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 |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-07-20 10:02:21 (ID: 100110093) Report Abuse |
|
Thanks Holly and Superpippo
It's great to have people actually look at data first and then come up to conclusions as opposed to basing everything on gut feelings. And I fully agree with Superpippo's small recap: "So a small recap: The shotgun 2WR and 4WR plays are statiscally the best passing plays when it comes to average yardage, they give up least sacks, but have a lower completion rate and a higher interception rate. Sounds pretty good to me. " 
Now I can't wait for passionatedlad to come back and say "but I feel like SG is overpowered and my feelings can't possibly be proven wrong by data."  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
amalric7
|
posted: 2017-07-20 14:36:25 (ID: 100110104) Report Abuse |
|
Schwabe wrote:Here you see the true face of SG4
Infamy, infamy...they've all got it infamy. 
I lost to Schwabe THIRTEEN straight times from when I joined this game before I finally found a way past him. I've now beaten him five straight games, the last four using SG4. I guess he's developed a grudge. hollyhh2000 wrote:This is not point finger at managers using that tactics. Good managers will take what the game is giving them and when it is successful, use it.
Well exactly. I've seen many comments in the forum discussing SG4 since I came here in S21, and most of them talk about how effective it is and how many teams employ it at the higher levels. I spent four seasons running a "balanced" offence before giving it a try (what did I have to lose?), and haven't looked back - I run it all the time precisely because its so effective. And I don't buy the "balanced" viewpoint - calling 50%/50% runs/passes still gave me thumbs-down in some games, so what's the point? I now go all-run attack against bots and SG4 in competitive games - and haven't lost a game this season (long may it continue, but I bet someone will smash me down at some point). At this time in my life I have neither the time nor the inclination to fill out a 600-700 line playbook. I've copied a formula many others use and it works. Until the penalties become huge enough to stop it I'll keep running it. As a side note: take out the Rhinos game mentioned above and my team has given up an average of 5.1 points per game this season, yet is anyone moaning about defensive formations? I think not. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-07-20 18:26:47 (ID: 100110113) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Just a note from me on playbooks. More lines in a playbook. The harder it is to control. And the more likely hood of being hit with the lopsided tatics.
So I say run no playbook or several simple ones. Last edited on 2017-07-20 18:27:16 by andrew2scott2 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-07-20 21:29:32 (ID: 100110133) Report Abuse |
|
amalric7 wrote:
Schwabe wrote:Here you see the true face of SG4
Infamy, infamy...they've all got it infamy.
I lost to Schwabe THIRTEEN straight times from when I joined this game before I finally found a way past him. I've now beaten him five straight games, the last four using SG4. I guess he's developed a grudge. hollyhh2000 wrote:This is not point finger at managers using that tactics. Good managers will take what the game is giving them and when it is successful, use it.
Well exactly. I've seen many comments in the forum discussing SG4 since I came here in S21, and most of them talk about how effective it is and how many teams employ it at the higher levels. I spent four seasons running a "balanced" offence before giving it a try (what did I have to lose?), and haven't looked back - I run it all the time precisely because its so effective. And I don't buy the "balanced" viewpoint - calling 50%/50% runs/passes still gave me thumbs-down in some games, so what's the point? I now go all-run attack against bots and SG4 in competitive games - and haven't lost a game this season (long may it continue, but I bet someone will smash me down at some point). At this time in my life I have neither the time nor the inclination to fill out a 600-700 line playbook. I've copied a formula many others use and it works. Until the penalties become huge enough to stop it I'll keep running it. As a side note: take out the Rhinos game mentioned above and my team has given up an average of 5.1 points per game this season, yet is anyone moaning about defensive formations? I think not. I've no problem that you find a way to beat me, I've just a problem that this way is a possible way to beat teams who spend more time for a good playbook. I feel a bit cheated, not by you, but by the situation. I don't like this kind of playbooks also I dont like tankers and other ways to abuse weaknesses of the engine or system. No harsh feelings just a finger on a wound. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2017-07-20 22:31:37 (ID: 100110138) Report Abuse |
|
Superpippo wrote:
1) When it comes to % of sacks compared to blitzed passes, the shotgun formations are around 6-7%, other formations are around 13% so it's more like double instead of triple like said here before (sample size from 2 matchdays = 42357 plays of which 24067 where passes) 2) Sack% is around 1,3% of plays. Statiscal significance of sacks is small, but does need to be taken into accouunt. example: there were 5122 passes from the SG4 in my sample size, but average yardage goes up with 0,35yds if you take negative yardage from sacks out of it. great stuff, Superpippo, thx! Superpippo wrote:
- We know QB's can feel pressure, in Holly's FB research a lot of you seem to come to the conclusion blitz but no sack = no influence. Why? yes, sacks get fetishized a lot, but thats also a function of being a "hard stat", while pressure is more elusive to detect and doesnt show up in the match report, except you dive deep into the play-by-play. but putting a QB under pressure before he finds an open WR to force an incompletion is pretty valuable too, and pressuring a QB into throwing it to a defender even more so... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
amalric7
|
posted: 2017-07-20 23:07:23 (ID: 100110140) Report Abuse |
|
Schwabe wrote: I've no problem that you find a way to beat me, I've just a problem that this way is a possible way to beat teams who spend more time for a good playbook. I feel a bit cheated, not by you, but by the situation. I don't like this kind of playbooks also I dont like tankers and other ways to abuse weaknesses of the engine or system.
No harsh feelings just a finger on a wound. Very well said, that's understandable. I do apologise for the grudge comment. And as it turned out I didn't get crushed by Buddy's Bears, final score was 21-30. We actually led through three quarters but couldn't keep it going at the end. But if my Admirals 2.1 team can keep it that close against an Elite team, I doubt use of SG4 is going away any time soon... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2017-07-20 23:22:22 (ID: 100110141) Report Abuse |
|
amalric7 wrote:
And as it turned out I didn't get crushed by Buddy's Bears, final score was 21-30. We actually led through three quarters but couldn't keep it going at the end. But if my Admirals 2.1 team can keep it that close against an Elite team, I doubt use of SG4 is going away any time soon... this is not meant as a slight, but I dont want this game to stand as an example for the supposed all powerfull SG4 pass (which I did use plenty too with mixed results): I used this game to give more snaps to backups than I would against elite opposition and just ran a vanilla offense with too much passing (for my setup) - but more passing is usually more snaps = more XP. also didnt scout your O otherwhise I would have defended it differently... I just hoped the talent difference would still be enough and we are both through in our SC group anyway and there are way too many games to prepare for in elite  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-20 23:50:33 (ID: 100110142) Report Abuse |
|
Schwabe wrote:
I've no problem that you find a way to beat me, I've just a problem that this way is a possible way to beat teams who spend more time for a good playbook. I feel a bit cheated, not by you, but by the situation. I don't like this kind of playbooks also I dont like tankers and other ways to abuse weaknesses of the engine or system. No harsh feelings just a finger on a wound. Here's the rub. People assume that their team and strategies aren't what was exploited and blame it on the engine. SG4 is averaging .5 yard more per pass play (citint Superpippos data). If you found that big I averages .5 more yards rushing pet attempt against 5-3 than SG4 does would you call that an exploit in the engine? SG4 is more conducive to passing and Big I to rushing. Here's a possibility that people that are vocal about the evil SG4 pass never seem to even entertain. IF a formation, any formation, is extremely successful against me then maybe my defensive strategy and/or player skills are weak against it. Knowing that the league wide avg is .5 more yards per pass with SG4 then you can take the stats of your Defense against Sg4 and see what you are giving up compared to other O formations. If you are giving up an average of 2 full yards or more per attempt than other formations then it's on you. Personally my D loves playing against SG4 pass heavy teams with similar to maybe 10-15% more talent than what I have. But then I typically have much more talent at CB than I do MLB. I also get by with 3 star interior OLs. You follow "group think" expect the same weaknesses as group think. If you are too stubborn to adjust that is on you not the engine. A .5 yard extra avg out of a passing formation vs all sounds amazingly realistic considering all the variables the engine has to calculate. If you give hard data that shows an exploit then we have something we can ask Pete to tinker with. Otherwise it's this same old emotional whining because people don't want to adjust. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gnikeoj
|
posted: 2017-07-21 00:54:32 (ID: 100110143) Report Abuse |
|
amalric7 wrote:
Schwabe wrote: I've no problem that you find a way to beat me, I've just a problem that this way is a possible way to beat teams who spend more time for a good playbook. I feel a bit cheated, not by you, but by the situation. I don't like this kind of playbooks also I dont like tankers and other ways to abuse weaknesses of the engine or system.
No harsh feelings just a finger on a wound. Very well said, that's understandable. I do apologise for the grudge comment. And as it turned out I didn't get crushed by Buddy's Bears, final score was 21-30. We actually led through three quarters but couldn't keep it going at the end. But if my Admirals 2.1 team can keep it that close against an Elite team, I doubt use of SG4 is going away any time soon... He beat me to it, but I would have bet the house that Buddy didn't play his 1st team or game plan for you. A while back when I was in 2.x, I was in a similar situation, but fortunately, he was kind enough to show me the error in my thinking by playing me a couple of times in Friendlies. I have no doubt that your team is making strides but the gap between your current team and an elite side is much larger than you can know at the moment. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-07-21 08:38:53 (ID: 100110168) Report Abuse |
|
thomastem wrote:
Schwabe wrote:
I've no problem that you find a way to beat me, I've just a problem that this way is a possible way to beat teams who spend more time for a good playbook. I feel a bit cheated, not by you, but by the situation. I don't like this kind of playbooks also I dont like tankers and other ways to abuse weaknesses of the engine or system. No harsh feelings just a finger on a wound. Here's the rub. People assume that their team and strategies aren't what was exploited and blame it on the engine. SG4 is averaging .5 yard more per pass play (citint Superpippos data). If you found that big I averages .5 more yards rushing pet attempt against 5-3 than SG4 does would you call that an exploit in the engine? SG4 is more conducive to passing and Big I to rushing. Here's a possibility that people that are vocal about the evil SG4 pass never seem to even entertain. IF a formation, any formation, is extremely successful against me then maybe my defensive strategy and/or player skills are weak against it. Knowing that the league wide avg is .5 more yards per pass with SG4 then you can take the stats of your Defense against Sg4 and see what you are giving up compared to other O formations. If you are giving up an average of 2 full yards or more per attempt than other formations then it's on you. Personally my D loves playing against SG4 pass heavy teams with similar to maybe 10-15% more talent than what I have. But then I typically have much more talent at CB than I do MLB. I also get by with 3 star interior OLs. You follow "group think" expect the same weaknesses as group think. If you are too stubborn to adjust that is on you not the engine. A .5 yard extra avg out of a passing formation vs all sounds amazingly realistic considering all the variables the engine has to calculate. If you give hard data that shows an exploit then we have something we can ask Pete to tinker with. Otherwise it's this same old emotional whining because people don't want to adjust. I don't blame the engine in this or that formation is overpowered, I just think that it shouldn't be possible to run the same formation all the time and be successful. It's a shame to take the fun out of a very good game by granting access to such a boring playtype. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 9 10 11 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Shotgun 4 | |
