Community - American Football Management Simulator
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 / More thoughts on inside/outside passing and the issue with TEs Search Forum
Navigation: |<   1 >|  
Poster Message
Olband
Missouri Misery

Usa

Joined: 2020-05-11/S38
Posts: 492
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-02-28 14:49:06 (ID: 100172440) Report Abuse
This offseason I ran some scrimmages testing flank/middle passing, using only S4 & spread offenses, trading out my depth charts, so I could test the same WRs for catches. As my sample size grew, the stats became almost identical in all respects. So I draw two conclusions: All other things being equal, there's no difference in passing flanks or middle, and my pass coverage is about the same between my CBs and LBs. These results pleased my engineering/gamer brain set, who loves good game balance.
However, in general, passing over the middle is not as statistically good as flanks, for catching percentage, drops, interceptions, etc. I believe this is, as was previously discussed in Malone's post, because it's harder to train TEs than LBs since TEs have more skills that need training. So you have a mismatch in the defenders favor going over the middle, with a LB often covering either a TE or a WR3 or 4. Add to the training issue that it's far easier to find LBs with high intelligence than for TEs, most especially in the draft. (For example, the average INT for TEs in this season's elite draft is 34, compared with 48 for LBs)
I also found that for some reason rushing behind the TE side of the line on Pro and I-form was actually less productive than the open side, though TEs do some rush blocking. (I could use a larger sample size here, but the results surprised me.)
It's further been discussed that there is no negative consequence for a manager to pass only to the flanks.
This all brings up the question previously under discussion: Why in tarnation would a manager spend time on developing TEs, CPs on a TE coach, or money on a large TE wage if you can pretty much ignore the TE position altogether? This question really bothers my game-balance loving brain.

So what's to be done with the TE training discrepancy issue? Let it be so managers can exploit a 'weakness' in the system?
Some possible fixes: (not in order of preference)
- TEs could be given a bonus in training to help them train all their skills faster. I don't like this one, because managers could abuse it, training all their players as TEs and then moving them to other positions.
- Passes to the middle could be made easier to throw/catch. Again, problematic, as it could be OP by a good TE or WR3/4.
- TEs could be made more attractive at the front end, either in the draft and/or YA. They could be given a similar chance of having high INT to LBs, esp in the draft. They could also start with a lot more AGI already trained than other positions; this would help give them a head-start on getting their overloaded training.
- Defenses could receive a bonus when playing against a team that passes primarily or solely to the flanks. Two ways to do this: 1) Have a defense cover the outside more the more often a team passes to the flanks during a game, or 2) Add a playbook option or formation that allows a manager to cover the flank receivers more if they see that an upcoming opponent uses almost only flank passing. (like a double-team the WRs option or something.) This of course would add risk, since the middle would be left less defended.

Sorry for the long post. A better writer could likely have been more concise, but wanted to get all my thoughts out there.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
pderekdactyl
posted: 2023-02-28 15:10:40 (ID: 100172442) Report Abuse
Alternative option is direction imbalance can also lead to lopsided tactics penalty. Although I believe the lopsided tactics penalty is too light. But, that's a different discussion.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
HH_KMN
KMN Mandalorians

Germany   HH_KMN owns a supporter account

Joined: 2022-01-21/S46
Posts: 199
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-02-28 15:59:35 (ID: 100172444) Report Abuse
pderekdactyl wrote:
Alternative option is direction imbalance can also lead to lopsided tactics penalty. Although I believe the lopsided tactics penalty is too light. But, that's a different discussion.


Agree on both!
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Major Havoc
Air Force Falcons

Usa   Major Havoc owns a supporter account

Joined: 2021-09-23/S44
Posts: 21
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-03-24 17:37:22 (ID: 100173091) Report Abuse
Personally, I don't understand the karma or lopsided tactics thing at all. I'll have games where I've used all 10 offensive formations with near exact pass vs run attempts and get a thumbs down karma and then games where I'm completely unbalanced towards passing with much fewer formations used and get a thumbs up! Can anyone help me out and/or does anyone have any insight on what determines this? I've basically given up trying to figure it out, because the numbers/scenarios just don't add up for me.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
reply   Mark this thread unread
Navigation: |<   1 >|  
Main / Discussions / More thoughts on inside/outside passing and the issue with TEs