I am not certain whether the graphic representations of pass receivers and coverage men are meant to be strictly realistic i.e. whether the apparent distance and proximity of cover men is supposed to be as presented. If so, then the catch percentages are exceedingly high. Visually, receivers are constantly making circus catches in the midst of four or five cover men and often the receiver's graphic is entirely covered by his oppoents and completely invisible and this condition doesn't seem to affect the catch percentage. If the proximity of defending players is to be perceived literally as it appears then catch percentages need to come down to reflect very closely guarded players. The high catch percentages of receivers completely 'blanketed' by coverages is one of the least satisfying and more unrealistic aspects of MFN to watch.
In a similar vein, i have not noted any improvements in regards to the modeling and implementation of zone coverages which should be particularly effective in stopping long passes but which are, in fact, the type of defenses most likely to yield the deep 6.
As previously noted, this occurs because players assigned to zones slavishly drop back to a spot on the field and do not react to anything until the ball is caught or the opposing receiver has already run past them - when the horse has already left the barn so to speak. Zones need major changes because they are part of only losing strategies.
