no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Formations effectiveness Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
OrangeCrush
|
posted: 2017-03-23 19:36:52 (ID: 100101160) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
my todays game shows that you can defend against Shotgun, even if your opp is higher in his material rating. Sorry Pete, but this is a bad example. Your defense did poorly giving up 8 yards per play against the pass and 4 yards against the run when the opponent allways played SG2 You won because your offense dominated and you won time of possesion big time |
|
| posted: 2017-03-23 21:32:52 (ID: 100101163) Report Abuse | |
|
oh, so does this mean it was a bad win?
 |
|
|
passionatelad
|
posted: 2017-03-27 13:14:07 (ID: 100101325) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I have no idea whether you are right or wrong and whether some formations are too strong or too weak, do you know why? Because I have not looked at enough data to come up with an inform opinion about it. Would you please provide a significant amount of data supporting your point? Look at pretty much any game Its impossible to defend against and its going to get to the point where every one is using it and no defence will be effective. |
|
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-27 14:19:37 (ID: 100101330) Report Abuse |
|
Hahaha, so I ask for data to back up your point and your response is "look at pretty much any game"?????
What a fantastic argument, you definitely changed my mind  |
|
| posted: 2017-03-27 14:22:54 (ID: 100101331) Report Abuse | |
|
How about data schmata?!
|
|
|
passionatelad
|
posted: 2017-03-27 16:33:35 (ID: 100101334) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Its the perfect arguement. Look at the constant long yard gains. And the lack of game time the opposition gets
Last edited on 2017-03-28 14:37:39 by passionatelad |
|
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-28 14:35:03 (ID: 100101380) Report Abuse |
|
Data means numbers, not words. It doesn't matter how nice you think your argument looks until you give me actual figures it will have no value to me because I specifically asked you for data.
What you could do for example is analyse a bunch of games where the teams are of similar level and show yards gained per formation. If the data shows that formation X yields more yards per play than formation Y consistently then I'll agree with you that something needs to be changed. |
|
| posted: 2017-03-28 16:54:24 (ID: 100101389) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Data means numbers, not words. It doesn't matter how nice you think your argument looks until you give me actual figures it will have no value to me because I specifically asked you for data. What you could do for example is analyse a bunch of games where the teams are of similar level and show yards gained per formation. If the data shows that formation X yields more yards per play than formation Y consistently then I'll agree with you that something needs to be changed. I'd also like to see completion percentages, this is an extreme example but constant 40 yard bombs followed by 3 and outs will give you average 10 yards with no score compared to 4 yards 100% of the time gives you a score every possession. Last edited on 2017-03-28 16:54:52 by Jonny Utah |
|
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-28 17:50:57 (ID: 100101395) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Yes, this would count as data too and would definitely change my mind... What I think though is that Pete has the data for the whole of RZA and that it is really well balanced but every now and then someone comes up with a flawed set of data (or no data at all
 ) claiming that it isn't well balanced  Last edited on 2017-03-28 17:51:19 by Meitheisman |
|
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-03-29 01:41:24 (ID: 100101412) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
To be fair, the data has been presented before. Holly posted it in the discussion forum. If you want to dispute Holly's data, you should provide your own. I have seen a couple people post data sets showing inflated numbers for SG4 (Holly's was based on RZA Elite data), I have yet to see anyone post data showing the opposite.
The burden of proof exists in both directions. Last edited on 2017-03-29 01:41:42 by Rock777 |
|
| Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Formations effectiveness | |
