Zone Depth: A legitimate X's and O's problem

[Mofficial]

The purple routes are called curl routes if no one else mentioned that. This is a very good post. Very knowledgeable. I think that EA needs to speak with a couple coaches from the NFL and really ask them how routes are supposed to work and to get a thorough understanding. I think that this will also help with them creating more and new plays in the playbooks and will also allow them to learn how to make the 3-4 D effective.

[o 99 PROBL3MS o]

Most of these post make perfect sense. I think the zone coverage ratings have a lot to do with this (as they should). The depth of these zones could use some work but I think zone coverage ratings should come into play more.

[teambayern]

I agree, and as I said previously, Ed Reed is the guy I started noticing this with. Granted, I can't think of a harder player to replicate in the NFL than Ed, but he drifts so far back he's out of the play on most passes, failing to even attempt to jump routes, which is his bread and butter.

I think if the AWR factored in a different way, along with fixing zone depth, it could help to create the kind of shiftiness and ball hawking that these players should have. For the rest of the league, the guys should at least be in the play when the ball is thrown that far upfield.

[Madwolf]

I think one of the issues is that the zone is TIED to the player. So when you have 3 LBers in a Cover 2 in a 4-3 set, they're all essentially covering the middle of the field more or less. Now, split that out to a Dime package and Cover 2 and the coverage is more spread out.

What I did last year to compensate is make the 2 outside DBs play Hook zones, and send the inside LBers/DBs to cover the flats or have them play Hook zones on a 3rd/4th and long play. This created much better coverage.

[CreatineKasey]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

I think one of the issues is that the zone is TIED to the player. So when you have 3 LBers in a Cover 2 in a 4-3 set, they're all essentially covering the middle of the field more or less. Now, split that out to a Dime package and Cover 2 and the coverage is more spread out. What I did last year to compensate is make the 2 outside DBs play Hook zones, and send the inside LBers/DBs to cover the flats or have them play Hook zones on a 3rd/4th and long play. This created much better coverage.

I've noticed this dilemma too. Very aggravating to have a guy stick a slant route between your MLB and dime DB consistently.

I'll tell you what: being aware of this really changes how I call my defense. Cover 3's now seem extremely soft, and I spy a hook zone in cover 2 zones more often than not.

Cover 2 Buc with the MLB hot-routed to a hook zone is great against 3rd and really long, but don't bank on it for 3rd and 7.

I'm getting more aggressive with my calls. If you run a cover 0 with a safety covering a RB and the RB is kept in to block the safety plays a deep zone... he doesn't blindly run in like APF. This allows you to play these defenses without wasting player assignments. It is a big benefit that I'm not used to using because of APF's giant pitfall there.