In real life Lb's can't keep up with Rb's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rhombic21]

And what I'm telling you is that it doesn't even take 6-7 seconds for these routes to develop. They are wide open within 3-4 seconds. So even with a more realistic pass rush, they would still be a problem.

[trayeight]

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I think with pressure, none of this would be an issue. It hasn't been before, at least for me.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigjake62505

If pure speed is your arguement then yes if the RB was in a 100m race yess but the RB is running a pass route looking for the ball, making the catch, and paying attention to where he is on the field. No one runs a pass route like a 100m sprint. And if you want to talk speed and 40 times. A average RB will clock in around 4.4 - 4.6, average OLB will put up aroung 4.6, so thats a average of 2 tenths of a second in forty yards.

Do you know how much of a difference .2 seconds is in the 40?? It is huge and could make the difference between being a first or third rounder or the difference from being drafted or not drafted. Chris Johnson is the perfect example. His 4.25 forty made him a first round pick. If he would have ran a 4.45 he would have been maybe a third rounder at best. Or look at WR's. How many 4.5 reciever's get picked?? Now how many 4.3 WR's get picked?? See the difference. Same goes for RB's. If you run a 4.6 then you are a "slow" back but if you go run a 4.4 then you stock is greatly improved. You watch and see how much of a difference Chris Wells 40 time makes in his draft stock.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigjake62505

If pure speed is your arguement then yes if the RB was in a 100m race yess but the RB is running a pass route looking for the ball, making the catch, and paying attention to where he is on the field. No one runs a pass route like a 100m sprint. And if you want to talk speed and 40 times. A average RB will clock in around 4.4 - 4.6, average OLB will put up aroung 4.6, so thats a average of 2 tenths of a second in forty yards.

Average RBs don't run 4.4 and average LBS don't run 4.6. Not arguing with your logic, LB's should be able to keep up with RB's to some extent, but they aren't nearly that fast. REAL 40 times are so exaggerated, even by the NFL because of the use of hand-timing, even the combine uses a hand time to start the watch, thus subtracting an average of .14 seconds from their time. The average NFL running back electrically timed in the 40 is around 4.68, while the average LB time is around 4.77, not that much of a difference. The separation is in AGILITY. RB's have much better change of direction skills than their LB counterparts, which makes it an offensive edged mismatch, but LBs don't often get left behind on non-vertical routes.

Maybe a little off-topic, but speed ratings in the game are f'ed up. I don't care what they say the players 40's are, the way the speed ratings affect the game is rediculous. The ratings should be reflected with a bell-shaped curve, not a linear one, like the game uses. For example, a 99 speed rated player in reality should not be twice as fast as 49 rated player. If that 99 rated player runs a hand timed 4.28 40, the 49 rated player doesn't run 8.56 like the game speed represents it, he runs more like 5.5-5.7, a big difference yes, but it shouldn't be as exaggerated.

[sportyguyfl31]

Quote: Originally Posted by trayeight

Well, I have played "organized football" for almost 15 years, and have coached it for 9. There are backs that LBs can't cover. You aren't going to be able to cover Noel Devine with a LB, no matter how hard you try, or how much you bitch about it. Same thing with any of the elite backs. You might be able to get away with it against Utah State, but not anyone who is legit. Think about it; they are coming at the LB with a running start, while the LB is either backpeddling or opening up his hips and dropping (depending on who is teaching them). There's no way you are going to be able to do that for any consistent amount of time. The problem here isn't that the LBs can't cover, it's that the O-Line gives the QB way too much time.

Well, of course, in space, it is not a contest. I would never expect a LB to cover a reggie bush type back in that kind of situation.

However, I guarantee you that a LB will be able to diagnose a HB coming out of the backfield on a flare or short out pattern, and be at least able to close gorund on it more often then not.

But you are also right about the pass rush, and i tend to lean towards that point of view as well.

I can forgive the coverage if there was the possibilty of a rushed, inaccurate throw due to pressure.

The Michigan-Florida Capital One Bowl game is a perfect example of what I would like to see (within reason of course, personnel does matter, or at least it should.)

Florida had wide open recievers all over the field because Michigan made the decision that if they were going to get beat by the spread offense, they were going to get beat attacking it.

Their pressure disrupted just enough plays to force bad throws, and pull out a win, even though their secondary was leaking like a faucet all day.

That cannot be replicated in this game.

[Phobia]

Quote: Originally Posted by trayeight

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I think with pressure, none of this would be an issue. It hasn't been before, at least for me.

I agree, I think better D-line play would fix alot of these issues. If the QB had on adverage 3-4 secs ONLY of protection then we would see alot less big plays.

[trayeight]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportyguyfl31

Well, of course, in space, it is not a contest. I would never expect a LB to cover a reggie bush type back in that kind of situation. However, I guarantee you that a LB will be able to diagnose a HB coming out of the backfield on a flare or short out pattern, and be at least able to close gorund on it more often then not. But you are also right about the pass rush, and i tend to lean towards that point of view as well. I can forgive the coverage if there was the possibilty of a rushed, inaccurate throw due to pressure. The Michigan-Florida Capital One Bowl game is a perfect example of what I would like to see (within reason of course, personnel does matter, or at least it should.) Florida had wide open recievers all over the field because Michigan made the decision that if they were going to get beat by the spread offense, they were going to get beat attacking it. Their pressure disrupted just enough plays to force bad throws, and pull out a win, even though their secondary was leaking like a faucet all day. That cannot be replicated in this game.

Great post, and I agree with 99% of it, but tell me this... how can a LB diagnose the difference between a flat route out of the backfield or an angle route? If he jumps the flat route and it's actually an angle route, he's beat, which is the design of the route. If he sits inside expecting an angle route, he's beat to the flats. That's why I am saying you can't have it both ways.

[tate09]

Quote: Originally Posted by trayeight

\ Great post, and I agree with 99% of it, but tell me this... how can a LB diagnose the difference between a flat route out of the backfield or an angle route? If he jumps the flat route and it's actually an angle route, he's beat, which is the design of the route. If he sits inside expecting an angle route, he's beat to the flats. That's why I am saying you can't have it both ways.

he has to use the sideline as an extra defender and take a conservative angle and not overpursue to the outside. keep a little separation until he is certain what route is being run. don't do what every defensive player in NCAA 09 does and chase the RB or WRs heels putting themselves in an awful position unless the defensive player has a 20 PT speed advantage.