Zone or man?

[RogueHominid]

Something I'll do from time to time is run a zone but hot route to man on the 1-receiver side of the field and play the WR to the inside. It's a nice alternative look that allows you to focus your attention elsewhere, assuming your manned up corner is reliable .

[Ian Iachimoe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Batum Shaka Laka

Don't run straight up man on this game. I know of six routes that beat it consistently (some unrealistically). Man zone combos are the way to go.

this ^^^^.

[californ14]

I use zone or a mix of zone deep/man under, either cover 1 or cover 2....I make DL adjusts and LB adjusts just about every play....Works great for me....

I believe zones are more effective than M2M, if you take the time to learn adjustments and use them....If you do not want to take the time to figure out good adjustments, then I would say that M2M is the more effective, out of the box....

[throckmeisterz]

It really depends whether you're playing against human opponents or AI. I play almost exclusively against the AI, so anyone who wishes to improve their anti-AI defense, you may find my input valuable:

The 3-4, particularly in M13 (but to some extent in every madden I've played), is far inferior to 4-3 defense. D-line pass rush is far overpowered and OLB pass rush is far underpowered compared to real life. Furthermore, the biggest advantage of 3-4 is that it allows you to confuse or surprise your opponents with multiple looks; this may make it effective against human opponents, but the AI cannot be taken by surprise.

Along the same lines, against the AI, man coverage leads to the most consistently good results. Zone works well against human opponents because it's harder to read; this doesn't really work on the AI. I only call zone if the opponent has the ball beyond my 10 yd line, where the zones get condensed; otherwise, I will occasionally call cover 3 to try and interrupt the AI's rhythm if it manages to start rolling. I call man blitzes to stop the run and very rarely to rush the passer, but I never rush more than 6. Using this playcalling strategy, my CBs routinely beat the original NFL INT record of 14 in a season, my ROLB, MLB, and safeties all get 5-10 picks, and my D-linemen all get double digit sacks. Furthermore, I generally allow under 7 points per game.

Of course, this requires fast CBs and LBs all with high man coverage. This year, this strategy is made far easier because of the ability to choose how players' stats are upgraded. I can upgrade my LBs man coverage to the high 80s/low 90s. A particularly fast LB like Patrick Willis (90spd) with high man coverage can passably cover WRs one on one.

Even playing against human opponents, I would probably stick mostly with a 4-3, man coverage defense. Hope this helps.

[roll2tide]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Exaggerate much? I agree that zone coverages have many problems, and that there are certain route combinations that make certain zone schemes unplayable (I have a more than just a few posts showing some of the problems), but you can mix certain zone schemes in, as long as you know what formations inherently give certain schemes problems.

The guy said he was a noob and he was asking for a base defense: zone or man. Zone as a base defense is completely broken. He's not going to know why WRs are randomly wide open and he's not going to know why sometimes his safety just watches a pass go right by him/through him. He's not going to know why the TE is always open in the middle.

At least playing man puts him in position to have a guy nearby to make a play. It gives him a safe starting point.

As for other's comments...I agree about man zone combos. I run a 3-4 and often audible 2-3 players per play into custom zones based on expected routes/DB shading/etc. Please don't take an answer to a self described "noob" and use it to tell me I don't understand defenses.

[RyanMoody21]

Quote: Originally Posted by roll2tide

The guy said he was a noob and he was asking for a base defense: zone or man. Zone as a base defense is completely broken. He's not going to know why WRs are randomly wide open and he's not going to know why sometimes his safety just watches a pass go right by him/through him. He's not going to know why the TE is always open in the middle. At least playing man puts him in position to have a guy nearby to make a play. It gives him a safe starting point. As for other's comments...I agree about man zone combos. I run a 3-4 and often audible 2-3 players per play into custom zones based on expected routes/DB shading/etc. Please don't take an answer to a self described "noob" and use it to tell me I don't understand defenses.

The best zone defenders will play toward the rear of the zone and try to keep everything infront of them. This way any crossing routes can be easily picked up, as can dump offs and QB scrambles. Most players also face the QB and play at an angle with there back toward the sideline. In Madden, they really don't portray that well.

When you have a player in your zone realistically you want to force him toward the center of the field, where all of your help is. That is where Madden really fails, defenders work as individuals in areas, making hand gestures as if they are passing off but not going to the boundary of the zone to do so. This really exaggerates the gaps built into zone defenses.

Even worse and perhaps most damaging is the fact when a defender has no player in his zone, even if no threat is in the area he will just stand still.

On rare occasion I have see a defender in the flat appear like they are going to blitz if nobody is in the flat, but it's few and far between.

Years into the game and this still frustrates me to no end, as a new player I can only imagine the confusion and anger that could occur.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by roll2tide

The guy said he was a noob and he was asking for a base defense: zone or man. Zone as a base defense is completely broken. He's not going to know why WRs are randomly wide open and he's not going to know why sometimes his safety just watches a pass go right by him/through him. He's not going to know why the TE is always open in the middle. At least playing man puts him in position to have a guy nearby to make a play. It gives him a safe starting point. As for other's comments...I agree about man zone combos. I run a 3-4 and often audible 2-3 players per play into custom zones based on expected routes/DB shading/etc. Please don't take an answer to a self described "noob" and use it to tell me I don't understand defenses.

Your use of the word "completely" is what is wrong; not to mention that "broken" seems to be the buzz word of the last couple years to describe anything that doesn't do exactly what one wants it to do.

Completely broken means that it won't work. At all.

If that's not an exaggerated term, I don't know what is.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by RyanMoody21

The best zone defenders will play toward the rear of the zone and try to keep everything infront of them. This way any crossing routes can be easily picked up, as can dump offs and QB scrambles. Most players also face the QB and play at an angle with there back toward the sideline. In Madden, they really don't portray that well. When you have a player in your zone realistically you want to force him toward the center of the field, where all of your help is. That is where Madden really fails, defenders work as individuals in areas, making hand gestures as if they are passing off but not going to the boundary of the zone to do so. This really exaggerates the gaps built into zone defenses. Even worse and perhaps most damaging is the fact when a defender has no player in his zone, even if no threat is in the area he will just stand still. On rare occasion I have see a defender in the flat appear like they are going to blitz if nobody is in the flat, but it's few and far between. Years into the game and this still frustrates me to no end, as a new player I can only imagine the confusion and anger that could occur.

This is not an accurate description of zone defense is played in football, it's more like a description of zone defense in basketball.

There are no "boundaries" in zones. There are not black and white areas for zone defenders to play. Not all zone players "face the qb" or "force players to the middle." What about wallers/"scif" players, etc.

Zone defenses are just ways to identify how perimeter runs will be defended and how specific route combinations will be matched.

However, you are spot on in complaining about defenders who basically cover grass instead of hunting opposite cloth.