Remove Corner Blitzes

[Anti-Hype]

[iframe width=\\\"560\\\" height=\\\"315\\\" src=\\\"https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usPUFoZeNgQ\\\" frameborder=\\\"0\\\" allowfullscreen][/iframe]

Here's an example how it should work. Now I know we don't get the best visual representation with the sim. But, it rarely seems like the safety/LB actually covers the neglected wideout, but we have seen evidence of the wideout being wide open quite often.



Edit- it could be in circumstances where the QB just doesnt throw the ball to the open guy, he is actually covered and the sim doesnt reflect that. I didn't think about that.

[Anti-Hype]

I'm just saying prove it.  I've watched the sims, I've seen the QB not even throw it to the wide open receiver most of the time.  I've seen CBs get sacks on it.  Everytime there is a big play we can't jump to the conclusion that the defensive play that allowed it must be removed from the playbook. 

I think the result of the play is determined before the visualization is generated. So before you see the wide open receiver or the blown coverage or the pass or anything, the game already knows if it is a 70 yard pass, a sack, a 5 yard completion, etc.  The game just does a poor job of showing how that 70 yard pass happened.

Surely its worth a test at least though right? I'm sure TC is working on it. If not ill try to look into it to.

[timeconsumer]

Blown coverages happen, it's part of football.  I do not think there is any way you could definitively prove that the corner blitz is "game breaking".

Yes, it is part of football. But if one play was that bad a coach would remove it and not use it again. We can't do that. We're stuck with it. We can't make adjustments.

And no, I can't definitely prove it, nor can you prove it provides a fair and balanced game. This entire discussion is subjective. Why would anyone think differently?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that I think it creates an excessive amount of variance that replaces an element of skill with luck. On the flipside the whole point you're trying to make is that it is an acceptable amount of variance that keeps the game interesting. I accept your point of view and understand where you are coming from. I simply disagree.

However you seem to be more interested in trying to put words in my mouth or change what I'm saying into something completely different while diving off into extreme examples. (you'll notice my original use of the term "game breaking" was intentionally placed in scare quotes as it was meant to be an oversimplified and exaggerated way of describing my view, you still seem to enjoy using it out of context). So I'll just say thank you for providing your input but I don't think our back and forth is going to move this conversation forward at this point.

[timeconsumer]

The play "NO (Nickel Off) Zero man" is easily the most egregious of them all. While some like the "43U (4-3 Under) Corner Blitz" actually do motion the free safety to cover the wideout "NO Zero Man" does not. Every single time the LWR gets jammed at the line for a second and then is free to roam. Sometimes the defense gets lucky and the slot WR runs a route into the same are and his defender comes with him (saw it a few times). Other times it's a long, deep shot.











Westfield was playing LWR these entire games, and his corner would blitz every play. Over 5 games he tallied 20 receptions for 889 yards and 7 touchdowns, averaging 44.5 yards per catch and 1 touchdown every 2.8 receptions. We were playing vs the Outlaws too, so the defense was no joke.

[124715]

Sick and tired of this play after losing a game we would've easily won without this.

@Ballerstorm @ErMurazor can we please make this happen.

[iamslm22]

Sick and tired of this play after losing a game we would've easily won without this.

@Ballerstorm @ErMurazor can we please make this happen.

Take it up with your GM. He was the one fighting to keep it in.

[124715]

Take it up with your GM. He was the one fighting to keep it in.

This has nothing to do with that. I never agreed with him, and tc presented good data.

[iamslm22]

This has nothing to do with that. I never agreed with him, and tc presented good data.

Yea that's fair. It's a completely awful play. I'm just saying, he seemed to be the only one who was in favor of it.

[Perry87]

Bump...

[timeconsumer]

San Jose's 71 yard completion to a receiver that had no defender within 20 yards of him at 6 minutes to go in the fourth quarter lost the Otters that game.