Man coverage has some SERIOUS issues!

[Palo20]

Here is some video of Cover 3. The CBs should be backpedaling, like last year's game. They can turn and run if someone challenges them deep, not stay in the backpedal like last year.



09PSU_C3 @ Yahoo! Video

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jets123

I don't mind trying your sliders, but I usually just play on-line, so sliders wouldn't really be an option for that

Yeah, good point. At least you might enjoy the demo a bit more though.

[s38s38s]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jets123

Man I'm glad you guys don't work on the game... The insanely slow reaction is horrendous for even the WORST LBer in the NFL. I can react better than that. But fine, explain THIS scenario to me: Dallas Clark runs to the flat and stops at the sideline. B. Thomas overshoots this route and continues to run OUT OF BOUNDS about 7 yards.. pretty much runs right over to the gatorade table before he stops to turn back to Clark. So you're telling me, that D. Clark is SO GOOD at his route running that he makes defenders think that he can catch balls out of bounds? I mean how stupid is B. Thomas that he's thinking... OH GOD, I GOTTA MAKE SURE HE DOESN'T CATCH THIS BALL BY OUR BENCH!! Seriously, before you make a comment think about what you're saying. D. Clark is good, but he's not Jedi Mind trick good. The reaction of even the worst LBer wouldn't be this ridiculous. THIS is a problem in the game plain and simple. I hate these reactions. You don't read the entire post, you don't analyze the situation, and jump to some conclusion that people are crying foul with no reason. If you spend a second to analyze the example I posted, you'd see that there is a real issue here. No where did I say that B. Thomas should successfully cover D. Clark. All I'm saying is that the scenarios where he gets burned are completely unrealistic no matter who the TE is and no matter who the LBer is.

Umm, sure. I read every post, my response was in reference to Thomas getting beat in man coverage. I never referenced the play where he ran out of bounds as this is a demo and that will most likely be bugged in the Gold version.

You think because I disagree that I'm jumping to a conclusion, but your title Man coverage has some SERIOUS issues! handles jumping to the conclusion quite well on it's own.

Strange how you made no comment on Gonzalez beating Cromartie but you come up with a completely slanted title because you saw a defender run out of bounds, interesting. Yes I believe you the sky is falling SMH.

PS-I bet Clark could get even more separartion against you. Also I love the sarcasm, seriously.

[Jets123]

Quote: Originally Posted by s38s38s

Umm, sure. I read every post, my response was in reference to Thomas getting beat in man coverage. I never referenced the play where he ran out of bounds as this is a demo and that will most likely be bugged in the Gold version. You think because I disagree that I'm jumping to a conclusion, but your title Man coverage has some SERIOUS issues! handles jumping to the conclusion quite well on it's own.

Because these are serious issues. I think I should just put up a video to show how severely over exaggerated some of these scenarios really are.

Quote: Originally Posted by s38s38s

Strange how you made no comment on Gonzalez beating Cromartie but you come up with a completely slanted title because you saw a defender run out of bounds, interesting. Yes I believe you the sky is falling SMH.

I'm just pointing out the scenarios that I have experienced so far. Another one I saw just today, was R. Wayne getting 5 yards of separation vs D. Revis on an in route. That's also exaggerated. I'm not sure if I"ve seen Revis the entirety of last year be that far away from his receiver even in the worst case.

The annoying thing is that you're ready to dismiss my entire complaint because D. Clark should be getting open vs B. Thomas, which I don't disagree with. But the extent as to how open he gets is completely and utterly unrealistic. There is an issue there, it is serious and it should be addressed. You think the final version has this fixed, but we'll see, I would be very surprised if it is.