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 / New Thread about coaches Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-01-06 20:34:23 (ID: 22610) Report Abuse |
|
Sheesh, that thread was getting way to cumbersome. How about we have each person post their thoughts with a concise summary?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-01-06 21:02:52 (ID: 22612) Report Abuse |
|
OK with you sfiner. So I'll put here my total thinking of coaches and after that I'll stop to talk about it!
The new coaches system was thought to offer more specificities, but it doesn't work that way in reality... Sorry Buffalo but I will take again your example. You are clever there and you play with the system. I remembered that Pete said having no ACs gives a malus quite equal to an homefield advantage (or I misquote there  ). So the skill bonuses by training your way is far more better than the malus. But that's not my point, I don't care that you have an advantage over me.
What I don't like is that many teams will follow your path (I think) and that new coaches tend finally to push managers think as a soccer team whereas AF is all about positions and specificities : You would have as example : - Defense (DB - - > 0 SF, 10 CB) - Defensive Midfielder (Men in the Box - - > 0 DL, 12 LB) - Midfielders (8 OL) - Playmaker (3 QB) - Wingers (Pass receivers - - > 0 WR, 8 TE) - Strikers (Rushers - - > 0 RB, 6 FB) So you skip many positions and only need 6 coaches... I don't like to see rosters like that in AF... And I repeat, it's not about the advantage, I don't care, it's just my way of feeling the AF). So, I would recommend as I said in the other post, a penalty for playing out of position (and I mean no penalty if a CB plays CB and SF, but only if the guys plays primarly as a CB and is a backup as a SF in the DC) And if it's not possible, that players have a learning ingame process. So if a CB plays XX more plays as SF than CB, he would become a SF in your roster (I don't know what XX value should be). So that if you want to change him again manually as a CB, you'll have again penalties...) I hope I was clear enough on my view here! And whatever is decided, I hope we will all continue to enjoy this game!!! Just follow your thoughts guys! 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-01-06 21:34:25 (ID: 22614) Report Abuse |
|
What if there were more cp points available so as not to force empty coach slots? Then you wouldn't have some of these issues. The amount of cp should be low enough to also give the strategic nature it was intended for. 550 just isn't enough to give you enough coaches to fill all spots. Although it is probably too late, another alternative is to have a coach for the secondary (CB and SF) because in football it is the secondary coach. The secondary has to work together as a unit. The TE's could also be included with either OL or WR Or FB. TE is trickier.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:03:54 (ID: 22616) Report Abuse |
|
I did some research and checked all coaching staff at all NFL Homepages (exept Buccs, there I found nothing)
All Teams have a TE, WR, OL, DL and RB coach. No team has a special FB coach Most teams have a QB coach All teams have a LB coach and 3 an additional OLB coach 20 teams have a DB or Secondary coach. Only 10 teams have a CB and a SF coach. So it is usual to train CB and SF together. It should be possible at RZA. If you want to have a very strong Defense you can hire a CB and SF coach and would have a higher ingame bonus. A FB does not exist in the NFL. You can hire him at RZA and have stronger FB in the game, but you can also train both together. For a better passing game you should have a TE and WR coach for a better ingame performance. If you train WR and TE together, you will get not the perfect WR and vice versa. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:15:22 (ID: 22617) Report Abuse |
|
I think a summary thread is a good idea - I had a thought or two, but the other thread went so fast stuff risked getting lost.
Something I did not see in there (although i may have missed it) 
- some in-game penalty to out-of-position players to simulate a player who practiced all week to play in one position but is being thrown into the game at a different position. The penalty that is in place atm is linked to NOT having an AC for a specific position, which affects all teams because everyone has at least one uncoached position. If I don't have a SF AC, then I get an in-game penalty for no AC whether I have shift all my SF to CB or whether I leave them as SFs. We don't have an penalty specifically linked to players playing out-of-position. imho. Discussion: Let's take CB and SF positions and training. If I am an NFL CB, then I spend the week working with the CB AC, and I've been watching film of the opponent WRs, and developing a plan to cover them (using the sideline, looking for certain fakes, etc.) On the field, I've been scrimmaging against WRs, working on my backpedal, and getting my head around to pick up the ball, etc. So I've had 4 or 5 days of intense preparation to cover a guy like Larry Fitzgerald or Roddy White. I know my assignments in man-to-man and in the different zone and blitz schemes. I'm as ready as I can be. On Sunday, during warm-ups, a safety goes down and my coach tells me I'm moving to safety. I am not as prepared to play either safety position as I am to play CB. I've obviously spent some time during the season working in the safety spot, since I'm on the depth chart to fill in, but it is not what I prepared for all week. Suddenly I'm dealing with Tony Gonzalez or Todd Heap, and I haven't been studying their moves this week, or preparing for their size. I'm probably a bit unclear about zone coverage assignments, too, especially if we have a special scheme for this week (and we always do). So - is a missing SF AC penalty enough for training players at CB and playing them at SF? To me it isn't an out-of-position penalty because it's the exact same penalty whether I train my Depth Chart-assigned safety at Safety or at CB. I think we are missing a penalty for players who play out-of-position. Proposal: Add a penalty for out-of-position (in addition to the AC hit). Options that have some sense of realism: A) reduce the player's Experience by 20 (from X to X-20) when playing out-of-position. Or by 50% (from X to X/2). Or by whichever is greater. B) reduce the player's Positioning by 20 (from X to X-20) when playing out-of-position. Or by 50% (from X to X/2). Or by whichever is greater. C) reduce Team Chemistry by 2% for every out-of-position player. (assumes 50-man active roster...) Some or all of these 3 would provide a better in-game simulation of the performance drop a team could expect when playing a CB at SF. Last edited on 2012-01-06 22:16:54 by Lee1950 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:30:41 (ID: 22618) Report Abuse |
|
For Lee is the training a preparation for the game. For me is training only a skill training.
Every AC has 2 jobs: 1.) Skilltraining 2.) Gameperformance (or for Lee, the preparation for the game) The different scenarios: You have a CB-AC and only CB, but some CB as SF on your DC. The skilltraining is for all the same. The CB as SF on the DC, know that they should play SF, but they have no coach for a good game preparation. So they get a malus in the game. The CBs have a AC and are well prepared for the game and get a bonus. Other scenario. You have a CB-AC and CBs and SFs. The SF have a worse training, because they have no AC. (They should get a Moral hit because they are alone  ) The CB are well prepared for the game and the SF worse like in the 1. scenario. In both cases they had no gamepreparation and i would not say that in one of the cases the SF perform better or worse.
Last scenerio. You have a CB- and SF-AC. Both have their own training and own game preparation. CBs and SF are well prepared and get a ingame bonus. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:34:30 (ID: 22619) Report Abuse |
|
I quite agree with yoy Buffalo on your thoughts of secondary but I don't like seeing a team without SF... Not the game spirit
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:40:19 (ID: 22620) Report Abuse |
|
I haven't seen any option or coaching/training tactic that is "Wrong" (or "Right",
).
Whatever Admin decides will be fine with me. It's his game and his vision, and I'm happy to play here with whatever rules he sets up for the game. RZA is still awesome. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:50:19 (ID: 22622) Report Abuse |
|
NYDOGS wrote:
I quite agree with yoy Buffalo on your thoughts of secondary but I don't like seeing a team without SF... Not the game spirit Read my CB as DB 
Lee is right, there is no right or wrong way. At the end the teams with a more balanced team win. 
The only point I don't want is an additional ingame penalty. Than I would go back to FB and SF and nearly no team will train their secondarys together. This option will be dead than. The only point you can really critizie is my TE-philosophy. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-01-06 22:50:57 (ID: 22623) Report Abuse |
|
NYDOGS wrote:
I quite agree with yoy Buffalo on your thoughts of secondary but I don't like seeing a team without SF... Not the game spirit Teams play with a safety, there just isn't a safety coach. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / New Thread about coaches | |
