Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Coverage Assignments (Rule Based)

  • Share
    • Facebook
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #1

    Coverage Assignments (Rule Based)

    so as many know, the game for a while has had "smart routes" in the Air Raid based on coverage, and it has gotten better lately... so my thought for a wishlist feature would be to take some basic rules used at all levels of the game to help compensate some of the abuse that you see in the game...

    biggest one and first on my list (and the only example i will use based on the feedback G gave from his video of issues he found) is Cover 2

    the most basic rule in Cover 2 is you are a CB and have the flats and you are looking at a 2x2 WR set, if the man on the outside threatens deep and pushes you past 7-10 yards and no HB threat out of the backfield, you make a "lock" call meaning you have man coverage with the outside guy wherever he goes deep...

    since we have the ability for a WR to see the drop of a Safety and know to either Stop/Cross the field/Run the Post/etc then there should be some implementation of this with this coverage and others like it...

    this cant be too hard to do already having player positioning awareness built in... right?

  2. #2
    Booster JeffHCross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South County, STL
    Posts
    12,951
    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    this cant be too hard to do already having player positioning awareness built in... right?
    The hard part, as far as I know, is coming up with a comprehensive rule set that dictates all actions based on play art (play as designed), and the modifications to those plays based on real-time opposition.

    The secondary problem is that there's a reason we haven't been able to replicate human thinking in AIs yet ... it's not nearly as simple as it seems it should be. CPUs are (vastly) superior to humans in mathematical computations, but even the simplest human logic or perception will stump a CPU until the end of time. If you watched the Jeopardy episodes with the IBM computer Watson, the hard part was not getting him the wealth of information necessary to have the answers to all the questions, the hard part was putting in the logic so Watson could understand a simple question. The syntax was the hurdle, not the answer. For humans, it's the reverse.

    At the most basic level, the Cover 2 rules you outlined are simple, to a point. I can think of a pretty easy to represent the first four: Cover 2, CB, Flat Zones, and 2x2. The last three, "threatens deep", "pushes you past 7-10 yards" and "no HB threat" are intuition-based, for a player playing cornerback, in my opinion. It's not as simple as "if you're here, do this". There's a difference between when the outside receiver is running a Fade versus a Streak versus a Comeback versus a Curl versus a Dig. Now, several of those have the exact same read by the CB we're talking about. But that's very specific logic for a small set of routes that the CPU has to recognize (you know, without knowing our play). Humans learn these "rules" by practice, not out of a textbook, in my experience. And that's where the AI tends to break down.

    Machine learning is making significant strides, but right now a CPU "learning" from "practice" is a very difficult thing.

    You mentioned that we already have WR running option routes ... very true. I'd imagine that took a lot of extremely careful coding to put that into the system. And it wouldn't be simple to reverse for the DBs. A more apt comparison, IMO, for WRs would be hot reads that change their route depending on a blitzer, since that's situational. And that's not in the game, yet.

    This is roughly what the code would look like, though as I said I have no clue how to even begin a function like "isVerticalThreat" (yay for defining a function and coming up with its code later! -- that's real software development for you, ). That's a ton of calculations for just one assignment in one clock cycle. The PS3 and 360 are both very powerful CPUs, but the scale of such calculations could ramp up pretty quickly.
    Code:
    if (player.pos == "CB"){
    	if (player.play.assignment() == "Flat Zone"){
    		if (opponent.formation() == In(List of formations that would be 2x2){
    			if (opponent.closestReceiver.isVerticalThreat()) && (player.distanceFromLOS() > 7) 
    			&& (opponent.runningBack.isBlocking()){
    				player.play.changeAssignment("Man Coverage",opponent.closestReceiver)
    			}
    		}
    	}
    }
    And, of course, I haven't even touched making assessments incorrect based on a dice-roll of the player's awareness level.

    It's not "too hard" (once you manage to come up with a complete list of every rule, of course) but it would take a lot of dedicated man-hours. All for, frankly, bang for the buck that would be lost on the average NCAA or Madden gamer.



    Now all of that being said, I did observe in NCAA 11 that players would hand off assignments on certain route combinations. That was mainly with man coverage (if I recall correctly), not zone, but it's possible that logic could be applied to zones, and then expanded as appropriate. Maybe not use the "real" "rules" that coaches teach at every level, but come up with enough similar logical steps to represent the overall idea without needing to get into a four-level nested IF statement just for one assignment. "Good enough" would be a decent goal in this case, especially if you factor in the 80/20 "rule" of software development (80% of the functionality for 20% of the time/cost/effort).
    Twitter: @3YardsandACloud

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame SmoothPancakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    16,450
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffHCross View Post
    It's not "too hard" (once you manage to come up with a complete list of every rule, of course) but it would take a lot of dedicated man-hours. All for, frankly, bang for the buck that would be lost on the average NCAA or Madden gamer.
    Yeah, that's why I usually give the NCAA guys the benefit of the doubt on stuff when it comes to adding features and various little bells and whistles.

    I took a couple simple programming classes (and I mean simple) my freshman year of college while I was entertaining possibly majoring in Computer Forensics, and goddamn, even in basic/beginner programming classes, it didn't take long for all that code work to reach crazy levels, and that was just creating simple programs.

    So the ungodly amount of code these guys are creating and working with, I'll always give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to adding features, especially major features. Just look at Madden and it taking them two entire years just to get CCM coded and implemented in the game. Granted with Madden, I'm not the least bit happy they removed player editing, custom playbooks, and the ability to play any games you want in CCM, but as far as the coding part of all of that, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on it, as long as all those features return next year.

  4. #4
    Heisman souljahbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    6,691
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffHCross View Post
    The hard part, as far as I know, is coming up with a comprehensive rule set that dictates all actions based on play art (play as designed), and the modifications to those plays based on real-time opposition.

    The secondary problem is that there's a reason we haven't been able to replicate human thinking in AIs yet ... it's not nearly as simple as it seems it should be. CPUs are (vastly) superior to humans in mathematical computations, but even the simplest human logic or perception will stump a CPU until the end of time. If you watched the Jeopardy episodes with the IBM computer Watson, the hard part was not getting him the wealth of information necessary to have the answers to all the questions, the hard part was putting in the logic so Watson could understand a simple question. The syntax was the hurdle, not the answer. For humans, it's the reverse.

    At the most basic level, the Cover 2 rules you outlined are simple, to a point. I can think of a pretty easy to represent the first four: Cover 2, CB, Flat Zones, and 2x2. The last three, "threatens deep", "pushes you past 7-10 yards" and "no HB threat" are intuition-based, for a player playing cornerback, in my opinion. It's not as simple as "if you're here, do this". There's a difference between when the outside receiver is running a Fade versus a Streak versus a Comeback versus a Curl versus a Dig. Now, several of those have the exact same read by the CB we're talking about. But that's very specific logic for a small set of routes that the CPU has to recognize (you know, without knowing our play). Humans learn these "rules" by practice, not out of a textbook, in my experience. And that's where the AI tends to break down.

    Machine learning is making significant strides, but right now a CPU "learning" from "practice" is a very difficult thing.

    You mentioned that we already have WR running option routes ... very true. I'd imagine that took a lot of extremely careful coding to put that into the system. And it wouldn't be simple to reverse for the DBs. A more apt comparison, IMO, for WRs would be hot reads that change their route depending on a blitzer, since that's situational. And that's not in the game, yet.

    This is roughly what the code would look like, though as I said I have no clue how to even begin a function like "isVerticalThreat" (yay for defining a function and coming up with its code later! -- that's real software development for you, ). That's a ton of calculations for just one assignment in one clock cycle. The PS3 and 360 are both very powerful CPUs, but the scale of such calculations could ramp up pretty quickly.
    Code:
    if (player.pos == "CB"){
    	if (player.play.assignment() == "Flat Zone"){
    		if (opponent.formation() == In(List of formations that would be 2x2){
    			if (opponent.closestReceiver.isVerticalThreat()) && (player.distanceFromLOS() > 7) 
    			&& (opponent.runningBack.isBlocking()){
    				player.play.changeAssignment("Man Coverage",opponent.closestReceiver)
    			}
    		}
    	}
    }
    And, of course, I haven't even touched making assessments incorrect based on a dice-roll of the player's awareness level.

    It's not "too hard" (once you manage to come up with a complete list of every rule, of course) but it would take a lot of dedicated man-hours. All for, frankly, bang for the buck that would be lost on the average NCAA or Madden gamer.



    Now all of that being said, I did observe in NCAA 11 that players would hand off assignments on certain route combinations. That was mainly with man coverage (if I recall correctly), not zone, but it's possible that logic could be applied to zones, and then expanded as appropriate. Maybe not use the "real" "rules" that coaches teach at every level, but come up with enough similar logical steps to represent the overall idea without needing to get into a four-level nested IF statement just for one assignment. "Good enough" would be a decent goal in this case, especially if you factor in the 80/20 "rule" of software development (80% of the functionality for 20% of the time/cost/effort).
    Blah, blah, blah.

    EA is lazy and you're one of EA's sheep.
























    /sarcasm

  5. #5
    but having smart routes on offense tells me they already have some sort of code... I understand all of that part of things... just curious as to how the rules would be so different for defense that they couldn't just pull them over...

    I understand the if,then basics of all computer language... but IF the offense can move to certain spots on the field based on position of defensive guys, THEN it should be able to work both ways... (see what I did there lol)

    anyways... no gripes... not knocking... just curious why the same rules for WR's couldn't be copied over and adjusted... would be a lot easier for defense and really the game only needs it on Cover 2

  6. #6
    Booster JeffHCross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South County, STL
    Posts
    12,951
    Quote Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes View Post
    I took a couple simple programming classes (and I mean simple) my freshman year of college while I was entertaining possibly majoring in Computer Forensics, and goddamn, even in basic/beginner programming classes, it didn't take long for all that code work to reach crazy levels, and that was just creating simple programs.
    You might enjoy this site: http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/
    And this is my favorite example: http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-perl-737.html

    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    but having smart routes on offense tells me they already have some sort of code... I understand all of that part of things... just curious as to how the rules would be so different for defense that they couldn't just pull them over...
    To clarify, you're talking about Option Routes, right? Because Smart Routes is the feature that allows you to cut off a route at the first down marker, not change the route based on the defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    anyways... no gripes... not knocking... just curious why the same rules for WR's couldn't be copied over and adjusted... would be a lot easier for defense and really the game only needs it on Cover 2
    It depends on how the basic logic works for the WRs. You're absolutely right that they have some code, but what that code actually does could be several different things. It sounds like you're assuming it's some kind of coverage recognition, which is what a real receiver/QB is probably doing on an Option Route. It could be that, I have no idea. What I would think is more likely is that the option routes are coded such that the receiver has two or three path options, and then picks the option with the least defensive players in the vicinity of the route.

    Now, the delay (block first, then run a route if nobody to block) routes of HBs and TEs, that might have more applicability to the defense. Because the HB/TE is looking for a rushing threat first, then running their route if there's no threat. That's similar to the idea of checking to see if the HB is blocking that I mentioned above. Similar, but it's not a 1:1.



    The short answer to your question, is that it's not that they don't have the ability to change routes or coverages based on what the opponent does -- Option Routes, Delay Routes, and defenders in Man Coverage that blitz when their Man stays in to block are all examples of that -- but each of those pieces takes code. Potentially a lot of code. Potentially a lot of code with only one use. And those functions are going to likely be very different from position to position or offense to defense. The code required for a WR to sit in a hole in a zone (which is really a simple aspect of a path-finding algorithm) is very different from telling a CB to take a totally different path based on specific set of criteria.

    It's not that they can't. But everything is a trade-off. To clarify, I'm not saying they can't or they won't, but just giving reasons why it's not simple, even with existing (similar) logic.
    Twitter: @3YardsandACloud

  7. #7
    yeah smart route/option route... yeah

    i know there is no coverage recognition, it is basic... if guy in front of me moves X way i go A if he goes Y i go B if he goes Z i go C... thats all, i would only like to know the predetermination on WHO gets read... at snap they press their route hard, and either (in most cases) Hitch/Dig/Post etc... so my thought is... (and again only need on Cover 2) how different is it from the code we already have for the WR and DB's to be meshed a tiny bit to get a CB to drop deep (like cover 6... doesnt even need to man lock like real life) if that CB sees the slot pushing vertical as well... i would have to say that nearly 100% of the issues in G's video of his passing problems he saw would be totally fixed...

    i know its not simple as far as coding, but what coding makes the LB drop into a buzz but then follow a WR into and out of his zone... same snippets can be found in both places of his movement and the WR movement... the issue isnt that it CANT be done, i assure you that... but the issue is how much different is it really? neither of us know the exact workings... just curious and wish i could chit chat with whoever is responsible for maintaining the code for stuff like that to find out how far off that is exactly... because having that on D in just 2 instances tops, would create a whole other level of difficult fun in the game...

  8. #8
    Guru,

    I agree completely with what your thinking but from talking with Jeff in the past I understand why it is the game is where its at. Right now the entire alignment system is based off 'x' player on offense - this is why you see safeties aligning wrong, I believe at one point the corner backs were told to align within their zone which is why I think you see them aligning incorrectly both in NCAA 12 and even more so in NCAA 13 now that WR alignments are dynamic. What I mean by this is if #1 is wide the CB midpoints their zone, if #1 is tight or close the CB moves to the innermost portion of their zone, this is a very simple way of programming corner alignment, put them in a box then align within said box depending on the location of #1, unfortunately this means he is incorrectly aligned most of the time (see peoples love of snugs and running quick outs).

    Post-snap everyone drops to a predetermined spot on the filed, there is no determination of hash location or strength of the offensive formation, then they react to offensive threats within their coverage box. I understand the reasons for coding spot dropping coverage's as its the easier avenue to take, however in the case of Cover 2 they need to take a different approach to spot dropping:

    Corners - Pre-snap should align on the outside leg of the reciever. Now here's where things get interesting, because we're sticking with spot dropping coverage's, the corner should read the WR's release:
    • If the corner is playing off man at a depth of seven yards, the corners first job is to read the quarterback for 3-step then react to the receiver.
      • If the receiver takes an outside release the corner should hold his ground and collision the receiver at seven yards and force him wide, allowing the safety more time to come over the top. To do this the corner should shuffle laterally to the outside three steps without crossing feet and his outside arm on the receiver, if no 3-step by the quarterback, he should then flip around and drive backwards to a depth of 12 yards on the numbers - seeing as though he can't read the quarterback as he would in real life he would need to react off the throw to his side.
      • If the receiver takes an inside release the corner should hold his ground and collision the receiver at seven yards and force him inside, funneling him to the safety. To do this the corner should shuffle laterally three steps to the inside without crossing feet and place his inside arm on the receiver, if no 3-step by the quarterback, he should execute a hinge technique and drive backwards to a depth of 12 yards on the numbers
    • If the corner is playing press he is now reacting to the receiver instead of the quarterback.
      • If the receiver releases outside, shuffle three steps outside without crossing feet and place outside arm on the receiver then turn with vision inside on the quarterback and drive to a depth of 12 yards on the numbers - If he releases too far outside then shuffle three steps and turn with vision inside on the quarterback, and drive to a depth of 12 yards on the numbers. Again, we are wanting jam and re-route #1 - the corner should jam with both hands if the WR comes right at him, this typically means run.
      • If the receiver releases inside, shuffle three steps inside without crossing feet and place inside arm on the receiver, you must reroute him atleast 3 yards. After he's gone inside, execute a hinge technique and drive back to 12 yards on the numbers with vision on the QB.


    The safeties should align 2-steps/1 yards outside the hash at a depth of 12 yards if #1 is split wide, if #1 is tight (ie a TE) he should align in the C-gap at a depth of 9 yards, if #1 is in a close alignment he should split #2/OT and #1 at a depth of 12 yards. The safeties responsibility is very easy: stay as deep as #1 and #2 and midpoint #1 and #2 horizontally. If #2 releases to the flat and #1 releases outside the safety must widen further to midpoint #1 and #2 horizontally. His read is #1 to the QB:

    • If #1 shows run by blocking the corner, come up and support the alley.
    • If #1 shows pass, slow pedal through 3-step then quicken and work to aiming point, play the deep half with vision on QB. Aiming point is two yards outside the hash (Cover 2) or half way between college numbers and hash (Tampa 2) at 17 yards deep.

    • Outside release by #1 - Safety works to his aiming point. Safety must think 9-route on outside release and gain depth quickly - WR does not release outside to come back inside.
    • Vs Inside release by #1 - Safety squares up and works straight back with vision on QB. Safety must think Corner (7-route) to Dig (6-route) and not gain depth too quickly. React late to the post as he's already in the path of the post receiver.
    • If #1 eliminates himself by running a shallow crossing route, safety can squeeze to the outside shoulder of #2.


    Now this doesn't totally solve the issue of covering 4-verts with cover 2, however cover 2 isn't a good coverage against 4 verts as the offense will have a 2 on 1 deep advantage, that being said with the corners dropping deeper and the safeties playing correctly it should buy more time for the rush to get to the QB and the safety should be in better position to play the ball. This would also help defend the corner route which has been money against Cover 2 for as long as I can remember.

    Now I bet you're saying what about defending the flat - well this is why the corner must always have vision on the quarterback, as soon as he see's the throw to the flat he breaks, even at a depth of 12 yards he should be able to be in position to make the tackle for a minimum gain, if not disrupt the catch by the time the ball arrives as he should react as soon a the QB's front hand comes off the ball when the QB has vision to the flat.

    Now ultimately I would prefer 2-Read, but at least here with spot dropping we have a way to reroute #1 and defend/give us a chance against the most dangerous route combinations vs cover 2 all while still being able to defend the flat. Against 3-step by the QB nothing really changes from the way its done now other than the fact that the corners are rerouting #1/driving on the receiver based on pre-snap alignment (off or press) and the safeties are playing with better technique as they won't be pedaling to 17 yards while the slant is being thrown.

  9. #9
    That's just cover 2, I could go into Cover 3 and 4 but I only have so much time this morning.

  10. #10
    yeah... i wouldn't even ask for all of that if i could just get a line of code that says "if 2 WR's push vertical past 7 yards, then i play deep 3rd on the outside WR" the rest of it (until they take the work you have collected for them and rewrite it based off of real rules which may never happen) i can deal with

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    yeah... i wouldn't even ask for all of that if i could just get a line of code that says "if 2 WR's push vertical past 7 yards, then i play deep 3rd on the outside WR" the rest of it (until they take the work you have collected for them and rewrite it based off of real rules which may never happen) i can deal with
    What you're asking for is quarters - CB's play cover 3 technique and the safeties rob #2 to #1, I understand the difference in what you are asking for as 2-Read does turn into quarters once #2 is vertical. Quarters I think may be problematic for where they are at currently as its a true pattern reading coverage, that being said its what I want. Without starting over from scratch with the coverage's (which I think is needed as modern offenses, even in NCAA, are too complex for spot dropping coverage) I think the best course of action would be to fix the spot dropping techniques then we can start with say quarters coverage where you can then tell the corners to play Cover 3 technique and have the safeties read. In my opinion we're a long way away from having Rip/Liz, Mable/Skate, Cover 2 - Seam, - Cuff, - Buster, etc. I mean think about it this way, there's no real banjo coverage's, Cover 1 is flawed, and Ace/Deuce double coverage is non-existent - double coverage in real life isn't two defenders covering one man, its three defenders covering two receivers based upon their release's which will then end up in two defenders in/out - high/low on the most dangerous receiver.

    There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the defensive side of the ball - funnel and spill concepts and the defensive fronts that fit within those two concepts. Defensive line stunts and games/adjustments that are tied to certain fronts and offensive formations due to a linebacker having to walk out, coverages, etc, etc, etc.

  12. #12
    yeah but with all the coach speak aside... me and you can go on about that stuff for days... i still would like to know why a WR can recognize movement on offense for option routes, but a CB cant recognize movement... how different can it really be... honestly just one of those things i would like to know... and it eats me alive to see it happen ont he offensive side of the ball but not D...

  13. #13
    I imagine they have it coded as such for the WR:

    Route == Get Open {

    If DefCov == Cover 1 {
    Run Basic Cross
    }

    ElseIf DefCov == Cover 2 {
    Run Post
    }

    ElseIf DefCov == Cover 3 {
    Run Seam
    }
    }

    Now I'm sure it's a little more complex than that as the game accounts for AWR/RTE ratings as well. I understand what you're saying as well in that you could just code:

    If Cover 2 && WR2 route < 8 yards from LOS {
    Coverage == 4
    }

    I'm okay with doing it that way as well, in the end I would like true pattern reading coverage's however.
    Last edited by Oneback; 06-18-2012 at 01:17 PM.

  14. #14
    Booster JeffHCross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South County, STL
    Posts
    12,951
    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    i know its not simple as far as coding, but what coding makes the LB drop into a buzz but then follow a WR into and out of his zone... same snippets can be found in both places of his movement and the WR movement... the issue isnt that it CANT be done, i assure you that... but the issue is how much different is it really? neither of us know the exact workings... just curious and wish i could chit chat with whoever is responsible for maintaining the code for stuff like that to find out how far off that is exactly... because having that on D in just 2 instances tops, would create a whole other level of difficult fun in the game...
    Agreed. I'm not very familiar with how the LBs changed in 12 and tracked the receivers in and out of their zones. That was new code, and could be much, much closer to what you're talking about. I was mostly talking from a NCAA-11-and-earlier standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    i still would like to know why a WR can recognize movement on offense for option routes, but a CB cant recognize movement... how different can it really be... honestly just one of those things i would like to know...
    To put it as simply as possible, along the lines of what Oneback posted, it is extremely unlikely that the WR is actually recognizing movement/coverage.

    One of the Game AI books I have goes into this in depth, and I'd love to just link to that section, but I'll summarize it. Basically, in his "Simple Soccer" game, the players that don't have the ball look at the field, look at where the opponents are, and then use a math formula to "score" the "value" of all the points on the field that they can go. The point with the highest value is where they go. I believe the Option Route uses a similar system, where they have three path choices. The path choice that is the highest value (ignoring the dice roll chance of making the "right choice") is where they go.

    This may be an over simplification of what NCAA is actually doing, but I believe it's closer to that than an actual knowledge of the coverage they're seeing.

    To go closer to coach speak, it's kinda like when you have some players that you can say that you want them to do X against Cover Y coverage, unless the CB is in Man, then you want them to do Z. Whereas other players you just say "go where the defense isn't".
    Twitter: @3YardsandACloud

  15. #15
    but for the game to be programmed that way, that would go right along those lines of "psychic play calls" that gets tossed around...

    but yeah in 12 the way they started moving LB's side to side (even when a WR is behind them) to track through their zone, that shows right there that there is something that exists to pick up movement and a response...

  16. #16
    It's already been acknowledged that the offense/defense knows your play call on some level and I believe at some point in the past the CPU used the users play call to call their play. That being said I don't know there would be another/better way to program option routes (granted I'm not a programmer by any means) other than programming routes based upon coverage and having a dice roll which accounted for their awareness in order to determine the route ran.

    Now in an ideal world I would like to see the player have an area of influence around him, which the size of was determined by his awareness rating, sort of like QB vision. This area of influence would determine a lot of things: if the play call was Rip Plus 95 Turn (stick concept) the players (in this case the TE) would determine the route run based on his area of influence and either run a 6 yard turn route if Mike isn't working quickly towards him or break outside at 6 yards and run away from the Mike if he is working towards him, however if he has a narrow area of influence he may not "feel" the Mike until its too late and choose the wrong route.

    It would determine if a safety bites on play-action, if he has a narrow area of influence and the safety is looking in the backfield he cannot see #1, meaning after he is influenced by play-action (play recognition would play a part here) he must swing his vision all the way around to #1 to pick him up meaning he may be late to cover his route, if he had a bigger area of influence he would pick up #1 quicker allowing him to react to #1's route sooner, again play recognition would play a factor in how much he is influenced by play-action.

    There are numerous other aspects where this could be used as well - blocking in space, the QB acquiring targets/knowing what is around said target, defenders picking up threats both in the running and passing game, etc.

  17. #17
    that would be the ideal world in this game... and finally put awareness on the map as making PERFECT sense in the game...

  18. #18
    Booster JeffHCross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South County, STL
    Posts
    12,951
    Quote Originally Posted by xGRIDIRONxGURUx View Post
    but for the game to be programmed that way, that would go right along those lines of "psychic play calls" that gets tossed around...
    Are you talking about the "find open space" idea I talked about? It's not at all psychic play calls. It's in fact the opposite. Psychic play calls would be that the WR knows you're in Cover 2, so he knows to pick a certain route. What I'm saying is that he looks for the space most likely to be open, based on where the DBs are at the moment, what direction they're going, etc. Says nothing about what the playcall is.
    Twitter: @3YardsandACloud

  19. #19
    like Oneback said... it's already been acknowledged that it exists but I am not trying to debate that... or even talk about it... just wish we knew what exactly goes into the code for the option routes and how it could be applied to DB's

  20. #20
    My experience with option routes is...bad. IMO, whatever code they're using for those, should be shelved rather than applied to coverage.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •