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 / Lopsided tactics Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 16 18 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-12-19 03:02:58 (ID: 100016778) Report Abuse |
|
canonico wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Not sure if it's only my team and I'm doing something wrong with my WRs but I find the targets to be pretty evenly distributed, maybe even too well. Adding catches and drops (which should give targets, right?) the numbers in the league for my team are like this. WR1: 485 plays - 66 targets = 13.6% WR2: 510 plays - 70 targets = 13.7% WR3: 498 plays - 58 targets = 11.6% WR4: 492 plays - 69 targets = 14.0% WR5: 402 plays - 67 targets = 16.7% WR6: 327 plays - 40 targets = 12.2% If I had it my way #1 & 2 would be targeted more, probably #3 too but #5 is targetted way too often, ditto #6, they're more here for depth than anything and clearly aren't as good as the top 4 guys. Not sure here, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that you don't let them play the whole game and replace them? Perhaps the teams that are able to target their #1 & #2 WR more are simply not substituiting them, and thus they have alot more chances to catch the ball. Just a guess. Yeah but even if they all played exactly the same number of plays the #1 WR should be targetted more often than the #5. I mean, even if Burleson is on the field for as many snaps as Calvin Johnson is who do you think will have more targets at the end of the game?  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-12-19 03:43:20 (ID: 100016783) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
canonico wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Not sure if it's only my team and I'm doing something wrong with my WRs but I find the targets to be pretty evenly distributed, maybe even too well. Adding catches and drops (which should give targets, right?) the numbers in the league for my team are like this. WR1: 485 plays - 66 targets = 13.6% WR2: 510 plays - 70 targets = 13.7% WR3: 498 plays - 58 targets = 11.6% WR4: 492 plays - 69 targets = 14.0% WR5: 402 plays - 67 targets = 16.7% WR6: 327 plays - 40 targets = 12.2% If I had it my way #1 & 2 would be targeted more, probably #3 too but #5 is targetted way too often, ditto #6, they're more here for depth than anything and clearly aren't as good as the top 4 guys. Not sure here, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that you don't let them play the whole game and replace them? Perhaps the teams that are able to target their #1 & #2 WR more are simply not substituiting them, and thus they have alot more chances to catch the ball. Just a guess. Yeah but even if they all played exactly the same number of plays the #1 WR should be targetted more often than the #5. I mean, even if Burleson is on the field for as many snaps as Calvin Johnson is who do you think will have more targets at the end of the game? I understand that perfectly. But the point is, in RZA you have to do things the RZA way. If you keep playing all your WR's evenly (like I do) then the receptions will be spread out. If you put a "Don't replace WR's" option, you will see the #1 & #2 WR's get more targets (in theory since I have not even tried it yet). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-12-19 03:49:18 (ID: 100016784) Report Abuse |
|
I think we're talking about different things though. I understand that I could have my #1 WR on the field more often but my point is that the QB should look for the #1 WR first, then if covered go to WR2, then WR3 and so on and so forth. The fact that they're all pretty much equally targetted makes me question the QB's intelligence (and my guy has ~45) or the way the engine decides who the target is.
Even in RZA the QB should go through his reads like irl and look for the #1 WR more often than he does #4 or #5. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Strange
|
posted: 2013-12-19 03:53:31 (ID: 100016785) Report Abuse |
|
Well isnt the #1 WR WR/L? Couldnt you design plays that pass his direction? Like left flank only or left and middle only?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-12-19 03:56:23 (ID: 100016786) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I think we're talking about different things though. I understand that I could have my #1 WR on the field more often but my point is that the QB should look for the #1 WR first, then if covered go to WR2, then WR3 and so on and so forth. The fact that they're all pretty much equally targetted makes me question the QB's intelligence (and my guy has ~45) or the way the engine decides who the target is. Even in RZA the QB should go through his reads like irl and look for the #1 WR more often than he does #4 or #5. I don't have engine info to even have a theory on that. So no argument here, but also can't back up that theory. And yes, we were talking about diferent things. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-12-19 04:00:31 (ID: 100016787) Report Abuse |
|
Strange wrote:
Well isnt the #1 WR WR/L? Couldnt you design plays that pass his direction? Like left flank only or left and middle only? Left and Middle only would probably get the TE involved as well (I think). But the answer to your question is yep. One can do that. I had teams do that to me do to my weak sauce secondary, so they simply targeted their #1 WR and my CB just got eaten up all day. Tough cookie, I see nothing wrong with that. That's scouting and playcalling. Just got to give kudos. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-12-19 04:07:13 (ID: 100016788) Report Abuse |
|
Strange wrote:
Well isnt the #1 WR WR/L? Couldnt you design plays that pass his direction? Like left flank only or left and middle only? I could but that's not what I want, I want my QB to look for the best WR on the field first because that's what a smart QB should do naturally. I don't want to only pass in one direction because if WR1 is covered I'd rather my QB passed to WR2 on the right. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-12-19 04:58:35 (ID: 100016791) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Even in RZA the QB should go through his reads like irl and look for the #1 WR more often than he does #4 or #5. WR1 vs CB1 WR2 vs CB2 etc The chance of any WR being open is about equal since, in general, the CB will be at about his level. Thus an even distribution. With the Bears, he doesn't sub the WRs until late - must have had sub at energy 70 or so. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-12-19 05:05:27 (ID: 100016792) Report Abuse |
|
Solana_Steve wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
That's all from the SG formations with pass outside on every play, so those 2 WRs get the bulk of the action. He's using several different formations, he's running and passing - - obviously he's got some directional settings selected. I guess there is a fine line between game strategy and lopsided tactics. Perhaps its in the eye of the beholder? Steve SD Blitz The outside running/passing is broken. The prediction is not addressing it atm. Pete has stated a fix is in the works and I hope it replaces completely the present formation/tactics penalty. If a team irl ran and passed outside on every play then they'd have maybe 2yds/carry and 25% passing. OLBs/CBs would be there waiting all day after a few plays. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-12-19 06:40:33 (ID: 100016798) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Even in RZA the QB should go through his reads like irl and look for the #1 WR more often than he does #4 or #5. WR1 vs CB1 WR2 vs CB2 etc The chance of any WR being open is about equal since, in general, the CB will be at about his level. Thus an even distribution. With the Bears, he doesn't sub the WRs until late - must have had sub at energy 70 or so. Except there's no man defense in RZA so WR1 cannot always be in CB1's zone, he can run deep routes and be on the safety's zone or run an inside route and be covered by a LB for example so I'm afraid that's not enough to explain an even distribution even though I agree it must have an impact. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 16 18 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Lopsided tactics | |
