Double coverage query

[Hammer]

Is it possible to go over 100 on the double coverage screen? For example, could you double team the top WR 85% and the 2nd WR 70%? If so, does anyone have any experience with the results in comparision to keeping the percentages lower?

[flair1234]

Is it possible to go over 100 on the double coverage screen? For example, could you double team the top WR 85% and the 2nd WR 70%? If so, does anyone have any experience with the results in comparision to keeping the percentages lower?

Just from personal experience, I have found that when you deviate too far past the recommended settings and start getting into the 60% range for one receiver; the game goes into auto-shred mode. Meaning that the secondary receivers and TEs start catching a crap load of balls.

I think this falls into the game "forcing" variety on you.

My prediction for your plan would be Slot Wrs, TEs, and RBs to have record setting receiving days on you.

[Hammer]

What if the 2 top WRs are both over 80/80?

[Dutch]

What if the 2 top WRs are both over 80/80?

I made sure they were both good so you wouldn't concern yourself with who was playing split end, seems that's brought up a whole-'nother dilemna for you. :p

[gstelmack]

What if the 2 top WRs are both over 80/80?

Then you get two top CBs ;)

[QuikSand]

Is it possible to go over 100 on the double coverage screen? For example, could you double team the top WR 85% and the 2nd WR 70%? If so, does anyone have any experience with the results in comparision to keeping the percentages lower?

I don't think the in-game math works this way.

I think it works like this, where X and Y are the two values you enter into the two boxes:

X% = share of time that you will double cover the TOP receiver

Y% = share *of the remaining plays* that you will double cover the second receiver

So, if you enter in values like 85 and 75 into the two boxes, you are essentially saying you want to double cover the two guys 85% and ~10%, respectively.

[Subby]

Maybe something has changed but I don't think you can double cover both receivers.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think jkat (jim) or somebody got the handle on this. As QS said, the first number is percentage of plays the top WR will be doubled. The second number is percentage of plays the second WR will be doubled when the top WR is not doubled. Thus, you can't go over 100% on double coverage.

[Dutch]

I think jkat (jim) or somebody got the handle on this. As QS said, the first number is percentage of plays the top WR will be doubled. The second number is percentage of plays the second WR will be doubled when the top WR is not doubled. Thus, you can't go over 100% on double coverage.


The help file says that you will get secondary double-coverages, just that you cannot assign it, nor can you tell when it happens.

Here's an additional question -- when the safety comes up to double a receiver, what rating is being used? Zone or M2M?

[MIJB#19]

In double-coverage, a safety (usually the free safety first) automatically joins one of the cornerbacks. This doesn't mean there won't be double coverage elsewhere, just that it's automatic in this case. This is also what the game reports in the play-by-play. When the cornerbacks stay on one side or the other, your choices are to double-cover either the split end or the flanker. When they cover based on ability, your choices are to double-cover either the top or the second-best receiver.

Double-coverage percentages indicate what percentage of all plays a safety is in automatic double coverage.The "either ... or" part has me confused here, would that mean that you can't double cover two players by game plan (thus indeed meaning a 100% maximum), but also meaning the coach/AI at times will be able to double cover multiple player?

Edit: So yeah, pretty much what Dutch said one post above mine. :-x

[MalcPow]

Here's an additional question -- when the safety comes up to double a receiver, what rating is being used? Zone or M2M?

Some combination of pass coverage abilities is used depending on the route run, coverage called, etc... *ducks*