NCAA 13 Reading Man vs Zone Pre-snap

[themaddenlab]

http://youtu.be/WXEYCA0NrY4?a

[Dr Death]

Quote: Originally Posted by themaddenlab

http://youtu.be/WXEYCA0NrY4?a

One thing that I believe will be exploited to death on-line is the fact that EA has decided to "disguise" coverage this year by giving what is essentially a Man>Man look every play.

In real life, if the D calls Cover 2 and the O motions a WR, the CB stays home because why??? Because it's freaking Cover 2!!! Yet this year you motion a WR and the CB will follow him regardless. When we are playing on D we have the option of forcing the CB to stay at home, but the CPU doesn't and for those that don't figure that out, on-line is going to be cheesed to death w/ this.

I have no idea why EA would implement something like this, but it's not real football. Team's call Cover 2 for a reason... same w/ any Zone defense. And having DB's follow WR's and get way out of position is just ridiculous.

[Diggler360]

I like it. Think it makes sense.

[themaddenlab]

It does make sense. Disguising your coverage is supposed to not tip your hand pre-snap, but you'll notice in the video, it still does happen. You just have to pay a little closer attention than you used to have to.

[Dr Death]

Quote: Originally Posted by themaddenlab

It does make sense. Disguising your coverage is supposed to not tip your hand pre-snap, but you'll notice in the video, it still does happen. You just have to pay a little closer attention than you used to have to.

I think the point you and the guy who posted above you are missing though, is that teams don't "disguise coverage" by showing "Man" every snap. They may line up in what appears to be Cover 2, then switch to Cover 3 at the snap, they may let a WR motion and NOT follow him, making you believe it's a Zone, but then at the snap the FS takes the WR and suddenly it's Man.

But teams don't call Cover 2 and then have their CB, whose job it is to defend the flat, go in motion w/ a WR, thus vacating the flat and leaving it up to LBer to get there, which then creates another opening.

It is not realism nor have I have ever seen a team "disguise coverage" in this manner.

[eagskerfan]

You are never going to completely disguise your coverage 100% so it's realistic you can still tell a little bit. I don't like the idea of having my outside backer having flat responsibility in cover 2. That playaction out of twins where the fullback goes into the flat, with the tight end running a flag rout will put that backer in a lot of conflict.

[videlsports]

I like where the stratagy is going, but I have to agree with what the others have said when the CB does not folllow the receiver in zone unless you algin your self with the formation.

[stratospaly]

I have not tested this, nor played football because the Olympics have been on this week, but I have a question. What if the player (or cpu) shifts to pressing the WRs (Triangle+down I think it is)? Wouldn't this make zone coverage look exactly like man?

I use the exact formation in the video, for the exact reasons stated in the video. I have noticed that if the left corner is very close to the left WR he is likely playing a short zone, which would be the exact opposite of what is shown in the video. I know this for a fact because I have exploited this pre-snap read to hit the left WR in a streak 12 yards down field, in-between the short zone CB and the cover 2 safety for 15 yards many times. The key to that play is aiming the ball towards the middle of the field or the CB jumps against momentum 20 feet and picks the ball off. My point being the man\zone could only be obvious in a cover 6 zone, and not the more likely cover 2 zone.