Double Coverage

[nickelback]

Does each double coverage box have a max value of 100 or can both boxes combined not be more than 100?

[QuikSand]

I'm pretty sure that it works this way:

the % for top receiver is exactly what you think it means

the % in the box for the second receiver is the percent of the time that you are not double covering the top guy that the second guy will be double covered

- - -

So, if you have values of 60 and 60... it's not that you'll be doubling guys 120% of the time, but rather that you will double the top guy 60% and the second guy 24% of the time.

Hope that helps. If someone comes along and proves otherwise, then I'll come back and delete this message, but I'm fairly confident this is how it works, I believe it was "clarified" for us somewhere along the way.

[Hammer]

This confuses me. The AI seems to go up to a maximum of 100 total on double coverage. It does this when it perceives a large threat from the WRs from what I can work out. Your likely to see something like 66/34 if your facing 2 elite WRs.

So its just coincidence that the AI uses 100 as its max? Logic dictates that your double covering WR1 66% and WR2 34%.

If Jim has confirmed your theory as correct QuickSand, great. If not, how did you come by it?

I have checked the help file. Once again the lack of information is disheartening.

[gstelmack]

If that's correct, you should be able to enter "75" in each and have the game correct it back.

[Hammer]

Heh, if the guy can't even be bothered to explain how the game works properly I wouldn't expect him to go to the trouble. Hope QS got this from the horses mouth.

I hate to think how many people have been going about using DC in the wrong way. This is a joke to be honest.

[QuikSand]

If I got it, I got it here. I recall this being a subject of one of those Solecismic Q&A thingies or something, but I honestly don't recall specifically.

[Hammer]

Does anyone have the direct email to Jim/Ethan so we can draw a line under it? I am sure I have read all the Q&A's, perhaps this didn't stick, but I don't remember it.

[QuikSand]

The help file gives some support here: "Double-coverage percentages indicate what percentage of all plays a safety is in automatic double coverage."

A plain, literal reading of this fits my description above -- if you double cover, you don't double two receiver, you double one receiver, and you do it with one safety, period.

[Hammer]

I honestly still think from the information we have been given my explanation is the logical one for a player to take. That doesn't make it so, obviously.

This is really open to interpretation, and it shouldn't be. Hopefully someone can point to Jim supporting your version on this forum, or we can get it clarified by emailing him.

[jeffrey]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ouble+coverage

[Hammer]

JKat seems to be where you got the info QS. Jim didn't correct him, so I think your right. Well found Jeffrey.

[50]
[100]
would mean double covering each receiver half of all plays;
[33]
[50]
would mean double covering each receiver one-third of all plays, and;
[40]
[33]
would get a common Rex choice of 40% and 20% of all plays, while Rex's values of;
[40]
[20]
would actually be 40% and 12% of all plays.

So, when you face teams with 2 elite WRs and the AI throws up 66/34, one of those great WRs is going free for a large proportion of the game. I haven't time to fully read the other thread, but does this mean your top CB is engaged in double coverage, with a safety, 66% of the time on the top RR WR? Thus your 2nd CB is in 1 on 1 with the other quality WR for the vast majority of the game? Yikes.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Hammer

So, when you face teams with 2 elite WRs and the AI throws up 66/34, one of those great WRs is going free for a large proportion of the game.

This thread is obviously not heading in a productive direction, but two observations here:

-Assuming that by "going free" you mean single covered, then it's not a large proportion of the game, it's the entire game, every game. FOF has a system for one double-coverage slot, and we get to assign it variously to the top receiver, second receiver, or nobody. FOF has no such thing as "double both guys."

-However, this whole conversation is way way way too much about real football with human beings and actual coverage schemes and the like. I don't think that is the most productive means to use in assessing this game, at this level of detail. This is a computer game, there are not actual tiny people playing a football game on your microchip, so no need to treat it that way.

[Hammer]

Sure, I'm not trying to be destructive here. I just find it frustrating that I know for a fact that a large number of FOF players didn't know what we have now established. I don't mean noobs either, people that have been playing a long time. I must have given half a dozen or more people false information, when they have come to me for defensive advice.

Then, what about those FOF players that don't even read FOFC. No wonder there is frustration about the defensive side of this game.

I appreciate there aren't little men playing, its a nice thought though. Still, stats have shown DC does have a positive effect. So, setting up ineffective DC settings through lack of knowledge, or pressing recommend, is a real shame.

No wonder getting 2 stud WRs is the easy way to win. Perhaps if the 2nd guy actually received some DC it wouldn't be what it is. That might be going too far, but it might be a contributing factor.

I love this game. But I just wish it workings were explained in more detail sometimes. For everyone, not just those who read every post on FOFC.

[nickelback]

Can someone tell me if over doing it on double coverage can lead to less effective run defense? I'm sure I know the answer but want to get clearification.

[Bako]

I have been toying quite a bit with double coverage and have yet to find something that works consistently if at all.

I recently faced a WR 75/75. The other receivers on the team hovered around the high 30's and low 40's. So I doubled the Top WR at 100% and the 2nd WR 0%.

The 75/75 WR goes on to have a monster day catching 10 balls for over 150 yards and a TD. Eight of his catches were in double coverage.

My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?

[jzicc]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the DOUBLE coverage is on the rcvr with the best ROUTE RUnning --- not the best rated--- is it possible you weren't covering the number 1?

[primelord]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

I recently faced a WR 75/75. The other receivers on the team hovered around the high 30's and low 40's. So I doubled the Top WR at 100% and the 2nd WR 0%.

The 75/75 WR goes on to have a monster day catching 10 balls for over 150 yards and a TD. Eight of his catches were in double coverage.

My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you MIGHT have a sample size issue here.

Do you feel like double covering a monster WR should be able to neutralize him every game? Shouldn't it be possible, despite heavy double coverage, that a monster WR be able to still have a 150 yard 1 TD day? Shouldn't it also matter how talented the guys double covering him are, and not just that they are double covering him? Are you playing your defensive players too many plays leading them to get tired and not as effective?

I can certainly understand the frustration with slowing down a big time WR in FOF. However it isn't just as simple, nor should it be imo, as just cranking the double coverage percentage up. There are more things that go into it than just that. We certainly shouldn't be drawing conclusions from one game where your double coverage got burned.

[Bako]

Originally Posted by primelord

I can certainly understand the frustration with slowing down a big time WR in FOF. However it isn't just as simple, nor should it be imo, as just cranking the double coverage percentage up. There are more things that go into it than just that. We certainly shouldn't be drawing conclusions from one game where your double coverage got burned.

If you read my question again, I did not draw any conclusions. I simply just asked if there was a better technique to be used. Trust me I understand it is not simple. If it was I would have found a solution long ago.

I wasn't expecting to shut a stud receiver down. I know that does not happen. What I was expecting to see was at least 1 pass defended out of the 12 targets.

I appreciate your response Primelord.

[UK Rookie]

Jzicc....

Regarding your point about Doubling the wrong guy,if you select "Orient CB by WR covered" you can set the % of plays you cover the "TOP" receiver.I guess this is who the AI considers to be the "top"!

Adding my nOOb thoughts........

If your in Nikel or Dime coverage and your % Double Team is high for both( eg 60/40) is it possible if the Offence your up against only has 2 WR`s ,you will double them both ,maybe with CB/FS and CB/LB?
Never having played the game just watched on TV is this posible in the NFL?

[Yoda]

Jim mentioned that the game considers the WR with this highest RR to be the 'top' WR.

[QuikSand]

Seriously, in the big picture, I don't think the most productive thing to do is to try to visualize where the little men are "lining up" and who they are "covering." (Yes, I am using my quotation marks in a pejorative way)

This is, in the end, a game of dice rolls. If you select in-game double coverage on a certain guy (through whatever process that gets determined. discussed fairly well here) it simply triggers a few alterations to the dice-rolling events for that play's resolution. The QB gets tested on whether he "reads the coverage" and throws away from the double team (presumably getting some dice-rolling bonus if he does so successfully). The WR being "doubled" likely suffers some negative adjustment in his ability to successfully get open and/or catch a pass thrown his way, if/when the dice are rolled for such an event. And perhaps the assignment of a double team means there's some downward adjustment made to your team's effectiveness elsewhere, whether in run defense, "covering" other eligible receivers, or both.

It's a game of puts and takes. You make a decision, some numbers go your way, some work against you. Sometimes, it works just great - even without you knowing it in any detail, your double coverage forced a bunch of key passes to the less skilled WR and he couldn't make the big play, so you got the big stop from your D. (And of course nobody runs to the forum to post a complaint the many times this happens) Sometimes, the dice are still going to screw you, and you can double cover a guy all day and he still goes for 150 and a TD. That's FOF. It's the simple and obvious nature of a sim game. Suck it up.

[remper]

Originally Posted by UK Rookie

Jzicc....

If your in Nikel or Dime coverage and your % Double Team is high for both( eg 60/40) is it possible if the Offence your up against only has 2 WR`s ,you will double them both ,maybe with CB/FS and CB/LB?
Never having played the game just watched on TV is this posible in the NFL?

Typically, and I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, defenses don't really set out to "double cover" more than one receiver during a game in the NFL. They might shade a safety to the side of the receiver they are concerned about, but the usual answer is to man up your best cover CB against their stud receiver and have deep help from the safety.

[Bako]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's a game of puts and takes. You make a decision, some numbers go your way, some work against you. Sometimes, it works just great - even without you knowing it in any detail, your double coverage forced a bunch of key passes to the less skilled WR and he couldn't make the big play, so you got the big stop from your D. (And of course nobody runs to the forum to post a complaint the many times this happens) Sometimes, the dice are still going to screw you, and you can double cover a guy all day and he still goes for 150 and a TD. That's FOF. It's the simple and obvious nature of a sim game. Suck it up.

Thank you for not answering the question and the pep talk.

[jzicc]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Jim mentioned that the game considers the WR with this highest RR to be the 'top' WR.

We'll see tonight when I play you in the HFL

[primelord]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

Thank you for not answering the question and the pep talk.

Our apologies for seeming to continually fail you. So to recap your question was:

"My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?"

The only information you gave us was that you double covered the top WR 100% of the time. No other information on what your defensive players are like or what type of scheme you use etc. You claim to know that the game is not that simple, but then fail to give us any useful information with which to answer your question.

So going with what you have actually shared to this point, is there a better defensive plan than just doubling the top WR? Yes there is. Hope that helps. YMMV

[Bako]

Originally Posted by primelord

Our apologies for seeming to continually fail you. So to recap your question was:

"My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?"

The only information you gave us was that you double covered the top WR 100% of the time. No other information on what your defensive players are like or what type of scheme you use etc. You claim to know that the game is not that simple, but then fail to give us any useful information with which to answer your question.

So going with what you have actually shared to this point, is there a better defensive plan than just doubling the top WR? Yes there is. Hope that helps. YMMV

That actually does help. See was that really all that hard. Thanks for the help.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

My question is, is there a better plan of defense for me or is a great player just going to get his no matter what I do?

Some times I slot the mike linebacker over in the sam position. Then I will take the sam and slot him at strong safety. This will give you a virtual 4-4-3 defense that takes the underneath routes out of the equation and allows your man-to-man guys to excel out there on the island. They know what is coming so they can sit on the routes and/or jump them for bushels of pick sixes.

I also run a 1-7-3 that puts sams and wills at the edge rusher positions. I overplay the long pass here, forcing a containment kind of force field that seems to be good at shutting off the long stuff. I have only used this a few times though - primarily against roll out QBs with high ratings in long or deep passing.

I have some other stuff that I am experimenting with, but I don't want to unveil it until I have finished with my current slot receiver thing. I get short, fast guys in the WR3 position and run a shitton of 2te single back.

Probably have said too much already lol.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by jzicc

We'll see tonight when I play you in the HFL

Well considering that Monk is my highest rated WR and has the highest RR, I bet you'll be DC'ing him at least 75%.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

That actually does help. See was that really all that hard. Thanks for the help.

That wasn't hard at all. I am here for you brother.

[jzicc]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Well considering that Monk is my highest rated WR and has the highest RR, I bet you'll be DC'ing him at least 75%.

14 catches 200 yards and 2 tds --- the game plan was to tire out his hands from catching --- I mistakenly thought TEs were included (I believe MILLER has a higher RR) ---- MONK was only DC'd minimally -- I guess Tom Hicks got my main coverage (1 out of 4 catches) --- At least Ted Brown did not beat you

[UK Rookie]

Subby,

As a nOOb please could you (or someone ) tell me what the "Mike Linebacker" , "Sam position" and " Wills" means?

Im guessing its........
Mike ...Middle Linebacker
Sam....Strong Outside Linebacker
Wills....Weak Outside Linebacker
is this correct?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by UK Rookie

Subby,

As a nOOb please could you (or someone ) tell me what the "Mike Linebacker" , "Sam position" and " Wills" means?

Im guessing its........
Mike ...Middle Linebacker
Sam....Strong Outside Linebacker
Wills....Weak Outside Linebacker
is this correct?

Mostly right - it's based on a 4-3 front (in the old days this was pretty much everyone's defense), with Strong-Middle-Weak LB positions, using the corresponding letters.


edit: and don't pay any attention to Subby or anything he ever says that's not in ALL CAPS

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by no9dia37

Thank you for not answering the question and the pep talk.

Actually, I think if the only thing you listened to in this entire thread was just the stuff that I personally have posted, then you'd be far better off than if you read everything and took it all at face value. But I am biased, I suppose.

I'm actually trying to help.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Actually, I think if the only thing you listened to in this entire thread was just the stuff that I personally have posted, then you'd be far better off than if you read everything and took it all at face value.

To be fair, he thinks this about every thread he posts in.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Thus your 2nd CB is in 1 on 1 with the other quality WR for the vast majority of the game? Yikes.

In which case you want to try something like 20/100 or something to give your (presumably) weaker 2nd CB extra help and hoping your top cornerback can handle their top receiver.

However, compounding things with uncertainty of whether you have to have player with LCB experience playing at the #1 cornerback slot (logically speaking you wouldn't have thought so but that's how it looks on the roster screen so who can be sure), problems with never being certain which receiver is going to be considered the best by the AI on any given play (top guy is subbed out, 3rd receiver is brought in with higher route running than the "top" two guys, top receiver is masked so the AI ignores him, etc etc), I find it best not to worry too much about things like that.

I think the results (31st best pass defence in the league) speak for themselves.

[Hammer]

In which case you want to try something like 20/100 or something to give your (presumably) weaker 2nd CB extra help and hoping your top cornerback can handle their top receiver.

Sure, I understand thats what you should do Narcizo. But the fact is the AI recommend is there to helps noobs, which it isn't doing. When the AI sees a severe passing threat with 2 great receivers it leaves 1 of them to have a field day by going 66-34, or similar.

Still finding it bizarre that the AI recommend maxes out at 100. Its almost as if something isn't working as intended.