Questions for the Gurus

[DrAFTjunkie]

I noticed in the scouting report for a particular FB, "very good getting downfield," which they don't seem to be graded on. The only category that he had the numbers to garner a "very good" rating was 3rd down receiving. I checked around for other similar FBs and a vast majority of them a significantly higher YPC that lesser 3rd down rec. rated FBs. Anyone know anything about this?

I've had quite a bit of success shutting down stud receivers with a very mediocre secondary. First I orient by WR covered, even if not recommended, so I can be sure I know exactly who I have covering him. Then I double team the top WR 1% for every point of his rating. Then I whack the CB's PT to well below what it should be based on his stamina in an attempt to always have a CB who is less tired than the WR he is covering. The WR's catch% doesn't go down much, but his total catches and yards per catch do, and most of the time, he stays well below 100 yards. From what is known about FoF, should this be working? Because it both makes sense, and doesn't make sense to me.

Does the position supplying the double coverage for, say, the LCB vary, or is it always, say, the SS?

If the WILB's blitz% is 15 and he's not on the field, where does that 15% go?

I noticed that great receiving RBs (who are otherwise meh) sometimes have a significant future potential increase (41 to 59 for example) when switched to WR. Should I expect this future potential to hold up, or will it dwindle away like a stud FB moved to RB?

Anybody have any helpful suggestions for either of the game plan adjustments?

Thanks.

[DrAFTjunkie]

http://www.easyinsects.co.uk/livefood/images/brown-cricket-juv.jpg

http://noctalis.com/nocturne/pics/starwars/help_me_obi_wan.jpg

[aston217]

I was searching for another thread and came on this one. It's two years old and you're probably not paying attention anymore, but just in case you are, I think it deserves an answer.

Players aren't limited to having the bars that are shown. FBs do indeed have GD bars (and their agility score, I assume, is in part a reflection of it) and even BPR bars, which you can see by test switching them to TE. And I think in the passing game, their receiving bars do come into play.

---
I wouldn't whack the CB's playing time unless he's not very different in skill level than his backup. I generally assume a tired star corner to be far superior to a fresh lackluster corner.

I look at how many legitimate other options the team has and the QB's read defense rating to decide if doubling one guy is worth it, given it probably enables the other receivers to a greater degree. When I do double I usually go with 100% on one guy, because doubles only occur on pass / pass aggressive anyway - so not all passes will be into double coverage almost no matter what you do.

No idea who supplies the double coverage or what bars come into play when they do. I think SS is a reasonable guess, and M2M, but it might just not matter; i.e, the presence of DC has a generic across-the-board effect on the given receiver.

No idea on the blitzing either.

--

You should expect the quoted % of the position switch to be true, and not the rating you see initially (in MP). In SP it should be what you see on the switch. The only reason their potential increases though, is because they have great receiving bars and their OVR as a WR is calculated weighting those bars heavily. They aren't actually getting 'better' under the hood.

There, now you have more than crickets :)

[scorp]

I think the WILB is the Nickle CB, that's the guy that replaces him in the lineup.
So the Nickle should get that 15%

[aston217]

^ Ah yes I believe you are right.

Which makes blitzing the WILB probably a really bad idea, unless you want to take your nickel corner out of coverage.