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 / The All-Singing All-Dancing New Passing Engine Thread Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-09-01 05:14:08 (ID: 54774) Report Abuse |
|
Here is one of my concerns.
Against the shotguns (esp the 4WR), you pretty much need to play the 4-1. The shotgun formations are the only 2 formations that do not suffer from wasted players on the field. But the 4-1 has the disadvantage of having 2 DTs on the field, neither of whome can make a sack. This D is also very poor vs the run. Now and then a FB will only get a small gain but typically there are a lot of yds to be had by FBs on the ground. I think we need some new D formations here. The 3-3 is OK but we are forced to use only 2 CBs and 3 SFs. Maybe SFs and CBs should be able to play in each others positions without the out of position penalty so that we can have our best 5 DBs in that formation? Then we would have a formation that has good balance vs the shotguns.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Sisko
|
posted: 2012-09-01 07:20:17 (ID: 54776) Report Abuse |
|
I was bombed! By an OLiner, with sub 14 PAS/VIS...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-09-01 07:53:12 (ID: 54780) Report Abuse | |
|
For the long bomb touchdowns...
We fixed this part already, by giving the Defenders a bit more "power" once the catch was made. It works well in the testing, still I cannot upload this part of the u p d a t e now... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-09-01 09:08:47 (ID: 54785) Report Abuse | |
|
Check the news for more details
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:01:09 (ID: 58080) Report Abuse |
|
Here is something that confused me. In a friendly game today against a fellow user team, I used the 3-3-4 against the SG 2WR in passing plays. It actually worked well I think, yet in this particular play this happened:
0:59 3 and 11 to go on opp 46, Abimbola Igbinedion (OC) snaps the ball to Corey Pantoja (QB), Corey Pantoja (QB) selected Odil Karimov (TE/R) as target, BES:1.06, DB:0.9, BE:0.954, pass, the receiver of this inner right pass catches the ball, there is no defensive back around to tackle him, this was a 46 yards pass (Shotgun 2 WR vs. 3-4-4) Now in terms of totals in this game teh 3-3-4 did very well against the pass plays from the SG 2WR like ive previously mentioned, but in this play, there was no defensive back in the backfield! Just to show you how effective it was, the 3-3-4 it only allowed 56 passing yards from the SG 2WR in 14 passing attempts, and as you can see 46 of those yards came from that play. Now realize that the other team is much better then mine, but that would only come to play if there were missing tackles, if it was missing coverage, we should specify in the PBP and name that player/s (For later punishment purposes).  Source: http://i48.tinypic.com/vqi52a.jpg  Source: http://i48.tinypic.com/4lhr81.jpg |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:08:45 (ID: 58082) Report Abuse |
|
I'd assume you are reading too much into the message - it just means blown coverage.
And surely it was 3-4-4, and not 3-3-4? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:12:12 (ID: 58083) Report Abuse |
|
canonico wrote:
0:59 3 and 11 to go on opp 46, Abimbola Igbinedion (OC) snaps the ball to Corey Pantoja (QB), Corey Pantoja (QB) selected Odil Karimov (TE/R) as target, BES:1.06, DB:0.9, BE:0.954, pass, the receiver of this inner right pass catches the ball, there is no defensive back around to tackle him, this was a 46 yards pass (Shotgun 2 WR vs. 3-4-4) I think this is ok. Every now and then, probably based on the INT of the SFs, they split and go to help the CBs, the LBs miss their coverage and a TE goes right down the middle. Solution - smarter SFs, better LBs? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:18:52 (ID: 58085) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
I'd assume you are reading too much into the message - it just means blown coverage. And surely it was 3-4-4, and not 3-3-4? Lol, yes 3-4-4! But no, I am not reading to much, actualy I am reading to little (lol), just would like to see it better descrived so we don't need to take wild guesses to what happened. hosh13 wrote:
I think this is ok. Every now and then, probably based on the INT of the SFs, they split and go to help the CBs, the LBs miss their coverage and a TE goes right down the middle. Solution - smarter SFs, better LBs? I agree with you, someone messed up an assignment, and it would really be very very very helpfull to know who, so I or you or any other user, doesn't need to come up with a wild guess of what happened, that's all. 
As for having smarter SF's and LB's, I do need better SF's but my LB's core is stout when it comes to INT. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:23:01 (ID: 58086) Report Abuse |
|
@ Pete
Is there co-ordination on the D if a OLB over the TE blitzes? Does the SF on that side know that and make a point of covering the TE instead of helping the CB? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-09-21 18:24:17 (ID: 58087) Report Abuse |
|
canonico wrote:
As for having smarter SF's and LB's, I do need better SF's but my LB's core is stout when it comes to INT. What about spd/pos/vis ? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / The All-Singing All-Dancing New Passing Engine Thread | |
