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 / New engine, more turnovers, too many returned for TDs? Search Forum | |
Navigation: |< < 1 2 7 8 9 > >| | |
Poster | Message |
Sharkn20
|
posted: 2018-05-26 19:14:30 (ID: 100129142) Report Abuse |
prchaser wrote:
Sharkn20 wrote:
It would be fantastic if we could have the figures adding to tje ones pointed already of: NFL % fumbles returned for TDs NFL % interceptions returned for TDs That would help Pete too I'd be surprised if such data exists, but even if it did, the fumbles wouldn't be relevant to our game. I'm guessing that most NFL TD-fumble returns happen when a QB fumbles during a sack or on a special teams play (like a muffed punt), and those don't occur in our game That's why I said it would be good data for Pete |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2018-05-26 22:41:29 (ID: 100129154) Report Abuse |
Data exits
Not official (ESPN) but should be sufficient for a sanity check: ESPN team Def stats I did a quick Check Int total 2016 415 (12.97 per team) total 2017 430 (13.44 per team) avg return yards 2016 12.81 avg return yards 2017 14.75 Return TDs 2016 34 / 8.19 % Return TDs 2017 42 / 9.77 % Fumbles total 2016 483 (15.09 per team) total 2017 464 (14.50 per team) recovered by opponent 2016 285 (59.0 %) recovered by opponent 2017 276 (59.5 %) Return TDs 2016 34 / 8.19 % Return TDs 2017 23 / 4.76 % |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2018-05-27 02:41:17 (ID: 100129164) Report Abuse | |
oakbark wrote:
Fumbles were about right for RB/FB maybe a little low but a QB should be at a high risk of fumbling on a sack. A sack is far likely to result in a fumble than any other play. Yes, this is the key...just increasing fumbles wouldn't help. You need to make sure that fumbles are spread to QBs. Otherwise you just continue to make the rewards and risk of passing more favorable compared to running. If you look at the statistics, QBs are the ones with most fumble: Fumbles Lost Steve SD Blitz |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2018-05-27 18:40:26 (ID: 100129201) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
Solana_Steve wrote:
oakbark wrote:
Fumbles were about right for RB/FB maybe a little low but a QB should be at a high risk of fumbling on a sack. A sack is far likely to result in a fumble than any other play. Yes, this is the key...just increasing fumbles wouldn't help. You need to make sure that fumbles are spread to QBs. Otherwise you just continue to make the rewards and risk of passing more favorable compared to running. If you look at the statistics, QBs are the ones with most fumble: Fumbles Lost Steve SD Blitz this was a constant thought of mine when my pass rush did dominate the EL sack statistics for a few seasons - how '85 bears would my teams have looked if there would have been sack fumbles? no hard feelings though, that pass rush still did pay huge dividends and was great fun still would be a great addition EDIT: this also could give teams with strength oriented QB builds a little boost - yes, more sack, but less fumble prone compared to the really light guys (if there would be something like a STR+Carry+AGI+Vision combo at work for fumbles or something) Last edited on 2018-05-27 19:24:50 by Buddy Ryan |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2018-05-27 20:09:01 (ID: 100129207) Report Abuse | |
Buddy Ryan wrote:
Solana_Steve wrote:
oakbark wrote:
Fumbles were about right for RB/FB maybe a little low but a QB should be at a high risk of fumbling on a sack. A sack is far likely to result in a fumble than any other play. Yes, this is the key...just increasing fumbles wouldn't help. You need to make sure that fumbles are spread to QBs. Otherwise you just continue to make the rewards and risk of passing more favorable compared to running. If you look at the statistics, QBs are the ones with most fumble: Fumbles Lost Steve SD Blitz this was a constant thought of mine when my pass rush did dominate the EL sack statistics for a few seasons - how '85 bears would my teams have looked if there would have been sack fumbles? no hard feelings though, that pass rush still did pay huge dividends and was great fun still would be a great addition EDIT: this also could give teams with strength oriented QB builds a little boost - yes, more sack, but less fumble prone compared to the really light guys (if there would be something like a STR+Carry+AGI+Vision combo at work for fumbles or something) Would we use the same formula for Mark Sanchez-type butt fumbles, or would there be different math for those fumbles? Steve SD Blitz |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2018-05-27 20:12:31 (ID: 100129208) Report Abuse |
Solana_Steve wrote:
Buddy Ryan wrote:
Solana_Steve wrote:
oakbark wrote:
Fumbles were about right for RB/FB maybe a little low but a QB should be at a high risk of fumbling on a sack. A sack is far likely to result in a fumble than any other play. Yes, this is the key...just increasing fumbles wouldn't help. You need to make sure that fumbles are spread to QBs. Otherwise you just continue to make the rewards and risk of passing more favorable compared to running. If you look at the statistics, QBs are the ones with most fumble: Fumbles Lost Steve SD Blitz this was a constant thought of mine when my pass rush did dominate the EL sack statistics for a few seasons - how '85 bears would my teams have looked if there would have been sack fumbles? no hard feelings though, that pass rush still did pay huge dividends and was great fun still would be a great addition EDIT: this also could give teams with strength oriented QB builds a little boost - yes, more sack, but less fumble prone compared to the really light guys (if there would be something like a STR+Carry+AGI+Vision combo at work for fumbles or something) Would we use the same formula for Mark Sanchez-type butt fumbles, or would there be different math for those fumbles? Steve SD Blitz tough job for pete, the engine would need to make an arm strength vs. "core strength" decision there |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
oakbark
|
posted: 2018-05-27 20:35:42 (ID: 100129215) Report Abuse |
Buddy Ryan wrote:
Solana_Steve wrote:
Buddy Ryan wrote:
Solana_Steve wrote:
oakbark wrote:
Fumbles were about right for RB/FB maybe a little low but a QB should be at a high risk of fumbling on a sack. A sack is far likely to result in a fumble than any other play. Yes, this is the key...just increasing fumbles wouldn't help. You need to make sure that fumbles are spread to QBs. Otherwise you just continue to make the rewards and risk of passing more favorable compared to running. If you look at the statistics, QBs are the ones with most fumble: Fumbles Lost Steve SD Blitz this was a constant thought of mine when my pass rush did dominate the EL sack statistics for a few seasons - how '85 bears would my teams have looked if there would have been sack fumbles? no hard feelings though, that pass rush still did pay huge dividends and was great fun still would be a great addition EDIT: this also could give teams with strength oriented QB builds a little boost - yes, more sack, but less fumble prone compared to the really light guys (if there would be something like a STR+Carry+AGI+Vision combo at work for fumbles or something) Would we use the same formula for Mark Sanchez-type butt fumbles, or would there be different math for those fumbles? Steve SD Blitz tough job for pete, the engine would need to make an arm strength vs. "core strength" decision there Would also need to fail a vision check not to see the whacking great arse of you Centre as you ran forward. And fail an intelligence check to realise that running into the OL Arse is not a good idea. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2018-05-27 22:30:53 (ID: 100129225) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
you could spend years on RZA trying to recreate true Mark Sanchez magic, but some challenges maybe just should not be taken
Last edited on 2018-05-27 22:54:06 by Buddy Ryan |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2018-05-28 12:47:56 (ID: 100129236) Report Abuse | |
dell_g wrote:
Hi Pete, I've been getting more and more bored and annoyed with the negative comments about the new engine (and I'm a team that only uses 3 offensive formations 33% each all game long and only passing to flanks...!), So I thought I'd run EVEN MORE "FREE" scrimmages to try and shut these nah sayers up...... In 24 scrimmages therefore 48 "games" worth of data (see below data) using shotgun formations 85% of the time and when passing it's about 66% flanks and 33% middle-ish, The total number of Fumbles and Interceptions aren't high AT ALL...., However I am seeing a high amount of Fumbles and Interceptions going for TD's... Regarding the number of TD's from Fumbles and Interceptions, is this something you can look into tweaking down a little? Thanks either way, RZA is awesome Data from 24 scrimmages so 48 "games" worth: - Avg # of Rushes per game = 28.92 Avg # of Passes per game = 40.98 Rushing: - Total # of Rushes = 1388 Total # of Fumbles = 23 Total # of Fumbles recovered = 8 Total # of Fumbles lost = 15 Total # of Fumbles lost for TD = 6 Total % of Fumbles per total Rushes = 1.66% -(doesn't seem high) Total % of Fumbles recovered per total Fumbled = 34.78% Total % of Fumbles lost per total Fumbled = 65.22% Total % of Fumbles lost for TD against total Fumbles Lost =40.00% - (seems high) Total # of Fumbles per game = 0.48 - (doesn't seem high) Total # of Fumbles lost for TD per game = 0.13 Passing: - Total # of Passes = 1967 Total # of Interceptions = 42 Total # of Interceptions go for TD = 28 Total % of Interceptions per total Passes =2.14% - (doesn't seem high) Total % of Interceptions go for TD against total Intercepted = 66.67% - (seems high) Right then chaps, I've collated 60 scrimmages so 120 "games" worth of data now and the "fumbles and interceptions ran back for TD's" is still a really high percentage..... I've put the "120 games" data below to compare to the above "48 games" data, it's pretty much the same, so can you look into tweaking the "fumbles and interceptions ran back for TD's" down abit please Pete? Data from "120 games": - Avg # of Rushes per game = 28.59 Avg # of Passes per game = 42.17 Rushing: - Total # of Rushes = 3431 Total # of Fumbles = 64 Total # of Fumbles recovered = 17 Total # of Fumbles lost = 47 Total # of Fumbles lost for TD = 16 Total % of Fumbles per total Rushes = 1.87% - (still doesn't seem high) Total % of Fumbles recovered per total Fumbled = 26.56% Total % of Fumbles lost per total Fumbled = 73.44% Total % of Fumbles lost for TD against total Fumbles Lost =34.04% - (still seems high) Total # of Fumbles per game = 0.53 - (still doesn't seem high) Total # of Fumbles lost for TD per game = 0.13 Passing: - Total # of Passes = 5060 Total # of Interceptions = 115 Total # of Interceptions go for TD = 72 Total % of Interceptions per total Passes =2.27% - (still doesn't seem high) Total % of Interceptions go for TD against total Intercepted = 62.61% - (still seems high) |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2018-05-28 13:34:05 (ID: 100129239) Report Abuse | |
Cheers, thank you again!
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
reply Mark this thread unread | |
Navigation: |< < 1 2 7 8 9 > >| | |
Main / Discussions / New engine, more turnovers, too many returned for TDs? |