No Cover 1 for Nickle or Dine
 

Hey I was running a test of the 1 Deep D and forgot to shut off my Defensive Personnel. Anyway the computer switch to a Cover 2 (when I was in Nickle or Dime) in all situations.

Is this a bug, common knowledge, or something new?


p.s I meant Dime.... Ugg

The game does seem to switch you from a 1 Deep BnR or 1 Deep m2m to 2 Deep m2m if you're in a nickel or dime personnel package. I didn't really notice until about a season or two ago when I tried using those combinations, so I don't know if it's an incarnation of the latest patch or if it has been there the entire time.



Cheers,
-Bear

I'd imagine it is working as expected. Jim says in the help files that the 1 deep defenses are very vulnerable to the pass. Obviously if you are in nickel or dime, you are expecting a pass so I can't imagine you would ever want to be in 1 deep when that happens.

It makes sense. What would the nickel and dime backs be doing at the line of scrimmage, anyway.

Firefly - Assignment and position in correlation to the LOS have nothing to do with each other.

Primelord - That is just simply not true. There are a lot of cases where a nickel Cover 1 makes sense, and the game doesnt make these assumptions in a lot of other similar situations.

Yeah, primelord, you jerk! Stop helping!

You mean that in a 1-deep formation there aren't 8 players in the box? Cause that's pretty much what I meant... if you're in a 1-deep zone with dime personnel, you'll have some DBs in the box.

My bad. What was I thinking?

1-Deep cover means that one player is responsible for a deep zone, nothing more, nothing less. 8 players in the box is a question of formation. They are different things. Theres nothing stopping you from playing a 4-deep zone with 8 in the box, or a 1 deep or cover zero with 6 in the box. Sensible? Not neccessarily. Possible? Yes, and a frequent occurrence.


And Primelord - I dont know what you got worked up about, really. You had an argument, i had an counterargument, no need to get on a high horse here.

Other than your counter-argument being completely and utterly irrelevant, you may have a point.

Except, that's not what "playing eight in the box" means. You're describing showing eight in the box but once the snap occurs playing four deep, two cover corners and five in the box. When football people refer to playing "eight in the box" they're talking about eight players actually playing close to the line of scrimmage with the intent of staying close to the line of scrimmage to stop the run or very, very short pass.

The situation you describe is just defensive misdirection prior to the snap, as physically, you can't have four deep and eight in the box once the play starts.

Mathematically the numbers just aren't there.



Cheers,
-Bear

Everyone has to remember that this is a game in which the WLB ALWAYS blitzes from a 3-4, which is exactly the opposite intent of a true 3-4 (which works hard to disguise exactly who will be rushing the passer). Trying to apply real football logic to the formation / coverage choices is just asking for trouble.

That was primelord's intent Epi.

If i accidentally offended someone, as some comments would suggest, i appologize. I think that what Greg just said - i shouldnt try to implement real football logic to FOF - holds true, and i may have not realized that.

But to get to the original point, i think its fair to say that there is no football reason to automatically switch out of a cover one when you have nickel/dime packages on the field. Thats just not right, and thats what the original poster was shooting for.

Wouldn't 1-deep nickle man-to-man make sense?

Against a 3WR formation:
CB->WR
CB->WR
CB->WR
SS->TE
MLB->RB

leaving the FS to play deep zone.