man coverage in madden should be a chess match

[DaBear23]

man coverage in the nfl is a chess match. when a db is playing man coverage, is goal is not to put every single route on lock down. the db goals is to put some route lock down. these means that if a db is goal is not to give away anything thing over the top, then any sort of come back route should get open and any sort of deep pass should be damn nears impossible to complete. take a look at these video for example

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000...-shoulder-pass

you would notice in these video that the back shoulder throw is open all the time. the reason the back shoulder throw is open is because of the technique the db is playing. if the wr was running a slant route it would be difficult for the wide receiver to get open because the db is playing inside technique. now take a good look at the second video and see how back shoulder throw can turn into a disaster.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-...s-interception


the reason why revis got the intercerption so easily was because of the technique he was playing. he was playing the trail technique. any comeback route(like curl route) or slant should turn into a disaster, but a go route or any deep route should get open easily against the trail technique.

they could easily implement these type of coverage in madden by asking the user what kind of technique they would like to play. if they want to make it more casual futbol fan friendly. they would just ask a user if they would like to play aggressive or conservatively after they pick man coverage. if the user pick aggressive then the db should play something like the trail technique and if the user choose conservative then the db should try to take away the deep route and the come back route should get open easily. these would change how defense is played in madden and it would make the game more sim if it could be implemented.

the advantages

no route is going to be useless.

any route can easily be shut down.

reduce the effectiveness of nano blitz.

there would be nothing like money play.

it would reduce the effectiveness of speed realistically.



i would love to know how how you guys think they ea could implement these type of man coverage in madden.

[Ueauvan]

what id also like to see if Defensive PI. for example that Revis 100 yd pick td imo was PI but wasnt called. if the DBs do what you want them to do then there has to be consequences, if by trying to prevent the inside they PI then it has to be called

all are parts of an accurate defensive experience

[jmik58]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaBear23

man coverage in the nfl is a chess match. when a db is playing man coverage, is goal is not to put every single route on lock down. the db goals is to put some route lock down. these means that if a db is goal is not to give away anything thing over the top, then any sort of come back route should get open and any sort of deep pass should be damn nears impossible to complete. take a look at these video for example http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000...-shoulder-pass you would notice in these video that the back shoulder throw is open all the time. the reason the back shoulder throw is open is because of the technique the db is playing. if the wr was running a slant route it would be difficult for the wide receiver to get open because the db is playing inside technique. now take a good look at the second video and see how back shoulder throw can turn into a disaster. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-...s-interception the reason why revis got the intercerption so easily was because of the technique he was playing. he was playing the trail technique. any comeback route(like curl route) or slant should turn into a disaster, but a go route or any deep route should get open easily against the trail technique. they could easily implement these type of coverage in madden by asking the user what kind of technique they would like to play. if they want to make it more casual futbol fan friendly. they would just ask a user if they would like to play aggressive or conservatively after they pick man coverage. if the user pick aggressive then the db should play something like the trail technique and if the user choose conservative then the db should try to take away the deep route and the come back route should get open easily. these would change how defense is played in madden and it would make the game more sim if it could be implemented. the advantages no route is going to be useless. any route can easily be shut down. reduce the effectiveness of nano blitz. there would be nothing like money play. it would reduce the effectiveness of speed realistically. i would love to know how how you guys think they ea could implement these type of man coverage in madden.

Man coverage doesn't allow the defender to play "aggressive" versus "conservative" in regard to the route they want to stop. The defender plays inside position and trails slightly on purpose. They read the eyes of the receiver and react accordingly. You can't defend a certain route with your back to the QB. You have to see the QB drop to be able to predict routes on the fly. That's something that zone coverage allows guys to do, not man. Man is more reactionary to the body language of the receiver. You can't really play aggressive/conservative man coverage. You just play it either really well or horribly, period.

[DaBear23]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

Man coverage doesn't allow the defender to play "aggressive" versus "conservative" in regard to the route they want to stop. The defender plays inside position and trails slightly on purpose. They read the eyes of the receiver and react accordingly. You can't defend a certain route with your back to the QB. You have to see the QB drop to be able to predict routes on the fly. That's something that zone coverage allows guys to do, not man. Man is more reactionary to the body language of the receiver. You can't really play aggressive/conservative man coverage. You just play it either really well or horribly, period.

i guess you know little about man coverage. a db just dont trail a wide out on purpose. if a db is trailing a wr is goal is to take away the come back route or any underneath route. if a defense is playing (man 2 deep) the cb must try to take away the underneath route and let the safety take away the deep route. if a defense is playing man traingle. the cb must try to stay outside of the wr and let the safety take away the skinny post or post route. if a db is playing the inside technique is goal is to away any route that would require the wr to cut inside and use the side line to defend any route that would require the wide out to cut outside. cb just dont run around with wide out and and try to read the wr body language in other to successfully cover a wide out.

[jmik58]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaBear23

i guess you know little about man coverage. a db just dont trail a wide out on purpose. if a db is trailing a wr is goal is to take away the come back route or any underneath route. if a defense is playing (man 2 deep) the cb must try to take away the underneath route and let the safety take away the deep route. if a defense is playing man traingle. the cb must try to stay outside of the wr and let the safety take away the skinny post or post route. if a db is playing the inside technique is goal is to away any route that would require the wr to cut inside and use the side line to defend any route that would require the wide out to cut outside. cb just dont run around with wide out and and try to read the wr body language in other to successfully cover a wide out.

I'm going to take the high road and stay away from how much you or I "know" about man coverage. I have five years of varsity coaching experience as a defensive coordinator so I'm comfortable that I know what man coverage is, how to teach it, and the proper drills to utilize to get players to execute it efficiently.

Anyways, I was only addressing your statement about "conservative" and "aggressive" man coverage.

The proper way to defend a pass in man coverage is to react to the eyes and actions of the receiver. This doesn't change whether you're playing inside or outside technique. Point being, it's a "reactionary" technique where there is ONE trigger point (or key) that the defender has to react to. It doesn't matter where you are in relation to the receiver. I didn't say the defender "Just runs around". If you want to incorrectly rephrase my words to paint me as an unintelligent, that's your choice.

And as far as "trailing" goes, that's a part of man coverage that is based on the premise that if a defender is even or deeper than the receiver then he is beat for any route other than a deep route. The point being, the only disadvantage to the DB is the deep ball which is the hardest to complete, especially with the potential for a safety over the top.

All educating aside, the point was whether or not you can play a "conservative" versus an "aggressive" version of man coverage. The only aggressive part of it would be the jam at the line of scrimmage. You can't cheat or guess in man coverage. I suppose if you did, that's as close to aggressive as possible. If you are calling a sagging trail technique as conservative, then it's only conservative to certain routes and aggressive to others. The tricky thing is that if you are playing a sagging trail technique to protect the comebacks and underneath stuff, then you are being "conservative" to stop those. That also means you are being "aggressive" in your attempt to stop them.

There are always trade offs. You can't label any one thing as always conservative or aggressive. You're not breaking down situations far enough if you stop there.

Bottom line though...man technique requires the DB to read the eyes of the receiver at it's basic form. You either do it well or you don't. There's no way to read and react to the eyes of a receiver more conservatively/aggressively. You can guess where the route is going to be...now THAT would be aggressive. But that has nothing to do with the technique itself...that would be a lack of discipline within man technique.

[kenlovin]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

I'm going to take the high road and stay away from how much you or I "know" about man coverage. I have five years of varsity coaching experience as a defensive coordinator so I'm comfortable that I know what man coverage is, how to teach it, and the proper drills to utilize to get players to execute it efficiently. Anyways, I was only addressing your statement about "conservative" and "aggressive" man coverage. The proper way to defend a pass in man coverage is to react to the eyes and actions of the receiver. This doesn't change whether you're playing inside or outside technique. Point being, it's a "reactionary" technique where there is ONE trigger point (or key) that the defender has to react to. It doesn't matter where you are in relation to the receiver. I didn't say the defender "Just runs around". If you want to incorrectly rephrase my words to paint me as an unintelligent, that's your choice. And as far as "trailing" goes, that's a part of man coverage that is based on the premise that if a defender is even or deeper than the receiver then he is beat for any route other than a deep route. The point being, the only disadvantage to the DB is the deep ball which is the hardest to complete, especially with the potential for a safety over the top. All educating aside, the point was whether or not you can play a "conservative" versus an "aggressive" version of man coverage. The only aggressive part of it would be the jam at the line of scrimmage. You can't cheat or guess in man coverage. I suppose if you did, that's as close to aggressive as possible. If you are calling a sagging trail technique as conservative, then it's only conservative to certain routes and aggressive to others. The tricky thing is that if you are playing a sagging trail technique to protect the comebacks and underneath stuff, then you are being "conservative" to stop those. That also means you are being "aggressive" in your attempt to stop them. There are always trade offs. You can't label any one thing as always conservative or aggressive. You're not breaking down situations far enough if you stop there. Bottom line though...man technique requires the DB to read the eyes of the receiver at it's basic form. You either do it well or you don't. There's no way to read and react to the eyes of a receiver more conservatively/aggressively. You can guess where the route is going to be...now THAT would be aggressive. But that has nothing to do with the technique itself...that would be a lack of discipline within man technique.

BOOM OUTTA HERE

[bukktown]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

I'm going to take the high road and stay away from how much you or I "know" about man coverage. I have five years of varsity coaching experience as a defensive coordinator so I'm comfortable that I know what man coverage is, how to teach it, and the proper drills to utilize to get players to execute it efficiently. Anyways, I was only addressing your statement about "conservative" and "aggressive" man coverage. The proper way to defend a pass in man coverage is to react to the eyes and actions of the receiver. This doesn't change whether you're playing inside or outside technique. Point being, it's a "reactionary" technique where there is ONE trigger point (or key) that the defender has to react to. It doesn't matter where you are in relation to the receiver. I didn't say the defender "Just runs around". If you want to incorrectly rephrase my words to paint me as an unintelligent, that's your choice. And as far as "trailing" goes, that's a part of man coverage that is based on the premise that if a defender is even or deeper than the receiver then he is beat for any route other than a deep route. The point being, the only disadvantage to the DB is the deep ball which is the hardest to complete, especially with the potential for a safety over the top. All educating aside, the point was whether or not you can play a "conservative" versus an "aggressive" version of man coverage. The only aggressive part of it would be the jam at the line of scrimmage. You can't cheat or guess in man coverage. I suppose if you did, that's as close to aggressive as possible. If you are calling a sagging trail technique as conservative, then it's only conservative to certain routes and aggressive to others. The tricky thing is that if you are playing a sagging trail technique to protect the comebacks and underneath stuff, then you are being "conservative" to stop those. That also means you are being "aggressive" in your attempt to stop them. There are always trade offs. You can't label any one thing as always conservative or aggressive. You're not breaking down situations far enough if you stop there. Bottom line though...man technique requires the DB to read the eyes of the receiver at it's basic form. You either do it well or you don't. There's no way to read and react to the eyes of a receiver more conservatively/aggressively. You can guess where the route is going to be...now THAT would be aggressive. But that has nothing to do with the technique itself...that would be a lack of discipline within man technique.

I think his "conservative vs aggressive" idea was just a noob friendly label to communicate whether you want the db to defend short routes vs long routes.

[lordnate]

In Madden, there is an option to shade the WRs to the left or right. You can also press or play off coverage. The issue is that the WR shading doesn't actually work. I have tested this with Darrelle Revis and it doesn't even work with him. If you tell Revis to shade the inside part of the WR, he won't take away the slant route any better than if you told him nothing.

In practice with the Jets, I told Revis to shade the inside part of the WR on a slant route and his first step was to the outside. This feature does not work and its the reason why there is no chess match in man coverage.