Strategy Discussion: Double coverage.

[JesterBlaze]

Since I think education (for all of us including myself who has plenty to learn if you're willing to teach) is a much better equalizer than anything else I'm opening up a few threads for discussion. I'm copy/pasting this 1st entry into all because I'm not going to speak on any subject until others have since this is intended to be a discussion, not a simple 1 to many lesson from someone who doesn't know it all.

[Matt]

I'm sort of iffy on double coverage because it usually means someone else is gonna get me. I've had success having 0's in all coverages.....basically saying my CB's are good enough by themselves to get the job done.
I don't have time to do a study and I really don't enjoy doing that stuff. It sort of ruins the fun of the game for me.
Generally, I hit the recommend button for coverages and see what the game tells me. I'll either leave it there or adjust it based on who I'm playing.

NOTE:
this is a thread on defense that i literally just found. prolly worth a quick read over
http://www.bearsruletheworld.com/vnf...ll=1#post24430


also, double coverage threads so you know what the values your inputting actually mean

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ouble+coverage
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ouble+coverage

[JesterBlaze]

Half way down the 1st link from FOFC readers will come across this straight-forward gem from Jim contradicting all that was typed beforehand:

The basis of determining "top" receiver is the perceived route-running rating (by your scout) of the opposing receivers.

I'll edit this if that's not the final word based on updates or something but I'm trying to take in all that Matt's offered before offering my take on Double Coverage.

BTW - Tarcone can confirm/deny this but I've felt for a while that he might have Chris Andrews in the slot on some formations. For this reason (best WR in slot) I always cover by WR instead of Side of Field and adjust my double coverage accordingly. It might be coincidence in such a short spurt of data (6 games?) but I noticed W's instead of L's against Tulsa after this change and much less 24 yard passes to Andrews.

[JesterBlaze]

OK, I've read up. Still believe the same as prior. I think it works pretty simply as follows:

First off, you can only double cover IF you have a spare defender. You can't blitz and double cover 2 WRs as that would be a play designed to blow a coverage. There's only 2 "spare" defenders per play and every blitzed player or double coverage attempt uses 1. So if you set DC to 100/100 and blitz a guy then, no, you're not going to see DC on the 2nd WR and that makes perfect sense.

DC won't come close to guaranteeing success against a single WR... IMO it's almost not even worth it other than a change up aimed at the opposing QB (based on how good he is at Read Defense, which coincidentally drives my decision on whether to add more non-base defensive sets to the mix in a specific game).

A great pass-catching TE is a 100% DC nullifyer. I personally don't care how great the WRs are, I have a better chance with a single shitty CB covering them than I do with no one covering the TE.

Personally 30% is a very high setting for DC on the top FOCUSED WR by my gameplan. This isn't always the best WR. Maybe I like my Top CB on their Top WR but fear my 2nd CB against their 2nd WR, a very realistic case against the dreaded QB-WR-WR teams.

During my days of high DC %'s I always got burned by 3rd and 4th tier WRs, as well as FBs and RBs. This makes sense in 20/20 hindsight as the QB just gets too used to it and ignores his top guy for the wide open one right from the start of the play (my assumption here based on QBs Read Defense).

[JesterBlaze]

BTW Matt, that first link (bearsruletheworld) kept hanging on me. Gotta remember to try again later.

[Matt]

yes. double coverage is based on route running only!!!!!! has nothing to do with any other rating.

[Matt]

BTW Matt, that first link (bearsruletheworld) kept hanging on me. Gotta remember to try again later.

I haven't read that yet either. I just found it this morning when trying to find what the values for DC meant, because I knew that it didn't correlate to %. i.e. 100 inputted to double top WR, did not mean 100% of the time. I believe in 2k4 it did

[Beeznik]

BTW - Tarcone can confirm/deny this but I've felt for a while that he might have Chris Andrews in the slot on some formations. For this reason (best WR in slot) I always cover by WR instead of Side of Field and adjust my double coverage accordingly. It might be coincidence in such a short spurt of data (6 games?) but I noticed W's instead of L's against Tulsa after this change and much less 24 yard passes to Andrews.

I'm pretty sure this tactic shields your top WR from DC regardless of if you're going by WR or side of field. I think the game only allows you to DC the starting WRs.

Personally, I don't DC unless I'm playing a team with only 1 quality WR.

[Mike17]

I always double. Always.

100 in both boxes

[JesterBlaze]

I'm pretty sure this tactic shields your top WR from DC regardless of if you're going by WR or side of field. I think the game only allows you to DC the starting WRs.

Personally, I don't DC unless I'm playing a team with only 1 quality WR.

My results could very well be purely on the lack of double coverage I now play for the most part and less about focusing on the top WR all the time. Whether in the slot or not I always felt Andrews and the other Tigerhawks benefitted more from me double teaming than not. I used to go at Tulsa by double teaming both WRs a higher % than normal. That was a disaster of epic proportions every time. But that was also in the day of the Tulsa QB-WR-WR-WR-RB-LT-RT offensive domination.

[JesterBlaze]

I always double. Always.

100 in both boxes

I can hear the rest of the AC West running out for some TE shopping and starting to throw short a bit more.

[Matt]

I can hear the rest of the AC West running out for some TE shopping and starting to throw short a bit more.

or running the football

[JesterBlaze]

DC doesn't come into account on run plays. I was reading awhile back on FOFC that they consider this a bug. I just figure it's due to there being NO COVERAGE during a running play.


To be clear in case the above confuses anyone due to the gameplan screens. I believe you set your DC %'s for running plays because even though you're expecting a run just in case it's a pass you want some sort of directions for the defense to adjust to.

[Matt]

I thought that if the defense was expecting the pass and you run, technically that extra defender is "out of the box"

[Matt]

so maybe I've misunderstood this also. I don't recall reading what you're referring to, but what you're saying makes sense. It's impossible to double cover a WR during a run play.