 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by Sven Draconian |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, I'll address why this isn't in the pursuit angle thread:
1) It'll get lost in the trash
2) It's about more then just pursuit angles
What is this post about anyway? I'm not going to complain about "twitchyness" or broken animations. My concern is defense with regardless to angles and assignments. A good defense requires discipline first and foremost. Each players has a responsibility on every type of play.
On a run you have a few basic "jobs". Force, Fill/Spill and Support. On an outside pitch or sweep, someone (corner or safety) forces the runner to cutback. Someone (a Safety or LB) fill's the cutback lane. Somone (DB most likley) supports the tackle.
On an inside run the concept is similar. One players job is to clog the hole (Force), the one player has fill (cutback) and another player has spill (bounce). The secondary comes up to support.
Every play has a primary gap and every play has a "support" gaps on every run. A 4-3 MLB will have the strongisde "A" gap as a primary (steps into hole at action at hole) and weakside "B" and strongside "C" as fill gaps. A 4-3 WSB has weak "B" as his force (clog) and strong A as a "fill" and weak C as a "spill". Each DL is responsible for a gap as well (4-3 nose takes weakside A for example).
What does this have to do with NCAA 10's pursuit angle blog?
In the first video, the defense is playing a 5-2 defense. The defense is designed to turn everything inside. The ends should be "box" ends and force the cutback. The ILB force the "A" gap and have fill for everything else.
The defense is in man coverage with a slant away from the play. Both safeties are rolled up. Since there is a slant, the safety on the playside becomes the force player and the LB's gaps both change by one (Playside LB now has playside C as his primary)
Watch the ILBs. Playside should be heading downhill into C gap based on the RB's action. Backside should be watching playside A to C for the cutback.
Watch at the 1 second mark, look at the cutback lane that forms. The safety's job is to turn that play back. He should be heading to the has marks keeping outside leverage and forcing the cutback into his scraping LB.
Where is the LB? His gap is wide open. Why isn't the backside LB scraping over the top now that it's an outside play.
Why isn't the backside safety taking the secondary cutback lane (roughly on the backside hashes).He is running at the corner of the endzone. Sure, he makes the tackle, but that isn't his job.
Lets look at video 2:
We have a 4-3 defense with the LB's showing blitz. Before we get to the play itself, the defense is out of position, they have no pre-designated force defender. I'll assume it was to demonstrate the video.
Based on the DE and OLB actions, the safety is the force defender (responsible to turn play inside)...from 10 yards deep. His first step at action at him should be 45 degrees towards the sideline to force the cutback. He falls for a non-existent counter and then turns to match the HB's shoulders.
If thats a back with speed (and not demonstrating a video) he's untouched for a TD with that type of play.
Those pursuit angles are just as bad as the 09 ones. Instead of "twitch" TDs by heading the sideline, they are going to be cutback across the field TD's...or untouched around the corner touchdowns.
They changed the pursuit logic sure, but they didn't make it realistic. It's imply a different kind of wrong.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
First of all, love the insight b/c I never played football. I've heard announcers on TV try to describe A, B, C gaps before and it just confuses the heck out of me.
I wish we WOULD see this kind of logic in a video game but man what you're talking about seems light years away in terms of EA. They SEEM to be more focused on removing the 'availability' of a glitch play, or maneuver that forces everyone to point and declare "it's not sim football!" Unfortunately this is indeed mitigating the symptom and not the root cause of all the issues.
They need to listen to guys like you.
03-27-2009, 12:47 PM
