Defending Four Verticals (Quarters Coverage)

[Matt10]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

While all of this is accurate (and very useful) real life information, I think a lot of the defensive concepts you bring up aren't applicable to the game. The defensive players in the game don't "read" anything, they are told to go to a spot and defend it. The problem there is that they don't adjust to certain routes and they don't work in tandem with other defenders. All of the concepts listed require communication between defenders and just dynamic thinking that doesn't exist in the game. That creates massive gaps in all zone defenses that are exploitable even when the play you called should defend the play the offense called. Guys just stand in their designed spot, regardless of alignment or what the WR is doing. In the case of Cover 4, the underneath coverage is horrendously designed and so you get huge gaps in the defense vertically behind the intermediate zones and in front of the deep quarters zones, in the 12-16 yard area you talked about. In real life, the defenders would pattern read and the intermediate defenders would back pedal with the vertical threat until someone crossed their face, which wouldn't happen. That is meant to take away that 12-16 yard area between zones. In the game, the intermediate defenders aren't programmed to do that so you get massive gaps before the 4 deep even comes into play. I'm not sure I'd get caught dead running Cover 4 as a base defense in this game. Too many gaping holes, not nearly enough AI programming for underneath coverages to understand what I am hoping it does. My experiences may be a bit different than the rest of you since 90% of my games are user v user, but there are problems translating the great information in the OP to on the NCAA field.

This.

But excellent post OP, but you are approaching the concept as if core gameplay isn't broken in regards to how the safeties play their assignment REGARDLESS of what is called.

It's a glitch, simple as that. A safety should not bite on a ball that hasn't even been thrown - then quickly appear to 'realize' they've made a blunder, and try to recover every single those plays mentioned.

[mrprice33]

The safety AI undoubtedly glitches but people also don't understand how to defend 4 verts.

[pj_28]

I love this post for the idea of people needing to run the proper defense, but the problem is that cover 4 isn't run properly either in the game, atleast it is not run the way I was taught and my school ran cover 4 as the base D. As PowerofRed said the players don't actually read anything, they just go to a spot mindlessly.

And just to let people know the problem with zone D is actually something that was posted about on game changers yesterday for people to read and vote on.

[mrprice33]

Jdewiel said today that they're aware of the bugs with zones and are working to resolve now.

But yes, there need to be better reads and checks for zones in the future. Some type of "option" system.

[yourfavestoner]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

While all of this is accurate (and very useful) real life information, I think a lot of the defensive concepts you bring up aren't applicable to the game. The defensive players in the game don't "read" anything, they are told to go to a spot and defend it. The problem there is that they don't adjust to certain routes and they don't work in tandem with other defenders. All of the concepts listed require communication between defenders and just dynamic thinking that doesn't exist in the game. That creates massive gaps in all zone defenses that are exploitable even when the play you called should defend the play the offense called. Guys just stand in their designed spot, regardless of alignment or what the WR is doing. In the case of Cover 4, the underneath coverage is horrendously designed and so you get huge gaps in the defense vertically behind the intermediate zones and in front of the deep quarters zones, in the 12-16 yard area you talked about. In real life, the defenders would pattern read and the intermediate defenders would back pedal with the vertical threat until someone crossed their face, which wouldn't happen. That is meant to take away that 12-16 yard area between zones. In the game, the intermediate defenders aren't programmed to do that so you get massive gaps before the 4 deep even comes into play. I'm not sure I'd get caught dead running Cover 4 as a base defense in this game. Too many gaping holes, not nearly enough AI programming for underneath coverages to understand what I am hoping it does. My experiences may be a bit different than the rest of you since 90% of my games are user v user, but there are problems translating the great information in the OP to on the NCAA field.

Excellent point. Most/all 3-under defenses (whether it be Cover 6 or Cover 4) are heavy pattern-read zones - very similar to matchup zones in basketball (it's really man coverage with checks to communicate who is passing off a receiver and where). Spot dropping just doesn't work with it, and that's all the defenders do in the game. That's another big reason why Fire Zone Blitzes are pretty much asking to give up 6 in the game.

The tug-and-pull (changing drastically each year, it seems) has been to either make the linebackers ridiculously good in coverage or to make them terrible.

I don't play much user-vs-user, but I have had some success running Quarters concepts vs the CPU. You have to control one of the safeties (I try to control the Field side) and use coverage audibles to tilt to formation, personnel, or hash (and then pray the other safety doesn't completely screw up). But still, it's very hit or miss.

[PowerofRed25]

Some sort of pattern reading (even if it is pre-determined to "know" what the patterns are presnap) would really help zone coverage in this game. Just the basic zone rules going with the first guy through your zone until the next guy crosses your face would be helpful. We can see glimpses of it in game, it does seem like hook zone defenders move with guys as they go through their zone but it only serves to take them out of position because they don't react to anyone else once they're "latched on" to the first guy through.

I actually feel like a big part of the problem is how the zone plays are actually drawn up. The base zone locations seem to place guys in positions where they are caught in between on certain plays.

As for defending four verticals in the game, I think it depends if you're playing CPU or Humans and the personnel. Against the CPU, you can get away with Cover 3 zone most of the time, Cover 4 could work as well but you better be on your game manually covering with the MLB.

Against users, I run strict Cover 2 Man with 6 or 7 DB's on the field. I manually cover with the MLB and run with the crosser out of 3x1 Four Verts, essentially bracketing him. That basically gives me 2 on 1 everywhere on the field. Some users smarten up and realize I'm leaving the HB uncovered and just hot route him out of the backfield, but most don't catch on.

You really just need to play hunches and mix up your D, user or CPU. Given the slow reaction time of safeties this year, I can see myself running a whole lot more man to man to ensure I've got guys running with deep routes regardless of what the safety does.

[yourfavestoner]

Further, I've found an excellent breakdown of the best pattern reading coach at any level: Nick Saban

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2...age-cover.html

As you can see, there's a ton of stuff built into just one coverage concept. I don't know how this could ever get coded into a video game. :shrug:

[yourfavestoner]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

Some sort of pattern reading (even if it is pre-determined to "know" what the patterns are presnap) would really help zone coverage in this game. Just the basic zone rules going with the first guy through your zone until the next guy crosses your face would be helpful. We can see glimpses of it in game, it does seem like hook zone defenders move with guys as they go through their zone but it only serves to take them out of position because they don't react to anyone else once they're "latched on" to the first guy through. I actually feel like a big part of the problem is how the zone plays are actually drawn up. The base zone locations seem to place guys in positions where they are caught in between on certain plays. As for defending four verticals in the game, I think it depends if you're playing CPU or Humans and the personnel. Against the CPU, you can get away with Cover 3 zone most of the time, Cover 4 could work as well but you better be on your game manually covering with the MLB. Against users, I run strict Cover 2 Man with 6 or 7 DB's on the field. I manually cover with the MLB and run with the crosser out of 3x1 Four Verts, essentially bracketing him. That basically gives me 2 on 1 everywhere on the field. Some users smarten up and realize I'm leaving the HB uncovered and just hot route him out of the backfield, but most don't catch on. You really just need to play hunches and mix up your D, user or CPU. Given the slow reaction time of safeties this year, I can see myself running a whole lot more man to man to ensure I've got guys running with deep routes regardless of what the safety does.

Yeah, the ideal way to combat the spread and 4 Verts is with Man Free with a Robbert and Man Under. If you have the athletes to win isolated one-on-one matchups (and press, to boot), you're going to win those battles most of the time.

There's a reason, though, that you'll only see college teams int he SEC play the spreads like that - because they've got the bigs up front to stop the run and option games and they've got the DBs who can match up in man.

To note, that's been Nebraska's preferred way of dealing with the spread. That's a huge reason why they pummeled so hard on Mizzou with Gabbert there. For some reason, Pinkel went from a one-back spread to an empty spread with Gabbert (overrating his running skills I'm assuming). Nebraska just went 4-2 Nickel and ran Man Free or Man Under on every freaking play and destroy Mizzou's WRs at the LOS.