There Should be a Double Cover Feature

[phillies6f]

There should really be a feature (possibly in coaching adjustments) to highlight an opposing receiver as the main threat, making your single high safety cheat to their side of the field in Cover 1 for example.

Not for the player, but for the CPU. Having a number 1 WR like D Hop or AJ Green just makes things way too easy against the CPU if they don’t have a good number 1 CB. Not sure how else it could be implemented but I think it would be great.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[UnderRatedCoast]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

File this under "things madden had in 2003 that it no longer has."

[Ueauvan]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

had plays with double man coverage in madden 08, in fact had a lot more normal plays in it, i like the variations in match etc now but basic plays like cover 3 man in 3-3-5 nickel, i fact why cant i call cvr 3 man in any formation ... except qtr norm, but as an audible, or why cant i call a singleback play but then drop into shotgun without players moving to give me time as an audible

[Zack317]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

Yeah I hate that the double team feature is gone.

I use the highlight receiver option, but not sure if it even does anything.

So I usually cover the guy myself if its man, or help with another defender if I'm in zone

Either way, it's a feature that needs to be in every madden.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[stinkubus]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

If you care at all about how realistic the game is this isn't something you should want. The ability to double any receiver you want from any play you want does not exist in real football. Allowing the player to do so would break the game.

The old "Double X" and "Double Z" plays didn't work because teams don't actually put two guys in man coverage on someone.

[Zack317]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

I dont necessarily want the option to do it everytime or from any play.

But just to have the option period would be nice. In some form

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[phillies6f]

There Should be a Double Cover Feature

It’s honestly less for the player and more for the CPU. It’s too easy to shred them with your number 1 WR.

And yes. I know that actually double man coverage is almost never used, I’m more talking about a safety shading to that side.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[roadman]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

It’s honestly less for the player and more for the CPU. It’s too easy to shred them with your number 1 WR.

And yes. I know that actually double man coverage is almost never used, I’m more talking about a safety shading to that side.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Actually, that is not the results I'm seeing so far.

Kyle Fuller is lined up on Adams and Adams doesn't have a catch in the first half, yet. He has been blanketed by Fuller.

[stinkubus]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

I dont necessarily want the option to do it everytime or from any play.

But just to have the option period would be nice. In some form

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

You do have the option. It requires careful defensive play calling and some inkling of what sorts of routes/plays worry you from a given formation. You also have to be ready for the possibility that the offense does something unexpected and your carefully laid plan blows up in your face. Paying extra attention to one receiver also obviously means someone else has a chance to run wild on you.

This is all the better teams can do IRL. It's why guys like Julio, AJ Green, AB before he went crazy, Hopkins, etc. are so productive despite the fact that everyone in the stadium knows they are getting tons of targets almost every game.

[Senator Palmer]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

The old "Double X" and "Double Z" plays didn't work because teams don't actually put two guys in man coverage on someone.

I might be misreading this, putting two guys in man coverage absolutely happens in real football. Bill Belichick has all kinds of brackets out of man that he’s used to great success: cone and vice.

When they used to play the Bengals they actually had a call 1 Double 85, which was a cover-1 shell with the other safety doubling Chad Johnson where’ve he went.

He also uses Vice coverage last season when they played the Chiefs to bracket Kelsey.



And here’s one Saban uses at Alabama where both safeties will bracket the outside receivers.

[k1ngofny]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

I agree there should be a feature that allows you to effectively shade the safety toward a specific receiver, same thing for the o-line toward a star pass rusher. The problem with strict double teams is if the defense blitzes, the line still double teams the pass rusher with the double team feature right now for o-line (letting the blitzer come free.) Strict double teams aren't something that is called often. If the star WR you want to double runs a short 5 yard in route and the slot WR on the same side runs a deep post, no way in hell would I want my safety to ignore the deep post just to double the star WR running a short in.

[k1ngofny]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

I might be misreading this, putting two guys in man coverage absolutely happens in real football. Bill Belichick has all kinds of brackets out of man that he’s used to great success: cone and vice.

When they used to play the Bengals they actually had a call 1 Double 85, which was a cover-1 shell with the other safety doubling Chad Johnson where’ve he went.

He also uses Vice coverage last season when they played the Chiefs to bracket Kelsey.



And here’s one Saban uses at Alabama where both safeties will bracket the outside receivers.

That's correct, but those are "man match" coverages that will double receiver(s) based on the route combinations run by the offense. It's not the same as a strict double team on a specific WR.

[stinkubus]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

Neither of your links are working.

[roadman]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

I might be misreading this, putting two guys in man coverage absolutely happens in real football. Bill Belichick has all kinds of brackets out of man that he’s used to great success: cone and vice.

When they used to play the Bengals they actually had a call 1 Double 85, which was a cover-1 shell with the other safety doubling Chad Johnson where’ve he went.

He also uses Vice coverage last season when they played the Chiefs to bracket Kelsey.



And here’s one Saban uses at Alabama where both safeties will bracket the outside receivers.

I just don't think doubling a stud WR happens much anymore, yeah, a safety will come over and blanket that side of the stud WR, but if you have (big if) a good CB or one that is a lockdown CB, doubling the stud WR isn't always necessary.

Jaire Alexander is becoming a lockdown corner. Jaire and King shut down Diggs and Thielen vs the Vikings.

[Senator Palmer]

Re: There Should be a Double Cover Feature

That's correct, but those are "man match" coverages that will double receiver(s) based on the route combinations run by the offense. It's not the same as a strict double team on a specific WR.

Not the examples I gave. I'm not talking about even cross brackets. They may be man match technically speaking, but the ones I'm talking about, are going to bracket a specific receiver wherever he goes. The safeties are going to make a specific call for example wherever Travis Kelce lines up and that's going to tell them where the bracket is.