Madden NFL 10 Blog - Improvements to WR/DB Interaction

[scalise89]

I just thought of this idea....I think the makers of Madden should use ESPN, obviously, but also put in NBC and CBS since the games are played on those stations as well... HOWEVER, for whatever station your game is playing on, you should have a completely different Presentation, even commentators coudl be different for each station (idk how likely that is, but its a great idea)....also, for the superbowl or monday night games or just big games, have different presentation, have the commentators and fans and everything actually know whats going on instead of having the same OLD REPEATATIVE presentation, it makes the game get boring, we need CHANGE in the PRESENTATION!

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Actually this is not exactly what I meant. What I meant was this. In the older Madden's let's say I'm running 3-4 and I match up a particular OLB on the starting TE. What happened in those games was if the TE lined up opposite of where that OLB normally lined up, what they would do is automatically swap the other OLB out. I don't want that to happen. If it comes down to it, I want both of my OLB's lined up over the TE. This makes it easy for me to jump into a Bear front from the 3-4. That's why I do not want auto-swapping, so I can line people up the way I want and create fronts with my imagination. Same thing if I line the Safety up on the TE, I do not want a backer swapping out with the SS. That's how the old Madden's did it. The SS would be over the TE on the line, but then the OLB that is normally there now lines up at SS. I don't want that. I want both the SS and the OLB lined up over the TE, another version of a Bear front.

I see... my issue with that... if they don't move players in man/zone combos, and the WR moved to TE, and my CB is locked, all of the sudden whoever's taking that WR's place on the outside has nobody on him.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

I see... my issue with that... if they don't move players in man/zone combos, and the WR moved to TE, and my CB is locked, all of the sudden whoever's taking that WR's place on the outside has nobody on him.

Well what that does is forces you to call specific man zone combos against specific sets. If the offense only has two WR's you will not have to worry about there being a problem if you are running a 43, 34 man zone combo. Even if the WR subs out, it should auto-lock onto his sub. If they go 3 WR then it forces you to look for that same man zone combo out of the nickel and again you shouldn't have a problem.Secondly, what is a WR doing moving to TE? He should only be able to do that in a specific formation. But they tell us the personnel on the screen. If the WR moves inside, then the TE moves outside. That's where you make your adjustment manually or get out of that defense. At least that's how I'm understanding what you are saying and trying to respond to it.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Well what that does is forces you to call specific man zone combos against specific sets. If the offense only has two WR's you will not have to worry about there being a problem if you are running a 43, 34 man zone combo. Even if the WR subs out, it should auto-lock onto his sub. If they go 3 WR then it forces you to look for that same man zone combo out of the nickel and again you shouldn't have a problem.Secondly, what is a WR doing moving to TE? He should only be able to do that in a specific formation. But they tell us the personnel on the screen. If the WR moves inside, then the TE moves outside. That's where you make your adjustment manually or get out of that defense. At least that's how I'm understanding what you are saying and trying to respond to it.

When John Taylor made the touchdown catch from Joe Montana that beat the Bengals with 38 second left, he was lined up at tight end. In the original West Coast offense, there were rarely players subbed out by formation. The starting eleven were expected to be able to play multiple positions so that the offense forced the defense to stick with its base set... so even if the offense went with 2 tight (as they did on that play), the defense wouldn't know 2 TEs were in on the play until the offense reached the LOS.

What I'm saying is, if you're not in man-lock... which is usually the case with combination coverages... and you have a corner locked on a WR, and that WR lines up at a position that would normally have a different position (such as a linebacker or safety) covering it, nobody's going to be covering the position the locked corner normally would.

Now it sounds like you're saying "Then pay more attention and be ready to call audibles when necessary", and I guess I can't argue with that logic.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

More often, NFL teams will double the opponent's best receiver, and locked up their best on the opponent's #2. Usually far more effective.

Not really, the closest thing like this is when a team plays quarter-quarter-half coverage with the cloud coming to the identified receiver, effectively double-zoning him, but if #2 gets to the flat now, the cb will pass the wide out to the safety. You see some bracket coverage every once in a while, but not that much. You hear the "pundits" say so and so was double covered, but in reality it's often the double-zone concept.

[sooners52794]

feel free to flame me if this was already said, as i dont feel like reading through the posts, but im counting on there being illegall contact. any chance of this? something was mentioned about the linebacker chucking the wr as he crosses the middle, and i was thinking that if the lb was (and is probably more than 5 yds downfield) that that's definitely illegal contact

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Not really, the closest thing like this is when a team plays quarter-quarter-half coverage with the cloud coming to the identified receiver, effectively double-zoning him, but if #2 gets to the flat now, the cb will pass the wide out to the safety. You see some bracket coverage every once in a while, but not that much. You hear the "pundits" say so and so was double covered, but in reality it's often the double-zone concept.

I was saying that CB2 and another vs. WR1 and CB1 vs. WR2 is more common than CB1 locked on WR1

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Not really, the closest thing like this is when a team plays quarter-quarter-half coverage with the cloud coming to the identified receiver, effectively double-zoning him, but if #2 gets to the flat now, the cb will pass the wide out to the safety. You see some bracket coverage every once in a while, but not that much. You hear the "pundits" say so and so was double covered, but in reality it's often the double-zone concept.

An excellent example of a team covering the number 2 WR with a number 1 corner while having another corner cover the number 1 WR with help from a safety was the jets pats game that went to overtime this year.

The jets spent almost the entire game with either dwight lowery or ty law covering randy moss in press coverage with a safety over the top while darrelle revis stayed one on one with welker and the other corner not covering moss covered gaffney. This let welker and gaffney have pretty good games but also kept moss almost completely out of the game. Sure he had the catch at the end of regulation but that was on one of the few plays they didn't go with the previously described coverage. Before that moss had 2 catches for 10 yards.

This was the Jets way of forcing the rest of the Pats team to beat them and taking what they figured to be the most dangerous player on the pats roster out of the equation. When you consider the jets were covering an impressive and dangerous group of recievers while they had one good corner, a 4th round draft pick rookie, and a washed up former star corner.