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 / Discussions / Shotgun 4 Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 9 10 11 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-07-19 20:58:03 (ID: 100110048) Report Abuse |
|
Superpippo wrote:
thomastem wrote:
Gambler75 wrote:
That seems like a pretty big sample size ... and yeah, sorry if this is hijacking the thread from SG4 is OP! I never agreed to that premise, but that both SG formations seem objectively better than the alternatives. SG formations are in RL as well if you have the right players to run it. Isn't that why NFL teams like to use it in obvious passing situations? I think the question should be if the passing advantage of SG formations is realistic rather than just blindly making all formations equal. My opinion is that I don't know and until that is proven with large sample sizes vs real life not simply vs running formations no change should be made. SG should pass for more yardage against 3-4 than big I vs 3-4. On the other side of the coin Big I should average more rushing yards against 3-4 than SG does. How much more should be taken by NFL and maybe college stats as a ruler to measure. The above paragraph makes for a productive discussion and research while those that just complain that their 30-0 shut out was broken because their opponent passed out of SG4 for a whole quarter is not. Matter of fact it takes away from those like you and Holly that are trying to provide data to fix unrealistic simming from the RZA engine. My suggestion would be to get a comparison of offensive formation effectiveness rushing and passing vs the different defensive formations individually. Once you have the data give it to Pete. Pete has access to the largest sample size and can tinker if he sees something over or under powered. Also call out the cry babies when they post BS because they do nothing but kill the productivity of the discussion and make people want to dismiss it out of hand. Well, I've done exactly this for around 150000 plays... the plays from games 1-9 this season so far, all elite and division 1 matches not containing bots. Then split up runs/passes against each formation and honestly, SG is not a far superior formation, if anything it's more effective when used as both a passing and running play because of the way people defend against it. 100% passing is actually taking away from it's strength. It's like Thomas says there are many variables that needs to be taken into account, but at the end of the day the average pass from SG4 goes 0,5yd further than the worst passing play. So in 100 passes it might gain you 50yds against someone throwing 100% from a crappy formation. That being said. I do feel that the "encouragement" for those players that put time and effort into a well balanced playbook should be a bit bigger, but more to get a more diverse game, not because s4g is too strong. What is with the completion rate? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
passionatelad
|
posted: 2017-07-19 21:37:43 (ID: 100110050) Report Abuse |
|
I wish people would get it through there thick sculls. It's not about my game blah blah blah. It's the use and effectiveness of this formation.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 21:49:26 (ID: 100110052) Report Abuse |
|
passionatelad wrote:
I wish people would get it through there thick sculls. It's not about my game blah blah blah. It's the use and effectiveness of this formation. You spelled "there" as in describing a place when it should have been "their" since you were talking about people. Based on the data rather than emotion it looks like S4 is averaging only a little more per play than other formations league wide. Since it is a passing formation and gains more yards in real life what about the effectiveness do you have a problem with. As for the use I think we all understand how you would like to dictate that people must not call the same formation in succession because you don't like that. Perhaps Roger Goodell gets calls from teams whining about how teams are always in Shotguns passing in the 2 minute drills at end of half and game and are sometimes successful moving the ball. Mean Goodell must not care about their feelings because as of yet he hasn't dictated how often teams can use a formation. Must be part of the Patriarchy. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2017-07-19 21:51:53 (ID: 100110054) Edits found: 4 Report Abuse |
|
passionatelad wrote:
I wish people would get it through there thick sculls. It's not about my game blah blah blah. It's the use and effectiveness of this formation. but take a look at Superpippos data (EDIT: got lost in the thread and thought you were holly  and its not that much more effective. managers use Shotgun 2/4 because they provide better pass protection - the FB is able to pick up blitzes (BLITZES not DE-breakthroughs) in these 2 formations, he doesnt in the others - and when running out of it, Ds usually defend it with lighter boxes than vs. the other formations. thats about it. if you have a fast, agile QB - and your WRs can create separation - the difference might not matter that much. Last edited on 2017-07-19 23:01:15 by Buddy Ryan |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 21:57:49 (ID: 100110056) Report Abuse |
|
Buddy Ryan wrote:
passionatelad wrote:
I wish people would get it through there thick sculls. It's not about my game blah blah blah. It's the use and effectiveness of this formation. but take a look at hollys data (best we got, thx for sharing man!) and its not that much more effective. managers use Shotgun 2/4 because they provide better pass protection - the FB is able to pick up blitzes (BLITZES not DE-breakthroughs) in these 2 formations, he doesnt in the others - and when running out of it, Ds usually defend it with lighter boxes than vs. the other formations. thats about it. if you have a fast, agile QB, the difference might not matter that much. We don't want to let facts and data get in the way when we can use buzz phrases like "everyone knows" and "I don't like how people do this" to promote conformity. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-07-19 22:13:30 (ID: 100110059) Report Abuse |
|
I do not think there anything wrong with the offensive formation
I thing the defence formation need adjusting So match up really matter. Meaning a simple head count. Example If there are 7 dbs vs 1 wr,2tes on pass play. The defense should get a huge bounus. But if the would run the defense should be in trouble. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 22:20:39 (ID: 100110061) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
andrew2scott2 wrote:
I do not think there anything wrong with the offensive formation I thing the defence formation need adjusting So match up really matter. Meaning a simple head count. Example If there are 7 dbs vs 1 wr,2tes on pass play. The defense should get a huge bounus. But if the would run the defense should be in trouble.
Also if you have holes in the talent compared to your opponent you pay the price. Spend all of your money on an inside LB and very little on corners then talented QB/WR combos with a sizable talent advantage should tear you a new ass over and over again regardless of formation and play calling. Last edited on 2017-07-19 22:21:00 by thomastem |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2017-07-19 22:37:05 (ID: 100110062) Report Abuse |
|
Buddy Ryan wrote:
but take a look at hollys data (best we got, thx for sharing man!) and its not that much more effective. managers use Shotgun 2/4 because they provide better pass protection - the FB is able to pick up blitzes (BLITZES not DE-breakthroughs) in these 2 formations, he doesnt in the others - and when running out of it, Ds usually defend it with lighter boxes than vs. the other formations. thats about it. if you have a fast, agile QB - and your WRs can create separation - the difference might not matter that much. Not that much more effective? Picking up blitzes (w/no DE BT) 100% of the time, versus 0% of the time in the others ... amounted to triple the sack rate in the others? 3.5% vs 10% is a pretty nasty difference. As far as the NFL comparisons, teams were about 1.5yds per attempt worse passing out of shotgun, rather than under center in 2016. Rushing was actually about a yard higher from the shotgun, but only 32.8% of rushing snaps came from the shotgun, so that likely is a case of facing more spread out defenses. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 22:57:15 (ID: 100110063) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
The FB blocking and sack rates bring up an interesting point on Superpippo's data set. RZA does not back out negative yards from sack in total passing yards while the NFL does. Further it doesn't even show up as an attempt in the RZA box score.
If the sack yards weren't backed out manually and the attempts added then the numbers showing just .5 yards per attempt is wrong. Example: Game has 12 pass attempts, 100 yards gained, 2 sacks for -15yards RZA Box 10 attempts/100 yards/10 yds avg NFL Box 12 attempts/85 yards/7 yards avg. As you can see if you just take box scores there can be a substantial difference in the effective reality of average yards per attempt. If other formation get sacked more the avg yards per play are going to be much bigger than the .5 yard per play unless this was tracked and part of the data set. Were the sacks added as attempts and yardage subtracted? If not the data isn't accurate and needs to be redone if we are to get an accurate picture of yards per attempt. Last edited on 2017-07-19 22:57:39 by thomastem |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2017-07-19 23:15:58 (ID: 100110064) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
Not that much more effective? Picking up blitzes (w/no DE BT) 100% of the time, versus 0% of the time in the others ... amounted to triple the sack rate in the others? 3.5% vs 10% is a pretty nasty difference. thomastem wrote:
The FB blocking and sack rates bring up an interesting point on Superpippo's data set. RZA does not back out negative yards from sack in total passing yards while the NFL does. Further it doesn't even show up as an attempt in the RZA box score. hmm yes that would explain the disconnect between sack-rates and Superpippos numbers... but with that in mind, would it at least allow us to conclude that the impact of pressure (without sacks) is about the same for Shotgun and Non-Shotgun? Last edited on 2017-07-19 23:16:35 by Buddy Ryan |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 9 10 11 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Shotgun 4 | |
