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 / Rookie Area / N00b Question Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 379 380 381 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2023-02-14 08:08:00 (ID: 100172146) Report Abuse | |
|
Allright, thanks, Pete
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-14 09:55:13 (ID: 100172147) Report Abuse | |
|
Rufio13 wrote:
Radu91 wrote:
pderekdactyl wrote:
Radu91 wrote:
Yes. But why does it say 42? COR 2 COR-42 0:19 Turnover It should be opp 46, no? It doesn't say 42. It says 42 before the completion, not after. This isn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy where it's always 42. 0:44 1 and 10 to go on own 42, Vernon Reece (OC) snaps the ball to Buster Hansen (QB), Buster Hansen (QB) selected Yindee Prachuab (TE/R) as target, the receiver of this inner right pass catches the ball, tackled by Philip Engel (CB/L), forward progress: 12 yards, New first down (Singleback Big vs. 3-4-4) more 0:25 Vernon Deal (K) kicks the ball for the field goal, 63 yard field goal missed Yes, you are right, the "drive ended chart" is good only for the first FG missed, but for the rest? If Vancouver missed FG on opp 46, the opponent should have taken over on Vancouver's 47, not his own 42. Something is strange in this final drives or am i missing something. It's correct. A 63 yard miss by Vancouver puts the ball on the on the 47 which allows for a 64 yard fg. A second miss allows another 63 yard attempt and so on until time expires. A kick from the 42 would be a 59 yard fg attempt. Please, it looks odd. There are stats which are mixed here. This here is from gamecenter, Q2, last few lines and they do look OK. 0:44 1 and 10 to go on own 42... 12 yards, New first down 0:25 (K) 63 yard field goal missed 0:19 (K) 64 yard field goal missed 0:13 (K) 63 yard field goal missed 0:07 (K) 64 yard field goal missed 0:01 (K) 63 yard field goal missed But this one is from game stats - drive chart in the middle of the table. NBB 2 NBB-20 1:21 Kickoff COR-46 0:25 Field goal miss 4-34 0:56 COR 2 COR-42 0:19 Turnover COR-42 0:19 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 NBB 2 NBB-42 0:13 Turnover NBB-42 0:13 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 COR 2 COR-42 0:07 Turnover COR-42 0:07 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 NBB 2 NBB-42 0:00 Turnover NBB-42 0:00 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 This looks odd, because 1st line is fine, but the next one is not OK. You did explain it right from my point of view, the miss does put the ball on the NBB-47, not COR-42. If it would start on COR-42 it would be a VERY long FG. And all following lines have the same yard-number, which is also wrong, since it should jumps from try to try by a yard. From my point of view this is a bug, likely only documentation. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-14 11:12:59 (ID: 100172148) Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
Please, it looks odd. There are stats which are mixed here. This here is from gamecenter, Q2, last few lines and they do look OK. 0:44 1 and 10 to go on own 42... 12 yards, New first down 0:25 (K) 63 yard field goal missed 0:19 (K) 64 yard field goal missed 0:13 (K) 63 yard field goal missed 0:07 (K) 64 yard field goal missed 0:01 (K) 63 yard field goal missed But this one is from game stats - drive chart in the middle of the table. NBB 2 NBB-20 1:21 Kickoff COR-46 0:25 Field goal miss 4-34 0:56 COR 2 COR-42 0:19 Turnover COR-42 0:19 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 NBB 2 NBB-42 0:13 Turnover NBB-42 0:13 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 COR 2 COR-42 0:07 Turnover COR-42 0:07 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 NBB 2 NBB-42 0:00 Turnover NBB-42 0:00 Field goal miss 1-0 0:00 This looks odd, because 1st line is fine, but the next one is not OK. You did explain it right from my point of view, the miss does put the ball on the NBB-47, not COR-42. If it would start on COR-42 it would be a VERY long FG. And all following lines have the same yard-number, which is also wrong, since it should jumps from try to try by a yard. From my point of view this is a bug, likely only documentation. Yeap. My point exactly. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-14 14:44:16 (ID: 100172150) Report Abuse | |
|
Generally, after a missed field goal, it is considered a turnover and the ball is placed at the spot of the kick, not the line of scrimmage. I don’t know if that is the issue here, but it could account for some of it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-14 15:37:38 (ID: 100172151) Report Abuse | |
|
BoaTek wrote:
Generally, after a missed field goal, it is considered a turnover and the ball is placed at the spot of the kick, not the line of scrimmage. I don’t know if that is the issue here, but it could account for some of it. Yes. Generally in the game that's how it goes. Except for what happened in Vancouver's game. After a FG is missed the ball is placed at the spot of the kick, not scrimmage, like you described. This is the description from real life If the field goal was attempted from within the 20-yard line, the defense would receive the ball on the 20-yard line. If a field goal is unsuccessful from outside the 20-yard line, the ball will be placed at the spot of the kick. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-16 07:15:51 (ID: 100172227) Report Abuse | |
|
I did now open a bug post with my summary in the bug section.
This one I think that way Peter does can have a look into it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-19 10:58:08 (ID: 100172299) Report Abuse | |
|
Hi guys,
I think i'm gonna get opposite opinions but i'm still going for it. In the draft, do you prefer : -The 50/50 "monster", but a bit old ( for a draftee) -The younger prospect with still very good physicals (~45/50) with one or two traits Also, this question is a global one, but answers applicable for a young team looking to build its roster are a bit more appreciated 
Let's consider two prospects with equivalent xp and TW/INT. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-19 13:49:33 (ID: 100172303) Report Abuse | |
|
If 45+ in physicals, I would chose the younger one
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-02-19 14:13:00 (ID: 100172304) Report Abuse | |
|
Auers wrote:
Hi guys, I think i'm gonna get opposite opinions but i'm still going for it. In the draft, do you prefer : -The 50/50 "monster", but a bit old ( for a draftee) -The younger prospect with still very good physicals (~45/50) with one or two traits Also, this question is a global one, but answers applicable for a young team looking to build its roster are a bit more appreciated
Let's consider two prospects with equivalent xp and TW/INT. Yes. You are right. You will get different oppinions. I'm not the one for 50/50 monsters. But depending on which position you want him, you should consider INT & TW, also traits are a good thing to have. So if that 50/50 monster has good TW to be a DE or has good INT to be a LB, i suggest taking him, if not go for the 2nd option also taking into account the TW & INT. Usually in draft everyone has good EXP & TAL. EXP is no problem because it will grow in time, but talent won't. Good luck in making your pick. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2023-03-15 13:11:03 (ID: 100172899) Report Abuse | |
|
My attendance percentage for Yesterday's Home league game was 73.9%.
This seems low to me. Why did the other 26.1% of fans not attend ? 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 379 380 381 > >| | |
| Main / Rookie Area / N00b Question | |
