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 / Adjust FB Blocking success probability for different formations Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-31 01:59:50 (ID: 100078036) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
gnikeoj wrote:
Doc wrote:
Played 2 FB's today in my Supercup game, equal game time, both selected to start in depth chart. Opponents pass and rush defense was 64 FB 1 (39 plays) - 47 blocking - Sacked 0 times FB 2 (42 plays) - 18 blocking - Sacked 3 times (1 I-form, 2 SG4) Not linking it to anything, just found it interesting. Are you guys counting available blockers in each formation? See my post above about the DE and/or blitzer getting through. I believe the first calculation decides if a DE breaks through or not. This calculation involves the number of blockers on O versus the number of DL (and maybe LB) on D. Then we know if 0, 1 or 2 players have a sack opportunity. I'm only interested in the plays where there is one player with a sack opportunity versus one FB because it appears to be where the imbalance is. I have no idea why Doc keeps including plays with 0 or 2 defenders breaking through as I've said before that I'm not interested in them because I think they are well balanced (good job Pete if you're still reading this 
It's like if I told him, there's a problem with rushing up the middle and he kept including stats from rushes left, right and middle. My bad, I didn't realize this was your thread. I'll leave you to it. Last edited on 2016-05-31 02:00:40 by Doc |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-31 08:38:24 (ID: 100078053) Report Abuse |
|
Doc wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
gnikeoj wrote:
Doc wrote:
Played 2 FB's today in my Supercup game, equal game time, both selected to start in depth chart. Opponents pass and rush defense was 64 FB 1 (39 plays) - 47 blocking - Sacked 0 times FB 2 (42 plays) - 18 blocking - Sacked 3 times (1 I-form, 2 SG4) Not linking it to anything, just found it interesting. Are you guys counting available blockers in each formation? See my post above about the DE and/or blitzer getting through. I believe the first calculation decides if a DE breaks through or not. This calculation involves the number of blockers on O versus the number of DL (and maybe LB) on D. Then we know if 0, 1 or 2 players have a sack opportunity. I'm only interested in the plays where there is one player with a sack opportunity versus one FB because it appears to be where the imbalance is. I have no idea why Doc keeps including plays with 0 or 2 defenders breaking through as I've said before that I'm not interested in them because I think they are well balanced (good job Pete if you're still reading this
It's like if I told him, there's a problem with rushing up the middle and he kept including stats from rushes left, right and middle. My bad, I didn't realize this was your thread. I'll leave you to it. Well, this thread, as per the title, is about the "FB Blocking success" - You are talking about and comparing blocking success from the entire blocking unit (OL+TE+FB) so you are the one who keeps going off topic. The goal here is to exclude blocking from non-FB and only compare the relative success of FB blocking between formations. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-31 13:26:43 (ID: 100078079) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Doc wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
gnikeoj wrote:
Doc wrote:
Played 2 FB's today in my Supercup game, equal game time, both selected to start in depth chart. Opponents pass and rush defense was 64 FB 1 (39 plays) - 47 blocking - Sacked 0 times FB 2 (42 plays) - 18 blocking - Sacked 3 times (1 I-form, 2 SG4) Not linking it to anything, just found it interesting. Are you guys counting available blockers in each formation? See my post above about the DE and/or blitzer getting through. I believe the first calculation decides if a DE breaks through or not. This calculation involves the number of blockers on O versus the number of DL (and maybe LB) on D. Then we know if 0, 1 or 2 players have a sack opportunity. I'm only interested in the plays where there is one player with a sack opportunity versus one FB because it appears to be where the imbalance is. I have no idea why Doc keeps including plays with 0 or 2 defenders breaking through as I've said before that I'm not interested in them because I think they are well balanced (good job Pete if you're still reading this
It's like if I told him, there's a problem with rushing up the middle and he kept including stats from rushes left, right and middle. My bad, I didn't realize this was your thread. I'll leave you to it. Well, this thread, as per the title, is about the "FB Blocking success" - You are talking about and comparing blocking success from the entire blocking unit (OL+TE+FB) so you are the one who keeps going off topic. The goal here is to exclude blocking from non-FB and only compare the relative success of FB blocking between formations. Yeah, I think you are either ignoring or completely missing the point of my discussion. If what you are asking for is added text in the game description to show varied FB blocks, then that's fine, ignore all I've said. If you are asking to adjust the effectiveness of FB blocks, in-game, from these formations which in turn increases/decreases sack %, then I have a problem. Without balanced data to get an overall % sack percentage of formations, you could be breaking SG4 and SG2 and giving massive buffs to the other formations. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-31 13:35:04 (ID: 100078080) Report Abuse |
|
No I got your point very well, it's not about the text it's about the blocking calculation. You think it's one calculation (OL+TE+FB vs DL+Blitzer) and I think it's one step for the line of scrimmage (OL+TE vs DL+Blitzer) and then another step for the FB vs DE/Blitzer.
Pete will obviously never clarify such a thing so your guess is as good as mine. That being said I am so convinced by the data I've seen that I'm going to abandon my 19 season-long strategy, fire my RB coach and hire a FB coach and play half of my snaps from SG2/4 formations soonish. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-05-31 13:39:10 (ID: 100078081) Report Abuse | |
|
[quote=Meitheisman
That being said I am so convinced by the data I've seen that I'm going to abandon my 19 season-long strategy, fire my RB coach and hire a FB coach and play half of my snaps from SG2/4 formations soonish.
Count me in. Its just silly to continue to play at a disadvantage. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-31 16:22:36 (ID: 100078107) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
No I got your point very well, it's not about the text it's about the blocking calculation. You think it's one calculation (OL+TE+FB vs DL+Blitzer) and I think it's one step for the line of scrimmage (OL+TE vs DL+Blitzer) and then another step for the FB vs DE/Blitzer. . I have already stated I do not think that FB is included in the 'blocking stage' roll. You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying in my play breakdown posted above. We do have differing opinions on the 'sack stage' roll. You believe there is a new roll for FB blocking specifically, whereas I believe the FB blocking stats just weigh the eventual outcome of the blitz/play. But yeah, only Pete knows. So we could both be talking garbage. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2016-05-31 16:31:17 (ID: 100078108) Report Abuse |
|
I hope that I can tomorrow crunch some more data to hopefully also get Doc thinking that there is substance to this suggestion. After all I had a game to prepare against one of the best (if not the best) game planner in all RZA.
I had some credits to burn and got 10 scrimmages and will calculate the sack % although I think sack% is a very biased data as Skills of QB and Pass Rusher, distance of down, formation, sack% and expectation of the defense all play a major roll. And if you break it down to just some FBs you are quickly in very small samples. Anyway, very curious on the results |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-31 16:31:41 (ID: 100078109) Report Abuse |
|
Gotcha, and yeah we could both be talking garbage is a great conclusion to a 6 pages and 3 days long discussion
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-31 16:46:30 (ID: 100078111) Report Abuse |
|
hollyhh2000 wrote:
I hope that I can tomorrow crunch some more data to hopefully also get Doc thinking that there is substance to this suggestion. After all I had a game to prepare against one of the best (if not the best) game planner in all RZA. I had some credits to burn and got 10 scrimmages and will calculate the sack % although I think sack% is a very biased data as Skills of QB and Pass Rusher, distance of down, formation, sack% and expectation of the defense all play a major roll. And if you break it down to just some FBs you are quickly in very small samples. Anyway, very curious on the results Plz no RB's at FB in the data  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Toni Gorilla
|
posted: 2016-06-02 09:30:08 (ID: 100078227) Report Abuse |
|
Thanks to holly and all others involved for the solid data delivered. Very useful. If no adjustments are made I shall change my strategy accordingly, too.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Adjust FB Blocking success probability for different formations | |
