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 / Formation Rebalancing Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-04-19 11:56:36 (ID: 92091) Report Abuse |
|
Over the last couple of seasons I have seen the the pro set while decent at both run and passing does leave you open to more sacks.
Personally I have no problem with sides just using one formation for certain things as long as it used as it's designed not to exploit a flaw in the engine. For example there are teams who use the Shotgun formations for the exact reason it's there for passing downfield quickly when chasing a game - in my book that is fine. Then you have sides that only use the shotgun and their design is to run, run, pass against it to create a massive mismatch. Or they run against the dime constantly if the opposition only passes. While we have these exploits we can't afford to bring in audibles to the offense. I know this will attract a verbal attack from some people (Hosh) but sorry that is fact adding an exploit to an exploit is just crazy is my opinion. Do I think audibles are needed? Yes, they will be great to have and the majority of us will use them as they are intended but there are others who are looking for these loopholes in the system. So while these loopholes exist then audibles can wait. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-04-19 11:57:47 (ID: 92092) Report Abuse |
|
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:
(i think the FB should be downgraded so that he isent that powerfull in the run aswell) More rubbish. Performance should be dependent on player skills. If a HB is trained in strength/blocking/footwork then he should be a great blocker, similarly if a FB is fast/agile/good carrying he should be a great ball carrier. Adding artificial adjustments such as 'downgrade player's running ability because he is a FB' is totally the wrong direction to move any development in. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-04-19 12:04:27 (ID: 92095) Report Abuse |
|
bwadders76 wrote:
Then you have sides that only use the shotgun and their design is to run, run, pass against it to create a massive mismatch. Or they run against the dime constantly if the opposition only passes. If the opponents defensive playbook lets them do this then why is so wrong with it? The emphasis needs to be on the managers to build a proper defensive playbook!!! I was on the receiving end of a hammering in the CofC last season because I made one mistake in my defensive playbook. My fault. Not the fault of the engine, not the fault of my opposition, not the fault of Pete. MY fault. The whole point of an offensive playbook is to create misatches and outwit the defense. The whole point of a defensive playbook is to try to work out a plan to stop that. The old run left all the time due to the way formations lined up, that was an exploit (and it was me who both reported it to Pete, and who suggested the fix!!!!)... but running from the gun against a lazy defensive coordinator? Definitely not. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-04-19 12:42:15 (ID: 92105) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Then you have sides that only use the shotgun and their design is to run, run, pass against it to create a massive mismatch. Or they run against the dime constantly if the opposition only passes. If the opponents defensive playbook lets them do this then why is so wrong with it? The emphasis needs to be on the managers to build a proper defensive playbook!!! I was on the receiving end of a hammering in the CofC last season because I made one mistake in my defensive playbook. My fault. Not the fault of the engine, not the fault of my opposition, not the fault of Pete. MY fault. The whole point of an offensive playbook is to create misatches and outwit the defense. The whole point of a defensive playbook is to try to work out a plan to stop that. The old run left all the time due to the way formations lined up, that was an exploit (and it was me who both reported it to Pete, and who suggested the fix!!!!)... but running from the gun against a lazy defensive coordinator? Definitely not. Exploiting laziness in the opposition isn't a problem in my opinion. I got complacent in my SC Group last season and didn't create a back up plan to my one opponent and he added one play for one quarter. I ended up losing that game and it would have been one of the groups that positions would have changed had we gone to the points allowed system but that's probably for another post. Again like your error that was my fault and it was a valuable lesson learned which enabled me to go as deep into the SC playoffs as I did. Lets look at the SG4 as an example. Defending it with the dime or 3-1-7 should be competent against the pass but leaves yourself open to the run. Moving to a 5-3-3 will stop the run most of the time but leaves a 4 on 3 situation in the backfield. At the moment playing the SG4 is basically flooding a zone if anything other than the dime is played against the pass. However, if you could play man to man defense it would enable the 4-3-4 or 3-4-4 to be played and leave one on one coverage and providing the safeties could match the WRs for speed and strength then the difference would be totally down to the positioning and vision of the WR3/4 vs SF as the CBs would mark the top two WRs. By doing this then you have 7 men up top to stuff the run. At the moment we have so many options offensively but we are limited in comparison on defense. If a FB possesses the same speed, strength and carrying skills as a HB then I see no reason why they can't be an effective running force and the same way the other way around for HBs being able to block. Obviously coding all that may be a problem |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-04-19 13:19:38 (ID: 92111) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:
(i think the FB should be downgraded so that he isent that powerfull in the run aswell) More rubbish. Performance should be dependent on player skills. If a HB is trained in strength/blocking/footwork then he should be a great blocker, similarly if a FB is fast/agile/good carrying he should be a great ball carrier. Adding artificial adjustments such as 'downgrade player's running ability because he is a FB' is totally the wrong direction to move any development in. you are talking about skills right, how come a FB with like 10 in blocking is really succesfull in creating blocks against blitzing players with skills around 30? How come FB (i had these myself) with around 8 agi and 10 carrying going for 10+ yards consistently while opponents D having DL and LB with skills around 30? At the same time, how come my more well developed RB with skills of str, speed, agi with skills around 40-47, carrying around 35-40 and position and vision around 30-36 got a way lower yard/play then my FB with skills with str and speed 35-40, agi, carrying, position and vision around 20? How does that up skill-wise? They are against the same defensive players also.. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-04-19 13:51:40 (ID: 92117) Report Abuse | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:How come FB (i had these myself) with around 8 agi and 10 carrying going for 10+ yards consistently while opponents D having DL and LB with skills around 30?
At the same time, how come my more well developed RB with skills of str, speed, agi with skills around 40-47, carrying around 35-40 and position and vision around 30-36 got a way lower yard/play then my FB with skills with str and speed 35-40, agi, carrying, position and vision around 20? How many plays did you analyze, 10,000? or just 100? What I would like to say is that from a few games you won't have enough data for such analyses. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-19 14:07:31 (ID: 92118) Report Abuse |
|
What I really don't like is how a 4WR formation can run on a regular basis with success. Such a formation would typically pass the ball irl and might end up with a decent run avg since the D is not expecting the *odd* run. IMO. if you ran on a regular basis out of such a formation you'd get killed, even if it was the Dime. Unprotected backs should get tackled for a loss a lot.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Nogard
|
posted: 2013-04-19 14:19:09 (ID: 92122) Report Abuse |
|
cause it is exactly because of what you say.
You think the 4WR is mostly a pass offense. That means you expect a heavy pass from this formation and set as defensive coordinator the playbook at heavy pass defense. And now your opponent runs and your heavy pass defense failed. So long runs are expected. It based on the fact that it is no real time coaching game. where you can react during a game. If you set the wrong defense you have to live with it and try it the next time better. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-04-19 14:20:39 (ID: 92123) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:How come FB (i had these myself) with around 8 agi and 10 carrying going for 10+ yards consistently while opponents D having DL and LB with skills around 30?
At the same time, how come my more well developed RB with skills of str, speed, agi with skills around 40-47, carrying around 35-40 and position and vision around 30-36 got a way lower yard/play then my FB with skills with str and speed 35-40, agi, carrying, position and vision around 20? How many plays did you analyze, 10,000? or just 100? What I would like to say is that from a few games you won't have enough data for such analyses. Yea, i know, i have to little data to really know, and the skills is improving differently every seasons, the only thing i have is that from last seasons my FB did have a better yard/rush. Dont remember with how much but it was around maybe 0.2-1.0 somewhere. Stats with only league games is: FB1: 6.5y/carry (72 games), 254 rushes FB2: 6.4y/carry (81 games), 160 rushes RB1: 6.1y/carry (80 games), 1101 rushes RB2: 6.1Y/carry (79 games), 1132 rushes So im gessing that is to litte to make an analyse of |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Nogard
|
posted: 2013-04-19 14:24:50 (ID: 92124) Report Abuse |
|
I have the complete opposite data King.
I used SG4 and SG2 very often last season. My 3 FB have 0.5-1.0 yrds less in avg yrds than my lower skilled RBs. 5.9 avg FB1 - 569 rushes 6.0 avg FB2 (sometimes RB) -453 rushes 5.3 avg FB3 - 242 rushes - - - - 6.8 avg RB1 - 149 rushes 6.1 avg RB2 - 119 rushes 7.4 avg RB3 (as oop FB) - 17 rushes If I look only at league games overall I can only compare 1 FB 5.5 avg on 1060 rushes and 1 RB on 6.1 avg on 292 rushes Last edited on 2013-04-19 14:32:51 by Nogard |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Formation Rebalancing | |
