lot of his time in coverage against a TE (which I believe to be true), to have a guy who has a major imbalance in his coverage skills (most commonly good at BNR and weak at MTM/zone), and to really have little idea whether your guy will perform well (drawing on his good BNR) or poorly (drawing on his weak man/zone) if you run a bump-first scheme. Some people more clever than I have tried to turn this into comical dialogues between a hypothetical scout and coach, where the scout just refuses to answer the coach's questions... and I have no better way to relate the lack of clarity that we face on this specific issue.

Sorry for that being less than helpful, but if there's a lack of firm answer it's not that the FOF community is really hiding it, it's more that it's just not clear at all to most of us.

[QuikSand]

One more thing... I'm pretty sure that somewhere (not in the actual game documentation, but likely here in the forums) the developer made some indication that when the defense calls for 3-deep or 4-deep sone, and the personnel doesn't include multiple DBs to cover those slots, it's the LBs who get dropped into deep zone, starting (I'm pretty sure) with the WLB. I recall him saying something close to "so, I wouldn't want a WLB with weak zone coverage skills" -- and that guidance likely has informed my discussion above (perhaps too much so).

[zbuckley]

One more thing... I'm pretty sure that somewhere (ont in the actual game documentation, but likely here in the forums) the developer made some indication that when the defense calls for 3-deep or 4-deep sone, and the personnel doesn't include multiple DBs to cover those slots, it's the LBs who get dropped into deep zone, starting (I'm pretty sure) with the WLB. I recall him saying something close to "so, I wouldn't want a WLB with weak zone coverage skills" -- and that guidance likely has informed my discussion above (perhaps too much so).
That's something I would have never quessed. I also noticed something interesting and I don't know if it has any significants regarding the difference between a 3-4 and a 4-3 regarding LB's in coverage. Using a 4-3 the SLB is the default coverage LB in passing situations and when using a 3-4 it's the WLB. I wonder if there's a fundamental difference between 3-4 and 4-3 in where all 7 coverage players line up???

[stevew]

That's something I would have never quessed. I also noticed something interesting and I don't know if it has any significants regarding the difference between a 3-4 and a 4-3 regarding LB's in coverage. Using a 4-3 the SLB is the default coverage LB in passing situations and when using a 3-4 it's the WLB. I wonder if there's a fundamental difference between 3-4 and 4-3 in where all 7 coverage players line up???

the 3/4 WLB is definitely not coverage, as he is part of the front four blitz package.

[zbuckley]

the 3/4 WLB is definitely not coverage, as he is part of the front four blitz package.

In a dime set?

[QuikSand]

In the 3-4 defense, the WLB is a pass rusher, plain and simple. Base personnel, nickel, dime, whatever coverage - he rushes the passer, basically playing like a DE. You'll notice that the WLB is not listed in the page for blitz percentages -- that's because he is rushing all the time.

[Yoda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linebacker

The weakside linebacker (WLB), or "Will", must be the fastest of the three, because he is often the one called into pass coverage. He is also usually chasing the play from the backside, so the ability to maneuver through traffic is a necessity for Will. Will usually aligns off the line of scrimmage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_scrimmage) at the same depth as Mike. Due to his position on the weakside, Will does not often have to face large interior linemen one on one unless one is pulling. In coverage, Will often covers the back that attacks his side of the field first in man coverage, while covering the weak flat or hook/curl areas in zone coverage. In a 3-4 defense the "Will" Linebacker plays on the "weakside" of the two middle Linebacker positions and a 4th Linebacker comes in to play the weakside. Known as a "Rush", "Rover", and/or "Buck" Linebacker, their responsibility is more pass rush based but often is called into run stop (gap control) and pass coverage.

**********************

If you are going to toss a 3-4 into the mix, then the WLB is really just a LDE that can cover. And the WILB plays the traditional WLB position.

[QuikSand]

[real football reference snipped]

**********************

If you are going to toss a 3-4 into the mix, then the WLB is really just a LDE that can cover. And the WILB plays the traditional WLB position.

You have to be really, really careful bringing in real-world football references into this sort of discussion. It's quite confusing to do so to people who are asking bona fide questions about this computer game. The game mirrors real football in many practical ways, but it's misleading at best to suggest that anything we know about real football can simply be applied to FOF 2007. Simply not true.

The weak-side linebacker in FOF 2007, in a 4-3 defense, has varied responsibilities. But in the FOF 2007 3-4 defense, he has exactly one responsibility, to rush the passer - he is simply part of the standard pass rush.

[Yoda]

So, what you are saying is, that if you play a 3-4 defense, and set it up to only play the base defense the entire game (removing nickle and dime) that the WLB will not generate any pass coverage stats? Correct?

[QuikSand]

So, what you are saying is, that if you play a 3-4 defense, and set it up to only play the base defense the entire game (removing nickle and dime) that the WLB will not generate any pass coverage stats? Correct?

That's what I'm saying.

Over the course of a full season, players slotted at DE, DT, or 3-4 WLB will *occasionally* get a few catches allowed charged against them -- that is, I guess, the way the game manages screen passes or other very short passes (i.e. the universe of defensive players to which the "catch allowed" is to be charged includes linemen). But if your team is in a 3-4, and your WLB is not getting used anywhere but WLB (again, not an absolute certainty in-game, based on endurance and starter playing time) then you should expect him to only get a token handful of catches allowed or other "coverage stats." He certainly wouldn't have 40-60, the sort of numbers that you would expect from your players at MLB or SLB.

[QuikSand]

So, what you are saying is, that if you play a 3-4 defense, and set it up to only play the base defense the entire game (removing nickle and dime) that the WLB will not generate any pass coverage stats? Correct?

And usage of nickel and dime shouldn't matter here, either. The WLB is a pass rusher in the 3-4 defense. There was a patch that fixed this once-broken application in the nickel and dime defenses (I forgot which one it was in, maybe 6.1) and since then, I'm pretty sure it works as the game documentation explains it to work.

[QuikSand]

Just for reference, in case anyone is interested:

When using the 34 defense, the weak-side outside linebacker is considered a rusher by default (as he generally lines up next to the weak-wide end and is often opposite a tackle), so you can not ask him to blitz.

[QuikSand]

I just found a case study, of a guy I started at WLB in a 3-4 defense. He was admittedly slotted as the backup SLB sometimes as well, so he probably logged a bit of time there on top of his WLB duty. But still -- on the field 445 pass plays, he was logged as giving up a catch 11 times, in contrast with the starting SLB who had 41, and the starting MLB who had 44. But the WLB posted 14.5 sacks, on a PR% of 8.0. He's clearly spending the vast majority of his time rushing the passer.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I was just running one myself. (seasons fly by on my new system)

I was of the mind that the WLB occasionally dropped back into coverage the 3-4, to simulate RL. Guess I was wrong, lol.

[QuikSand]

I'm trying to look in as much detail as possible, and it does look to me like the 3-4 WLB will generate a few more catches allowed than a pure DE. I can't tell whether it can be completely explained away by that guy occasionally backing up at another LB position, or if perhaps there are some situations where he is actually in coverage (whatever that means). I am finding full-time WLBs with anywhere from 3 to 14 catches allowed, while true defensive linemen have stayed down to 0 to 7 so far.

Without a doubt, coverage is a very minor part of a 3-4 WLB's duty. Whether it's completely inconsequential is maybe a bit tougher to pin down, but it's definitely involved at only a modest fraction of the rate for any other LB in any formation, if at all.

Hope that helps.