Slide Protection: Can you trust it?

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Clint described it in an interview. I think people are reading this wrong. I'm not saying slide protection is new. I'm saying the 4 man with the back side tackle in big on big is new.

Obviously the video was a complete ****-up of how the protection should work, but why would you slide away from the numbers anyway?

Why would you put your back to the side of the combination?

Why is the defense reduced weak? (flipped)

I'd rather see the play with the defense normal (not flipped/reduced strong/over) and just the line slid left. Leave the back away from the combination, where he should be anyway.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by poster

I haven't and don't plan on playing NCAA, but I hope they worked on improving it for Madden. That was awful, and just as bad was the HB morphing over without even knowing the DT was there and the DT getting suctioned into the block. Good article and video, LBzrule.

Why would the back not know the DT was there?

The animation was stupid, but he has eyes, doesn't he?

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Obviously the video was a complete ****-up of how the protection should work, but why would you slide away from the numbers anyway? Why would you put your back to the side of the combination? Why is the defense reduced weak? (flipped) I'd rather see the play with the defense normal (not flipped/reduced strong/over) and just the line slid left. Leave the back away from the combination, where he should be anyway.

The first run through in the video the defense is in its base alignment. I have another video I'm going to load up. The interesting thing is on a couple of occasions it gets blocked up like it should but then unexplainably, it falls a part. The defense isn't flipped. Also, there are three rushers to each side. I thought about including the TE in the slide but no matter which way I slide the TE just allows the defender to run around him. Also, the reason why I shifted the defense over later is because more than likely, people who run that blitz online are not going to leave it as it is. A lot of guys run that blitz shifting it over. Let me get this other video up.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

The first run through in the video the defense is in its base alignment. I have another video I'm going to load up. The interesting thing is on a couple of occasions it gets blocked up like it should but then unexplainably, it falls a part. The defense isn't flipped. Also, there are three rushers to each side. I thought about including the TE in the slide but no matter which way I slide the TE just allows the defender to run around him. Also, the reason why I shifted the defense over later is because more than likely, people who run that blitz online are not going to leave it as it is. A lot of guys run that blitz shifting it over. Let me get this other video up.

After looking at the pics, I see the defense not flipped or shifted weak.

Still, I count 5 defenders to the left of the center and 3 to right in the video. I think the slide should go left. Plus, you definitely want the back going rt to pull any #3 defender away from the combo.

Not to nitpick (I feel like I am), but why wouldn't you just run the ball to the rt. That isn't a real defensive alignment (at least not one that isn't f'ed up). A 1 and a 9 to the TE with only 1 backer?

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

After looking at the pics, I see the defense not flipped or shifted weak. Still, I count 5 defenders to the left of the center and 3 to right in the video. I think the slide should go left. Plus, you definitely want the back going rt to pull any #3 defender away from the combo.

I see the 3, 5, Will, Mike and FS on the left. The alignment of the FS though tells me he's in man coverage. Taking Madden alignments into consideration, I simply ignored the FS. It is clear to me he's in man. Also since i knew the play I knew Mike was not blitzing. But I get the principle even if the FS is not blitzing the numbers still dictate a slide left. I'll have to look and see if I recorded that. I think the slide left had the DT on the left running through untouched. Let me see if I recorded that. I have a lot of videos in here.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

After looking at the pics, I see the defense not flipped or shifted weak. Still, I count 5 defenders to the left of the center and 3 to right in the video. I think the slide should go left. Plus, you definitely want the back going rt to pull any #3 defender away from the combo. Not to nitpick (I feel like I am), but why wouldn't you just run the ball to the rt. That isn't a real defensive alignment (at least not one that isn't f'ed up). A 1 and a 9 to the TE with only 1 backer?

LOL. Don't want to get started on that. Ohhh running would be ideal, if the damn lineman wouldn't move out of the damn way just because

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

I see the 3, 5, Will, Mike and FS on the left. The alignment of the FS though tells me he's in man coverage. Taking Madden alignments into consideration, I simply ignored the FS. It is clear to me he's in man. Also since i knew the play I knew Mike was not blitzing. But I get the principle even if the FS is not blitzing the numbers still dictate a slide left. I'll have to look and see if I recorded that. I think the slide left had the DT on the left running through untouched. Let me see if I recorded that. I have a lot of videos in here.

How do you know its not an open side fire-zone based solely on the alignment of the safety? He could just as easily be blitzing off the edge, couldn't he?

[poster]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

Why would the back not know the DT was there? The animation was stupid, but he has eyes, doesn't he?

Yes, he has eyes. That being said, at 2:46 of the video, he is looking the complete opposite way. He has no idea the DT has gotten through, as he isn't even looking up the middle at all. The game magically morphed him over to block. Looks awful, should have been a sack.