"Zone defence is broken" (Long (and actually thought through, I hope))

[sparkdawg777]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportyguyfl31

the problem is pretty simple. In real life, man coverage is really combo coverage..similiar to match up zone principles in basketball. A man enters your zone, you have him man to man before you pass him onto a help defender, and then you work back to your zone. If you are in robber coverage, and your man goes vertical, down the seam, zone coverage again becomes man coverage. No football game has ever been able to replicate this correctly, and I doubt it is very easy to do.

Right on, this is exactly right, it's not the camera angle, although I do think it makes it a lot easier to see the field but it is not the problem. Above is the problem, it's the same problem with NCAA Football right now too. I've played Safety my whole football career through college and the correct way to play zone is not to just sit in a "spot" but that "spot" is covering the receiver pretty much man-man like said above.

The main points of zone are to cover not just WRs in a specific area but ROUTES. (Ex: Flats covers curls to out patterns; Hook Zones mostly seen by the LBs watch for curls/hitches and crossers; And then there's deep, main point here is to let no one behind you and to jump routes such as Streaks and Posts.) Most interceptions you see from zone coverage are because the DB is looking for that specific route and the QB either did not recognize the zone or was rushed.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by TNT713

Here's my take... If the camera is lowered to minimize visibility, they should change the name of the game as well. Madden is and always will be a players game with a coordinator's view. Madden is a game where the coordinator has direct control of one player and indirect control of 10. Thinking of the control set in any other way is inconsistent with the purpose behind the game and it's viewpoint. Zone = defender watching an area of the field. Zone defenders do just that. In the NFL there are other techniques that players might employ to play zone more effectively (ie. watch the QB's eyes, react to deepest or shortest receiver in the zone, etc) but ZONE still means cover a a spot. And thus it works just like it should... If you want to talk about why zone doesn't work... It's not the camera. It's the receivers. They don't sit in the holes. They run through them, sometimes running past an open area where they should throttle down and instead directly toward another zone defender. The camera isn't nor has it ever been the issue... Moving the camera closer isn't going to make the zones play better, negate superhuman plays, nor will it make receivers find holes in zones. It just makes playing the game less "Madden-like." Moving the camera closer only changes the coordinator controlling players perspective into a player controlling other player perspective. But if you look at a paper bag from a closer vantage point, it's still a paper bag no matter how close you get. Later

Zone does not mean cover an "area" of the field. It's not 1970 any more. Zone concepts relate to covering specific receiver distribution using field landmarks as a guideline.

For example, take the flat zone (underneath blue zone in the game). Too often, the defender will buzz outside and cover no one, because no one is occupying that zone. In reality, a flat defender will cover the first receiver that is underneath and outside, not just buzz to the sideline and sit there if no receiver is there.

That's just one example, I could go on forever and get alot more complex, but I wont'. What about 3 under 3 deep schemes? There's no way you can say that the underneath zones are represented well, which basically makes fire zones a huge risk, when in reality the fire zone is not a big risk because you're only sending 5 and you still have 3 deep defenders.

I do agree with you that receiver logic needs to be improved. Receivers should sit in those soft spots. However, if the logic behind how to play zone is improved, there would be a lot less space to sit down in.

[TombSong]

Zone defense in this game is not patterned after real life situations. Its designed for "madden" situations. AI does not play zones like you would expect people to play them.

So, because "madden" allows you to:

1. Throw balls at any point in a WR's route and they will look to catch the ball(thus negating many of the blitzes you can send...QB does not have to hold the ball and wait for the WR to break)

2. You don't have many pre-snap looks to try and hide your coverage. Thus making the QB have to hold the ball a little longer to give your Dline time to raise hell.

3. You have LOADS of time to sit in the pocket against any type of 4-5 man pass rush, it pretty much makes zones dang near useless.

[mjhyankees]

I'm not the best player, although I've got a winning record in online play so that tells me I'm at least decent. I dont' find a problem with the zone D...yes the camera angles give the QB an unfair advantage in any situation...it's like standing on a 15 foot tower to overlook the D.....that said:
I find the defenses to be adequate. when on O, I've often called a crossing pattern only to find that the d is in a zone and I have to wait for my receiver to get between zones...sometimes the defender slides over and causes an Inc. or a pick.....
Now it's not great the game could be improved but I'm generally satisfied.

[seriousluboy83]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Zone defense doesn't work properly because the game just has players dropping to spots, regardless of receiver distribution or formational alignment. This is the problem. Spot-dropping is a thing of the past, although I don't know if it can be implemented properly (computer memory/power) due to the extreme amount adjustments that have to be made by zone defenders. I will agree that the camera does make it easier to read defenses because you can see the whole field.

Quote: Originally Posted by TombSong

Zone defense in this game is not patterned after real life situations. Its designed for "madden" situations. AI does not play zones like you would expect people to play them. So, because "madden" allows you to: 1. Throw balls at any point in a WR's route and they will look to catch the ball(thus negating many of the blitzes you can send...QB does not have to hold the ball and wait for the WR to break) 2. You don't have many pre-snap looks to try and hide your coverage. Thus making the QB have to hold the ball a little longer to give your Dline time to raise hell. 3. You have LOADS of time to sit in the pocket against any type of 4-5 man pass rush, it pretty much makes zones dang near useless.

Here are your 1A. and 1B. answers...1A) being that Madden plays zones to where defenders just "spot drop" (drop to a spot) instead of "match-up zone" (follow the closest offensive player in your zone then release them to then next defender) your already at a disadvantage playing zone...1B) now throw in that there is no "route based passing" (meaning the qb and recievers have to reach a certain point in dropback(full drop) and route(1st cut, 2nd cut) before the ball can be thrown or else a incompletion will be thrown and you now have the answer to why zones in Madden are so ineffective...now if your playing a guy without knowledge of "MADDEN" not football but "MADDEN" then you can most likely succeed playing zones but let you run into one of those guys that just knowns everything there is to know about "MADDEN" and your toast...notice I never mentioned guys having to known anything about football...just "MADDEN"...

[sportyguyfl31]

Quote: Originally Posted by TombSong

3. You have LOADS of time to sit in the pocket against any type of 4-5 man pass rush, it pretty much makes zones dang near useless.

That's the most damning thing, IMO.

I could live with zone coverage being how it is, if this one fundamental aspect of football was fixed.

I would LOVE to play a Colts style of defense..with 2 elite speed rush De's bringing the noise in must pass situations, but that style of D is impossible to play in this game.

The awareness, play recognition, zone, and man coverage ratings should have some impact on zone defense.

There has to be a way to program guys to "think". Like using the awarness rating to determine how efective a player is at knowing when to pass off a receiver to help etc..

Ahh..whatever..EA shows us no indication that they are willing to make the type of game we are asking for.

[sparkdawg777]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportyguyfl31

That's the most damning thing, IMO. I could live with zone coverage being how it is, if this one fundamental aspect of football was fixed. I would LOVE to play a Colts style of defense..with 2 elite speed rush De's bringing the noise in must pass situations, but that style of D is impossible to play in this game. The awareness, play recognition, zone, and man coverage ratings should have some impact on zone defense. There has to be a way to program guys to "think". Like using the awarness rating to determine how efective a player is at knowing when to pass off a receiver to help etc.. Ahh..whatever..EA shows us no indication that they are willing to make the type of game we are asking for.

Yeh I would think that there must be some way to program them to think. Maybe making the CB say in Cover 2 he has flats and surely he could be program to play receiver 1 to 2 and then to 3 depending on who's entering and leaving his zone? If they could do that then I think it would work.

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Zone does not mean cover an "area" of the field. It's not 1970 any more. Zone concepts relate to covering specific receiver distribution using field landmarks as a guideline. For example, take the flat zone (underneath blue zone in the game). Too often, the defender will buzz outside and cover no one, because no one is occupying that zone. In reality, a flat defender will cover the first receiver that is underneath and outside, not just buzz to the sideline and sit there if no receiver is there. That's just one example, I could go on forever and get alot more complex, but I wont'. What about 3 under 3 deep schemes? There's no way you can say that the underneath zones are represented well, which basically makes fire zones a huge risk, when in reality the fire zone is not a big risk because you're only sending 5 and you still have 3 deep defenders. I do agree with you that receiver logic needs to be improved. Receivers should sit in those soft spots. However, if the logic behind how to play zone is improved, there would be a lot less space to sit down in.

Preach on Pastor