Cover 2?

[Cutler2Hester23]

I don't think this is a big issue with most but with how I am a Bears fan and they run a cover 2 defense I was wondering if anything has been done to change the CBs logic when the defense is in a cover 2.

What happens in the game is the CB jams the WR and then sits in the flats. But in a real cover 2 (or Tampa 2) he is supposed to read the flat as he's pressing and if he sees no threat he takes the WR in a similar way a "curl to flat zone" does in madden (the purple one), he plays short trailing the WR and protecting the sideline while the safety protects deep and to the inside. The only time he releases the WR to the safety is if there is a threat to the flat. Generally this is a TE or slot WR. The safety reads this player and if he sees him go to the flat he knows to go over the top because the CB is releasing his WR to cover the flat. If the safety's guy comes deep along with the CBs man then it basically turns into a cover 4, which isn't the case in madden, making it useless against a vertical passing attack.

The whole premise of the tampa 2 is to eliminate the deep ball and use a fast and instictive defense to persue and hold WRs to a short gain with little to no YAC. While the cover 2 in madden does the second part well (if you have a fast D) the first part is the furthest thing from it.

I love madden and it really kills the game for me to not have the CBs play the cover 2 correctly. Without them playing the sideline the way I explained it is impossible to contain deep outs unless you shade the coverage outside. If thats done it opens up the deep middle even more than it already was, making the cover 2's first rule "don't give up the deep ball" completely untrue in madden.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still get the game for the online play but franchise just doesn't feel right if I can't run the same D my team does

[steelers1]

I use cover 2 when I play too, and I know exactly what you mean. Playing the CBs in zone is completely useless against the deeper routes because a streak is 1 on 1 with a safety every time while the CB is just sitting there in the flat facing the LOS with no one around him.

I hate the way zone is on the game. It really doesn't even feel like defenders in zone are aware of anything. Basically when a man comes into the defenders zone, that defender should basically lock onto him and play him like he's in man until he can pass he receiver off into the next zone. On the game they just kind of stand in their zone and strafe with the receiver until the ball is thrown.

[jvaccaro]

Very well thought out thread OP... This describes the flaws in the Madden cover 2 quite well. Hopefully Ian & Co take notice.

[Cutler2Hester23]

Thanks guys, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has a problem with this

[WFColonel56]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cutler2Hester23

I don't think this is a big issue with most but with how I am a Bears fan and they run a cover 2 defense I was wondering if anything has been done to change the CBs logic when the defense is in a cover 2. What happens in the game is the CB jams the WR and then sits in the flats. But in a real cover 2 (or Tampa 2) he is supposed to read the flat as he's pressing and if he sees no threat he takes the WR in a similar way a "curl to flat zone" does in madden (the purple one), he plays short trailing the WR and protecting the sideline while the safety protects deep and to the inside. The only time he releases the WR to the safety is if there is a threat to the flat. Generally this is a TE or slot WR. The safety reads this player and if he sees him go to the flat he knows to go over the top because the CB is releasing his WR to cover the flat. If the safety's guy comes deep along with the CBs man then it basically turns into a cover 4, which isn't the case in madden, making it useless against a vertical passing attack. The whole premise of the tampa 2 is to eliminate the deep ball and use a fast and instictive defense to persue and hold WRs to a short gain with little to no YAC. While the cover 2 in madden does the second part well (if you have a fast D) the first part is the furthest thing from it. I love madden and it really kills the game for me to not have the CBs play the cover 2 correctly. Without them playing the sideline the way I explained it is impossible to contain deep outs unless you shade the coverage outside. If thats done it opens up the deep middle even more than it already was, making the cover 2's first rule "don't give up the deep ball" completely untrue in madden. Don't get me wrong, I'll still get the game for the online play but franchise just doesn't feel right if I can't run the same D my team does

I hear you man believe me I do...But IMO (I dont really know) To make the defensive players as smart as you and I want them to be is almost like instaling blocking logic for lineman IMO...

I also want better logic for cover 3 OLBs......If nobody is in their zone they are suposed to get depth and close the window....But I think it is un realistic to ask anyone to put all the logic in the game that is needed to to play every position in every zone

Something could be made like adaptive AI.....but call it adaptive zones...lol (Ian dont steal this I already copywrited it...lol).....But really it is kind of cheap IMO that evey player will/could play a zone perfectly evey play thus making them robots (everyone remember ROBO QB) and you can basicly run 1 zone for everything.....IMO I think they should leave it as is becuz it makes the game more like a chess match......

and be real a cover 2 can't/should not stop 2 outside fades and a slot seam route....that MLB cant run with the slot as long as needed to cover him

[steelers1]

Quote: Originally Posted by WFColonel56

I hear you man believe me I do...But IMO (I dont really know) To make the defensive players as smart as you and I want them to be is almost like instaling blocking logic for lineman IMO... I also want better logic for cover 3 OLBs......If nobody is in their zone they are suposed to get depth and close the window....But I think it is un realistic to ask anyone to put all the logic in the game that is needed to to play every position in every zone Something could be made like adaptive AI.....but call it adaptive zones...lol (Ian dont steal this I already copywrited it...lol).....But really it is kind of cheap IMO that evey player will/could play a zone perfectly evey play thus making them robots (everyone remember ROBO QB) and you can basicly run 1 zone for everything.....IMO I think they should leave it as is becuz it makes the game more like a chess match...... and be real a cover 2 can't/should not stop 2 outside fades and a slot seam route....that MLB cant run with the slot as long as needed to cover him

Nobody is asking that every defensive play should be impenetrable. Cover 4 should have have the flats open, Cover 3 should have trouble with deep ins, Cover 2 should be weak against posts, etc etc etc. We just want the defenses to work as they do in real life and have the same advantages/disadvantages.

[WFColonel56]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cutler2Hester23

What happens in the game is the CB jams the WR and then sits in the flats. But in a real cover 2 (or Tampa 2) he is supposed to read the flat as he's pressing and if he sees no threat he takes the WR in a similar way a "curl to flat zone" does in madden (the purple one), he plays short trailing the WR and protecting the sideline while the safety protects deep and to the inside. The only time he releases the WR to the safety is if there is a threat to the flat. Generally this is a TE or slot WR. The safety reads this player and if he sees him go to the flat he knows to go over the top because the CB is releasing his WR to cover the flat. If the safety's guy comes deep along with the CBs man then it basically turns into a cover 4, which isn't the case in madden, making it useless against a vertical passing attack. The whole premise of the tampa 2 is to eliminate the deep ball and use a fast and instictive defense to persue and hold WRs to a short gain with little to no YAC. While the cover 2 in madden does the second part well (if you have a fast D) the first part is the furthest thing from it.

Read the part that is underlined

Quote: Originally Posted by steelers1

Nobody is asking that every defensive play should be impenetrable. Cover 4 should have have the flats open, Cover 3 should have trouble with deep ins, Cover 2 should be weak against posts, etc etc etc. We just want the defenses to work as they do in real life and have the same advantages/disadvantages.

I understand what both of you mean but come on... a cover 2 basicly turns in to a cover 4 ???..? So you are telling me that if I run 4 verts vs your cover 2 you want your cover 2 to basicly turn into a cover 4......Thats not right IMO....

You cant have the best of both worlds here you picked cover 2 thus giving u 5 underneath defenders and 2 over the top....You picked that to stop the WCO (west coast offense) quick passes (dink and dunks) and you want it to turn basicly into a cover 4 when my guys go 4 verts.....Thats not fair to the offense at all.....its a no win situation

Also this is not universal for the entire NFL...This "may" just be how 1 or 2 teams run their cover 2...But this is giving the CPU of the defense too much power....By doing it the way he wants to you take away the weakness of the cover 2

He says he is talking more about the Tampa 2 wich is more like a cover 3 and by his statement "if" the outside wrs run verts he wants the CBs to cover that to making a cover 2 (5 underneath defenders) A cover 5 (with 5 over the top defenders) Am I the only one who is understanding this.....The weakness of the regular cover 2 is deep (seams and attacking the safties and the area behind the CBs) and the Tampa 2 covers the "post" or "seam" barely that is how those coverages are suposed to work

Guys I understand what he wants and everything but It would be better if he gave some diagram to better discribe how he would want the cover 2 to play something like the 4 verts becuz in not seeing it at all

(sorry for the spelling) dont think im trying to bash you its just that If you want to cover deep you call cover 4/ if you want to cover short you call cover 2/ and if you want to cover in between you call cover 3....but you cnt expect a cover 2 to be a cover 4 that isnt fair to the oiffense that 1 play can cover soo many areas on the field..

[WFColonel56]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelers1

Nobody is asking that every defensive play should be impenetrable. Cover 4 should have have the flats open, Cover 3 should have trouble with deep ins, Cover 2 should be weak against posts, etc etc etc. We just want the defenses to work as they do in real life and have the same advantages/disadvantages.

they already do...the cover 2 is lock down on everything short and weak vs the deep stuff you cant have the best of both worlds

[steelers1]

Do you honestly believe that if you ran 4 receivers on streaks against a cover 2 zone defense, that you would have 4 receivers against the 2 safeties and that the 2 CBs would just be sitting there defending their zone against nobody? If the CB doesn't have any imminent threat to that zone, he will be playing the receiver. The deep middle is the major weakness (which is the reason for the Tampa 2 which has the MLB play the deep middle and makes it a pseudo-cover 2 and more of a cover 3).

Streaks aren't the best way to beat the cover 2 like you are so caught up with. Sending a streak up the seam can split the safeties, but you're not going to run all streaks and only have the 2 safeties covering you. The area behind the corners is soft, like you said, but that's why corner routes/deep outs can be effective. That and the deep post is the way you exploit the cover 2. Sending them all deep shouldn't fool anybody. In Madden the CB will stay with the receiver for about 3 yards and just let him go even with no other threat to enter their zone, and that is just dumb.

[Obelysk]

Quote: Originally Posted by WFColonel56

Read the part that is underlined I understand what both of you mean but come on... a cover 2 basicly turns in to a cover 4 ???..? So you are telling me that if I run 4 verts vs your cover 2 you want your cover 2 to basicly turn into a cover 4......Thats not right IMO.... You cant have the best of both worlds here you picked cover 2 thus giving u 5 underneath defenders and 2 over the top....You picked that to stop the WCO (west coast offense) quick passes (dink and dunks) and you want it to turn basicly into a cover 4 when my guys go 4 verts.....Thats not fair to the offense at all.....its a no win situation Also this is not universal for the entire NFL...This "may" just be how 1 or 2 teams run their cover 2...But this is giving the CPU of the defense too much power....By doing it the way he wants to you take away the weakness of the cover 2 He says he is talking more about the Tampa 2 wich is more like a cover 3 and by his statement "if" the outside wrs run verts he wants the CBs to cover that to making a cover 2 (5 underneath defenders) A cover 5 (with 5 over the top defenders) Am I the only one who is understanding this.....The weakness of the regular cover 2 is deep (seams and attacking the safties and the area behind the CBs) and the Tampa 2 covers the "post" or "seam" barely that is how those coverages are suposed to work Guys I understand what he wants and everything but It would be better if he gave some diagram to better discribe how he would want the cover 2 to play something like the 4 verts becuz in not seeing it at all (sorry for the spelling) dont think im trying to bash you its just that If you want to cover deep you call cover 4/ if you want to cover short you call cover 2/ and if you want to cover in between you call cover 3....but you cnt expect a cover 2 to be a cover 4 that isnt fair to the oiffense that 1 play can cover soo many areas on the field..

I see your point but technically the Cover 2 is simply two deep safeties, what ever you do underneath is almost irrelevant. So basically you can run all man to man with two safeties deep and is still a Cover 2. Most people associate the Cover 2 with two safeties deep and the underneath zone coverage which even though is not wrong its definitely not the only Cover 2 play. Same thing with the Cover 3, but I do agree that for the sake of the game they should not change from one play to another.