In various posts it has been said that the defense plays zone in pass coverage. When throwing to a WR very short, short or medium the WR will be covered by the CB's on the field (i.e. neither SS nor FS). Essentially, the average of the CBs on the field oppose the WR(s).

By adding CBs in Nickel and Dime, does this potentially dilute the CB group coverage? Because you are adding more CBs and likely CB3 and CB4 have lower rating than CB1 & CB2.

You're playing the match-ups. You may have your 3rd best DB on the field, but your opponent has his 3rd best WR out there. If your #3 is really crappy in coverage, you can always blitz him to take him out of the zone, and a safety should pick up the 3rd receiver. Sort of like playing cover 1 zone. instead of cover 2. You'd get the same coverage if you played a 5-2 against trips.

Great question goldencats. One that I have always wondered also. Same with offensive line. Does adding a TE or FB to the mix help or hurt if they aren't great blockers? I don't know if it's cumulative or all added together

The direct answer is that we do not know for sure or at least I have been unable to find an answer. I will give you the basic formula and then give you my opinion:

1. The basic formula is that the Primary Defensive Group score is enhanced by the Next Closest Defensive Group. For example, a short pass to the RB is always defended by the LB defensive group and typically enhanced by the CB defensive group. We also know that the Primary Defensive Group is averaged but we know nothing about how the Next Closest Defensive Group enhances.

Side Note: I have never been able to manipulate a Primary Defensive Group (except Med Pass defensive between S and LB) but I can always manipulate a Next Closest Group by distributing my routes.

2. In my opinion based on the plain reading of the formula and based on my experience:
a. The Primary Defensive Group is diluted if you have (for example) 2 LB in coverage defending the short pass to the RB and 1 LB is really good and the other LB is really bad. I believe this makes common sense. I also used this theory to a NC against Chetty when he was running his "throw to my stud TE playbook".
b. I do not believe the next closest group is diluted. In fact, I believe it is enhanced by more people.

With regard to opinion b, I believe there is a general "bonus" for having "more people in coverage". This makes common sense. It also makes sense that a programmer would plug it in a slot where a bonus is already being applied (e.g. the Next Closest Group).

I do not believe the "bonus" for "more people in coverage" overcomes a large dilution. In fact, I believe this math is broken in the engine right now.

In summary:

1. I have many times left only my best player in coverage if I am behind in talent. For example, put all of your LB on the line and only leave your best coverage LB off the line and in coverage. Or, blitz one of your CB and let your one stud CB cover the CB primary zone.

2. Which, leads me to the overall conclusion that quality matters more in coverage than quantity. I do not believe you can win at a top level with dime or nickel without a large advantage in talent against a team with top end WR and QB play.

90% of this post is my opinion, so do not take what I am saying as gospel. This is easy to test. Literally play 1 LB in coverage an entire season and see what you think.

nitros (James)

Nitros, YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!! Love this response! So much good, interesting information in this. Love it!!

Based upon several recent forum discussions, including this one, I was unsure if the Primary Defense Group (PDG) was A) an average of the PDG opposing the offensive player, or B) a pool from which the opposing defensive player is chosen. From your post it sounds like the PDG is averaged when you said, " We also know that the Primary Defensive Group is averaged..." Was this from a developer chat? Just wondering as I'd like to read the question asked and the context of the answer.

When you say, " I have never been able to manipulate a Primary Defensive Group (except Med Pass defensive between S and LB) but I can always manipulate a Next Closest Group by distributing my routes.", do you mean by sending the Next Closest Defensive Group (NCDG) to a location away from where you are targeting a receiver? For example, passing to a receiver S and sending other players D to manipulate the NCDG. This is what I refer to as "pulling" defenders to different parts of the field.

Hey, 90% of your post may be opinion, but it is 100% awesome and helpful!!! Thanks again.

From your post it sounds like the PDG is averaged

PDG is always averaged. This is confirmed by Dev Chats.

do you mean by sending the Next Closest Defensive Group (NCDG) to a location away from where you are targeting a receiver?

Yes. But, you are only thinking on the offensive side of the ball :) Remember, you have to play defense as well. So, the main way to manipulate who covers the medium depth is by setting your "pre snap" depth (e.g. placing your DB closer or farther away from the Line on your pre-snap settings). So, if your S group is weak, place them farther away so your LB group is more likely to cover the Medium depth. Also...this makes (typically) the CB group the NCBG for the Medium Depth.

Since most coaches use the Pro-Set Outside Run/WR Medium depth game plan. A good defense to this is to place your best DB at CB (to defend the outside run better). Since your CB are your best DB in this alignment, you want to play your S way back so that the CB is your NCDG to enhance LB coverage at the Medium Depth against the RB/TE.

Make sense?

nitros (James)

P.S. This is also a good way to "hide" two weak DB's. Put them at Safety and play them WAY back in coverage through your pre-snap alignment.

Oh man. I've played 2,326 games in a few different worlds in GD with a 77.6% win percentage. I have 57 combined conference champions, numerous final 4 appearances, lost two national championships, zero national championships and its posts like these that make me realize how completely outmatched I am in figuring out this game hahaha

Meh. Talent is the great equalizer. Recruit well and you are going to be in the mix.

james

If people in Warner want to run a test next pre-season against my Kansas team let me know.

I run a 4-4, I can put all the LBs on the line and additionally blitz one of my DBs leaving 2 guys in coverage (either 2 CBs or 1 CB/1 S). If anyone thinks there is valuable data there let me know.

Generally speaking, I usually have decent teams, and make the playoffs, and occasionally pull off an upset...but finding a thread like this enlightens me as to why I often get annihilated by very good teams. My knowledge of the inner workings of this game is quite subpar.