Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

One thing I've picked up regarding stopping the CPU's passing game is that max zones, cover twos, and three and four man rushes in general don't work. Also, it doesn't seem to matter if I drop seven or eight into coverage; without a rush, the CPU will complete the pass.

So what I've done is started calling a lot more plays without deep help. In the past I used to always try to match DB's with WR (nickel against 3WR, dime against 4WR, etc.), but now I've done exactly the reverse. I run the 4-3 almost exclusively, and bring out the nickel against 4WR sets. Also, as I said, I've stopped worrying about having the safeties back. In fact, I generally look for the plays that don't have deep coverage. Moreover, I'm even calling 5-10 plays per game where I know I don't have enough defenders playing the pass.

Surprise surprise, my INT numbers have fallen off considerably, my sack numbers are up dramatically, the CPU's completion % is down (I'm actually seeing drops), and I'm getting way more 3-and-outs as well as more stops on 3rd down more generally.

I'm wondering now if we haven't all spent way too much time going out of our way to stop the pass, calling zone blitzes and 'pass defenses' in general all game long, that that's the reason we've all seen so many INTs.

I just finished playing a game on default Heisman, and I had one pick that was totally legit. In fact, like I mentioned in another thread, for the first time I was actually hoping to get an INT based on some of my play calls; e.g. after calling man blitzes on most every play, throwing in a zone blitz feels that much more like it's designed to get an interception. When I didn't get one, the completion the CPU threw actually felt pretty good, like I was one-upped, strategically.

I'm not ready to call this 'confirmed', but I think it's worth considering. The game I just played was my best yet - again, without a single slider tweak, on Heisman. My hopes have never been higher.

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

Nice idea and I hope it continues to work for you. Since day 1 I only call a pass D in certain pass situations, and yes - some games I have one pick that is 100% deserved by me then..............I will have a game where I get 6.

So frustrating. :(

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

LOL ... Well there goes that theory.

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

This theory sounds strange, its almost as if the user is supposed to play the game blind and hope for the best. Of course you arent going to get as many picks if you dont have enough defensive backs on the field to even defend the CPU, I really hope this isnt the only solution to this problem because this doesnt sound like a useful solution.

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

Yeah...I really shouldn't have to completely screw over my pass D to prevent interceptions.

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

If you move the linemen and switch up from having them crash right, left, inside, and out, you can get more of a pass rush with less guys rushing.

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

I had my first ridiculous game for INTs last nite. I had 7 against Memphis. I still don't think it's the problem that it's made out to be. With 2 games to go in year 1, I have 24 team INTs. Sacks on the other hand....

Re: Are WE Causing the INTs?
 

I've noticed a similar thing as well. Last night i was playing Arizona St in the 2nd year of my Cal dynasty and was down 23-7 at halftime. In the first half I was matching packages.

4wr=dime 3wr=nickel and so on. Well that didn't work so in the second half, I really concentrated on getting pressure on the QB and forcing throws. Boy did that work!! I threw 3 ints in the first half, all compleltly my fault.

Second half started and I would use a 4-4 defense on third down. I noticed the O-Line seemed to have a hard time picking up blitzes and the like in this formation. Long story short I was able to make a coulpe HUGE 3rd down stops and ended up winning the game!

I won 37-33. And on the last drive I actually felt in controll of what was going on, on the field! No SUPER CPU feeling at all. So to the original poster, I think you may be right to a certain degree.