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 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
alexshans84
|
posted: 2013-04-20 06:18:36 (ID: 92237) Report Abuse |
|
bwadders76 wrote:
i have plenty of examples Me too |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
alexshans84
|
posted: 2013-04-20 06:21:26 (ID: 92238) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
I think, and I may be wrong, that the secondary works more like a zone defense than a man to man. That being the case the safeties will help to cover the wr's just as much as the cb's. Right? I don't think SFs can cover underneath zones, if you play 3-3 set vs Gun 4 WR you have LBs covering inner WRs |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-04-20 07:18:58 (ID: 92242) Report Abuse |
|
Great, then more coverage.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2013-04-20 10:04:09 (ID: 92251) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
JonnyP wrote:
NO
I see there has been some formation rebalancing for Gun 2WR, Gun 4WR, dime and goalline. Does this mean the paranoid, lazy, 'only defend the gun with Dime' whingers have been satisfied? that was not the goal of this change Pete, could you explain to us what "rebalancing" exactly means? And what the goals of this change was? what did SG4 vs. dime show you in the thousands of simulations that separated it from other formations so that they had to be rebalanced (was ist that overpowered)? because if you "rebalance" the dime to make it more effective against the SG4 run, why not rebalance the 434 to make it effective against anything?  no, just kiddin, the 434 can be an ok pass-def, but its really bad against iFormation-, bigI-runs and wishbone runs for example (formations that can well be contained with a 443) - so why not balance the 434 to make it an ok runformation? I'm just trying to understand what constitutes an "unbalanced" formation that got "rebalanced" and what makes other formation-matchups obviously ok (even though they seem to work just as bad as the old dime against the old SG4). Last edited on 2013-04-20 10:06:49 by Buddy Ryan |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-20 13:45:54 (ID: 92260) Report Abuse |
|
bwadders76 wrote:
i have plenty of examples So there we have it - the FB Blocks stat is basically meaningless. btw, on such plays, did only 1 player break through/blitz? i.e. was the FB obviously blocking the player that made the sack? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-04-20 14:28:34 (ID: 92264) Report Abuse | |
|
Goal of the "balancing" is to balance formations out between rush and pass, based on their natural role in the in the tactics. There are balanced formations, where you can have good rush and passing results out of, and there are measures taken by the defense to avoid pass and/or rush. The balancing tries to keep that whole construct in shape. But it takes also into account, that different "material" causes different results. Basically said a 5-men-dline should be better against rush than a 3-men-Dline, as example. But of course we need to take care that 5-x defenses don't make the rush impossible. The material is the other part of that medal.
We have a computer simulated game, where the sim runs in itself closed, only with presets made by the managers, based on their gamesettings, their roster-planning, their coaches and so on. This "balancing matrix" in the background just takes care that things don't go....off. You will know what I mean. The measures itself are a secret, since if we would reveal that part, you would know how to exploit the game, which is clearly not what we want. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-04-20 14:29:24 (ID: 92265) Report Abuse | |
|
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
i have plenty of examples So there we have it - the FB Blocks stat is basically meaningless. btw, on such plays, did only 1 player break through/blitz? i.e. was the FB obviously blocking the player that made the sack? You and your black white thinking...there are colours! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buddy Ryan
|
posted: 2013-04-20 14:42:45 (ID: 92266) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Goal of the "balancing" is to balance formations out between rush and pass, based on their natural role in the in the tactics. There are balanced formations, where you can have good rush and passing results out of, and there are measures taken by the defense to avoid pass and/or rush. The balancing tries to keep that whole construct in shape. But it takes also into account, that different "material" causes different results. Basically said a 5-men-dline should be better against rush than a 3-men-Dline, as example. But of course we need to take care that 5-x defenses don't make the rush impossible. The material is the other part of that medal. We have a computer simulated game, where the sim runs in itself closed, only with presets made by the managers, based on their gamesettings, their roster-planning, their coaches and so on. This "balancing matrix" in the background just takes care that things don't go....off. You will know what I mean. The measures itself are a secret, since if we would reveal that part, you would know how to exploit the game, which is clearly not what we want. alright, I get that, thank you!  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-04-20 15:22:56 (ID: 92273) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
i have plenty of examples So there we have it - the FB Blocks stat is basically meaningless. btw, on such plays, did only 1 player break through/blitz? i.e. was the FB obviously blocking the player that made the sack? You and your black white thinking...there are colours! Well I suppose "meaningless" is not the right word - how about misleading? The fact is, when the stats say a FB blocked, what it really means is that he slowed a pass rusher down for a min amount of time, x. It does not mean he prevented a sack as a lot of people might conclude, as is the case with the instigation of this conversation. Maybe the FB should only be given credit for a "good" block if he both delays for x AND the player he delayed does not ultimately make a sack? And in any case, if the FB delays the player for less than x then it's a missed block? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
C17Ajax
|
posted: 2013-04-20 21:54:36 (ID: 92357) Report Abuse |
|
Yes, the current stats system makes it extremely difficult to get feedback on FB performance. If they all show near 100% block success, how do you evaluate players?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Formation Rebalancing | |
