The most outside man on the plays right side should be picked up by the CB1 on that play. The WLB was in man like all the other cover guys. His assignment worked correctly ...the FB his assigned cover guy picked up the extra blitzer coming from the right....so he was extra now with no coverage assignment . ... slowly drifting to play side. The SS should have stayed on the TE 1 and the CB 2 covered the TE 2. Not like this...

CB1 covers TE 1
CB2 covers TE 2
WLB covers no one
SS covers no one

Both of the players have enough experience and skill not to get beat by a play fake this bad. Which are coded in but not in this way. Still the TE 3 should have been covered by the CB1in the first place.

How do we know this? That EVERY time that guy is left open? You don't know the games I've played, or others have played, to know every time this Play has been called. You only know the games that you experience, and that others report.

Unless you are saying you've went through every single Replay and watched every time 230 PA TE Pass has been ran.

What we DO know is that Defensive Play Knowledge and Offensive Play Knowledge has something to do with Players having actual designed 'blown plays'.

Which means the FIRST thing to check is the thing we know is actually coded in. Finding out the Player that blew the assignment (the LB) and finding out his Play Knowledge of the Defensive Play he is in AND his Play Knowledge of 230 PA TE Pass.

Once we do that, for each of the instances this is brought up, we can decide if it's "Blown Play" or "Bug".

Because if it's a matter of there being to much emphasis on 'Blown Play', that's not a Bug. But it's an issue that needs to be fixed. Because 'falling for fakes' or 'missing assignments' is an INTENDED part of the Code. But it could be tweaked to high, which has an outstanding effect on such plays.

We don't know if the guy doesn't pick up his Route, or CAN NOT pick up his Route... which are two very different things. So what we shouldn't do is come in raving about something that does have an explanation.

A better way for the OP would have been to say "Is this a result of a lack of Play Knowledge leading to a blown play, or is this recurring openness on 230 PA TE Pass not intended in the code?".

We can't assume it happens every time, unless we've checked every time it's been ran.

We can't assume it's not a natural part of the Play Knowledge/Blown Assignment aspect, that IS intended.

So it would be much more productive to find these things out, which has a lot to do with how we frame our questions.

JDB confirmed. Here's a quote from a PM about this play a few weeks ago. Basically, the RB is treated as an eligible receiver even though he's going to stay in and pass block. This leaves the fifth receiver open on this play. That player is the FB2 who runs the slant out on the far right side.

So unless you have a rule to run a base defense where someone goes man up on the WR5, the FB2 is always uncovered.

#1. #91 blitzing in on the Action makes it a 4v5 no matter what.

#2. There is no possible way, from where #22 lines up, that he can even attempt to try to Man Cover the TE3. The TE3 would have to run a drag route across the middle right into him to give him a chance. Any other Route, the SS (#22) is screwed.

#3. So why am I going to put a Play in my Play Book that makes it impossible for one of my Defenders to cover his intended Cover?

The problem with this play is where the SS aligns himself. CB1 has TE1, CB2 has TE2 (and both make their Coverage). OLB has RB, ILB has FB (and the RB goes for the RB on the Action, the ILB slides to the FB). So SS has TE3...

HOWEVER, he can't get from where he is TO the TE3. It's not physically possible. He's beat on the snap.

Only way to fix the play is for JDB to move the SS into a position where he CAN cover his Man.

Which takes me back to #3. Why am I going to run a play... if my guy can not physically make the cover? Despite running it 'many many times' in 'many many games'?

You ALREADY KNOW what you are asking the SS to do (Cover the TE3) is IMPOSSIBLE from these alignments. As in PHYSICALLY impossible. As in would not work on an actual Football Field either.

Either the Defenders have to be able to move Pre-Snap to do this, or they have to Align Over Man at the Play Call. #22 does neither... he's firmly on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the Field of his 'Man'. And he will be every single time.

The only thing that can save #22 is a Drag Route by the TE3 to him... because he can't get to the Quick Slant or Curl, and he certainly can't get to a Go or anything to the outside (away from him).

So if TE3 can never be physically covered by SS, why would we ever call Goal Line Attack #2?

I'm going to go with "Because it generates great pressure, and the TE3 is rarely the Intended Target".

Now, we CAN cover the TE3. We simply pull #22 outside to the TE3 Side. And have one less guy 'In the Box' for our Goal Line. Then we allow Rushing TDs against Goal Line Attack #2 and get mad.

So which poison is it? Take the SS out of the Box so he can play Man on the TE3 and suffer vs. the Run? Or keep the SS inside the Box, and suffer against the TE3?

You can talk about alignment all you want, but read my post with the JDB quotes. It doesn't matter. The FB2 is uncovered.

It's pretty much exactly like I said. The RB stays in, so it's 4v4. The problem is there is no way the SS can cover the FB2 (or TE3) from where he starts the play... which is on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the Field.

Only way to 'fix' it is to pull the SS 'out of the box' in your Goal Line... is that something we want to do?

Because coding him to chase after that guy is likely an easy fix, but he ain't ever getting there unless the TE runs TO the SS.

So what I'm saying is, EVEN if it's a bug and the SS doesn't cover him... it doesn't matter. Because that SS can't get to that TE3 in any scenario that revolves around an actual reality. Because of where he is positioned in the Alignment.

It DOES matter. The SS CAN NOT GET to the FB2/TE3 UNLESS that guy runs a Route right at him.

The SS ALIGNS on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the freaking field.

So whether the issue is Code or Not... it's not going to matter. Fixing this Play Match Up will REQUIRE the SS to Align over the FB2/TE3. Which will pull him Out Of The Box against the Goal Line EVERY TIME.

Because he can't be both places.

So you can have ONE fix, or the OTHER. BOTH can't be done.

You either have the SS In the Box Vs. Goal Line, OR you have him Align Over Man on the FB2/TE3. He can ONLY do one or the other... EVERY TIME.

So I'll ask again. Which do you want fixed? You want the SS over the FB2/TE3 so he can Man him? Or you want him Inside the Box so he can stop the Run up the Middle when facing a Goal Line?

You HAVE to let one go... he can not do both.

So yeah... it IS an Alignment Issue, no matter how you slice it.

Unless your SS can Teleport. Can he Teleport?

If the SS was covering the right man in the play, he'd slide over to coverage like on other M2M plays. He's covering THE PLAYER THAT ALWAYS BLOCKS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALIGNMENT. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BAD GAME DESIGN.

7 blitzers and 4 cover guys. There was four receivers , but one stayed in. That's 7 on 7 .

Look at the play. Tell me how the SS is going to come from the opposite side of the field to Man up that guy.

The ONLY way is to pull the SS out of the box and align him over the FB2/TE3.

Which means no SS In the Box on your Goal Line.

You can't have both. So the SS shouldn't be on the FB2/TE3, it will never work in that alignment. Because of the Alignment, to keep the SS 'In the Box' he has to be on his Alignment Side TE, the FB1 or the RB1. There is literally no other way. He is simply not in a physical location to allow covering the FB2/TE3 in a Goal Line Alignment.

The problem isn't the guy not covering the FB2/TE3... the problem is him being ASSIGNED to do it in the first place.