Passing offense

[Warhammer]

This was spurred on by another thread at one of my league sites. What are teams that have high YPA doing that other teams are not (I am using this as a basis for the success of a passing offense)? Currently in my league, there are two teams with over 8.00 YPA, one has his top rated WR at 56, and his top rated QB is a 70. His OL is average, nothing great. So what is he doing that others are not?

Is it the luck of the RNG? Is it all about formations? Is it that the defenses are not gearing up to defend against the pass?

I ask because while I can set up a great offense in SP, I can set up a good running offense in MP, but cannot get a good passing offense for the life of me. Let me rephrase that, I can get a 6.5 YPA on 60-70% completion rate, pretty easily, but if I try to get the YPA up over 7, all hell breaks loose.

Any ideas?

[sovereignstar]

Anchorage and Dakota have tossed the ball deep 3x as much as you have and they've connected on a much better percentage.

Your leading receiver is a tight end. Your second-leading receiver is your fullback. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on. :)

[stevew]

Sometimes it seems like having good TE and FB's hurt your offense cause they get a lot of traffic from the QB. Which you'd normally would hope would go to your WR. I'd throw more of the single back formations in there, with more WR on the field, and your ypc could probably go up some.

[Warhammer]

Anchorage and Dakota have tossed the ball deep 3x as much as you have and they've connected on a much better percentage.

Your leading receiver is a tight end. Your second-leading receiver is your fullback. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on. :)

OK, that is my point. Yes, they have tossed it downfield 3x as much, but they have completed a much larger % of those throws, that is what I don't get.

I can run a conservative ball control offense with no problem. Games where I do this, I have around a .500 winning % this year. When I open up the offense, I throw picks all over the place. When I play more ball control, I get more completions and I throw for more yards. This is a bit counter-intuitive.

When I go downfield, my QB gets picked off, a lot... He is supposed to throw a good deep ball. He is not supposed to throw a lot of INTs. I have a receiver now who excels at Big Play Receiving. My FB should not be on the field when I am going downfield (based upon formation use on passing downs). What else do I need to be doing? Is this a case of on 3rd and short, they go for it all? Is it just a simple guessing game? Or is there something else at work here?

If I need WRs that have good Route Running, that could be a problem. But that is a function of ratings, and what people are saying is that that is not that big of an issue. But at what point DOES it become an issue?

I have also noticed the same thing in another league I am in, so I am sure the issue lies with me, my question is what am I missing? What do I need to do to improve the passing game besides tweaking formations and the passing zones?

[Kodos]

Jackie Williamson (http://www.fof-ihof.com/history/indseasonrecords.php?type=B&cat=1&stat=14&teamid=26&limit=100) has had a lot of success with solid YPA by complementing a run-first offense. This year, I have opened the offense up a bit, and his YPA is down and his interceptions are way up. Small sample size, of course.

[gstelmack]

I've done two things to get my QB in my office league a very high YPA:

1) Balanced offense. I can run the ball, so the defense can't key on the pass.

2) Increased the number of short and medium throws. I don't go deep all that often, mostly because my O-Line can't hold up that long against a good rush. This means a high completion rate, which means a lot fewer 0-yard attempts.

I average up around 8 YPA.

[Warhammer]

I've done two things to get my QB in my office league a very high YPA:

1) Balanced offense. I can run the ball, so the defense can't key on the pass.

2) Increased the number of short and medium throws. I don't go deep all that often, mostly because my O-Line can't hold up that long against a good rush. This means a high completion rate, which means a lot fewer 0-yard attempts.

I average up around 8 YPA.

I understand how item 1 helps out.

#2 is interesting, how much YAC are your receivers getting, and how are your receivers rated? Are they average? above average? etc.

[Warhammer]

Jackie Williamson (http://www.fof-ihof.com/history/indseasonrecords.php?type=B&cat=1&stat=14&teamid=26&limit=100) has had a lot of success with solid YPA by complementing a run-first offense. This year, I have opened the offense up a bit, and his YPA is down and his interceptions are way up. Small sample size, of course.

This is very much in line with what I have been seeing. I wouldn't have a problem with this, but I don't understand WHY this happening.

From listening to others, they can game plan a defense, but the offense they have trouble with. Some things make sense, if you are getting rushed, go to shorter throws. That much works.

What I don't understand is why just by increasing your passing % should your completion % go way down. Which is something I have seen in one of my leagues. If I boost my pass %, my completion rate goes from over 65% down to less than 50%! Something else must be happening under the hood, but what exactly?

[sovereignstar]

If I boost my pass %, my completion rate goes from over 65% down to less than 50%! Something else must be happening under the hood, but what exactly?

What kind of sample size are you going by here?

[Warhammer]

What kind of sample size are you going by here?

Sample size is based purely on my MP leagues, so call it roughly 15-20 games. Granted, that is an extremely small sample size, but in this case SP does me no good, because there I can basically impose my will in any game, even with subpar WRs, TEs, RBs, or QB.

My problem is that some of what happens there, will not apply in MP. That is mainly due to the nature of the SP defensive coaching, which is not good. I have tried to apply the same theories from SP to MP, but they tend to not hold.

What my problem is, is figuring out what is not holding true.


Distance Pass Comp Yards Ave
Screen 4 2 8 2.0
Short (0-8 Yds) 13 9 68 5.2
Medium (9-18 Yds) 17 9 135 7.9
Long (19+ Yds) 4 0 0 0.0

Passing Attempt Comp BdThrw Dropd Defnsd Blockd Hurried INT
9 Lincoln 38 20 1 3 6 0 4 4


OK, in this case, I went to a short passing game. Why did I throw 4 INTs? Granted, I was hurried 4 times, but hurries != INTs. Additionally, the QB only made one bad throw. Add up the bad throws, drops, defensed, hurries, and INTs, and you get the 18 incompletions. Makes sense, but why so many INTs? Whose fault are they? Now some of them were made once we fell way behind because of the early INTs, but a couple were on deep balls, so I can accept that.


Distance Pass Comp Yards Ave
Screen 7 5 28 4.0
Short (0-8 Yds) 11 5 34 3.0
Medium (9-18 Yds) 10 7 95 9.5
Long (19+ Yds) 1 0 0 0.0

Passing Attempt Comp BdThrw Dropd Defnsd Blockd Hurried INT
9 Lincoln 29 17 3 2 3 0 2 2


Same situation here. Why the INTs? Why are there so many bad throws (that's on the QB). Again, 2 drops, that's on the WRs. The 3 defenses are from the defensive players. Whose fault are the INTs? Why am I subject to these INTs, but other players are not? Other players open up their offense and don't throw as many INTs, why am I getting stuck with them?

Now, my hypothesis is that since my WRs are not great, they are not getting open, so they are trying to adjust to the ball, they don't so the DB picks it off. If I know this is happening, I know what I can do to fix it. As it is, I am just grasping at straws.

What I don't understand is how formation fits into all of this. Is that what I am missing? Yet, some of the other teams, are getting better results out of the same formations I am using.

I have been trying to come up with a flow chart which I will post later, since if I know what the process is, I can come up with a better plan.

[gstelmack]

I understand how item 1 helps out.

#2 is interesting, how much YAC are your receivers getting, and how are your receivers rated? Are they average? above average? etc.I've had one good (70) and 2-3 mediocre (40-50) receivers. The really good guy gets very nice YAC numbers, the others are a mixed bag. The key is that a high completion percentage means fewer zeroes dragging your average down.

[Cotton]

When I go downfield, my QB gets picked off, a lot... He is supposed to throw a good deep ball. He is not supposed to throw a lot of INTs. I have a receiver now who excels at Big Play Receiving. My FB should not be on the field when I am going downfield (based upon formation use on passing downs). What else do I need to be doing? Is this a case of on 3rd and short, they go for it all? Is it just a simple guessing game? Or is there something else at work here?
Fullbacks seem to be very valuable in FOF in a lot of small ways that often go unnoticed. My SP QB's usually fare better with a good pass-blocking FB in the backfield. There's few, if any, plays that involve three reciever options, so unless you're going to throw to your halfback, you're probably better having that extra pass protection of a fullback, IMO. Even in the single back formations.

[Warhammer]

I've had one good (70) and 2-3 mediocre (40-50) receivers. The really good guy gets very nice YAC numbers, the others are a mixed bag. The key is that a high completion percentage means fewer zeroes dragging your average down.

Agreed, I also feel if you have guys that are good at getting downfield, you have more opportunities to break one.

My highest rated WR on either team is a 52, the others are all mid-40s and lower.

[Warhammer]

Fullbacks seem to be very valuable in FOF in a lot of small ways that often go unnoticed. My SP QB's usually fare better with a good pass-blocking FB in the backfield. There's few, if any, plays that involve three reciever options, so unless you're going to throw to your halfback, you're probably better having that extra pass protection of a fullback, IMO. Even in the single back formations.

In SP, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am so confused in MP, because my SP experience has little effect here.

[MrBigglesworth]

In SP, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am so confused in MP, because my SP experience has little effect here.
Have you looked at the differences of the offensive lines? Maybe your line is giving up a lot of hurries on deep balls. It may also have an influence on INT's, for example maybe hurries can increase the chance of throwing a pick on that throw.

[Warhammer]

Have you looked at the differences of the offensive lines? Maybe your line is giving up a lot of hurries on deep balls. It may also have an influence on INT's, for example maybe hurries can increase the chance of throwing a pick on that throw.

Actually, that is part of the reason why both teams play a more conservative passing game, because they are not good at pass protection. That does make some sense to me.

However, from the results I have looked at, Bad Throws = automatic incompletion and Hurries = automatic incompletion. I think the difference between the two is that a Bad Throw is due to a bad roll by the QB, and the Hurry is the result of a good roll by the DL.

Now, typically if your hurries are up, your sacks are high, and your INTs should go up in theory. But, I have little statistical evidence to back this up. Yet, other teams with less talent or equivalent talent are not throwing the INTs I am. Is this just a function of the secondaries I have faced this year? If it is, then again, it comes down to talent because it comes down to making die rolls.

I guess my original question could be boiled down to this:

If my opponent has 80s across the board in his secondary, and I have an average QB with average WRs, what do I do to have an effective passing game? Assume they are running a 2-Deep Zone.

My answer would be use a lot of multiple receiver sets, all single back formations, most formations with 3WR, and the 2TE single back set. Concentrate on screen, 1-4, and 12-18 yard passing zones, as you will be passing in front of, and over the zone coverages in this case, hopefully hitting the seams. Also, run up the gut, as the two safeties are dropping back into coverage.

If they are using 3-Deep Zone, you throw primarily 9-12 yard zones and under because you are passing in front of the zone to keep the chains moving. Run defense is a little more stout since the SS is playing close to the line.

If they are using BnR coverage throw some screen passes or go deep on them.

If they use M2M, I prefer medium passes because you have a higher success rate, plus there is a chance that the coverage will screw up.

Is there anything wrong in this approach?

[QuikSand]

Is there anything wrong in this approach?

I think you are overusing NFL wisdom, and underusing FOF wisdom above.

[Buzzbee]

I think you are overusing NFL wisdom, and underusing FOF wisdom above.
Shhhhh! I like his use of NFL wisdom. You don't have to play him twice a year.;)

[Warhammer]

Shhhhh! I like his use of NFL wisdom. You don't have to play him twice a year.;)


I wouldn't have to worry if I could game plan my dang special teams! :D

[Warhammer]

I think you are overusing NFL wisdom, and underusing FOF wisdom above.

OK, then what is FOF wisdom?

[Buzzbee]

If you test it, you will learn.




Or,




FOF Wisdom says, don't tell your multi-player opponents how to beat you.



Or,


In a broad sense, think in terms of dice rolls and probabilities rather than physical players on a field.

[Warhammer]

If you test it, you will learn.




Or,




FOF Wisdom says, don't tell your multi-player opponents how to beat you.



Or,


In a broad sense, think in terms of dice rolls and probabilities rather than physical players on a field.

Which reinforces my original point on the IFL boards which was that player ratings play a huge role in how good a passing offense is. Ergo, my poor passing numbers are the result of high quality defenses and my poor position players, so there is nothing I can do.

What I wish we had was a general guide of how these things work. Then I would have something to work from. As it is, aside from run/pass %s and the defensive game plan, I am just punching in numbers.

[QuikSand]

OK, then what is FOF wisdom?

Well, what I mean by that is this... your musings above:

I guess my original question could be boiled down to this:

If my opponent has 80s across the board in his secondary, and I have an average QB with average WRs, what do I do to have an effective passing game? Assume they are running a 2-Deep Zone.

My answer would be use a lot of multiple receiver sets, all single back formations, most formations with 3WR, and the 2TE single back set. Concentrate on screen, 1-4, and 12-18 yard passing zones, as you will be passing in front of, and over the zone coverages in this case, hopefully hitting the seams. Also, run up the gut, as the two safeties are dropping back into coverage.

If they are using 3-Deep Zone, you throw primarily 9-12 yard zones and under because you are passing in front of the zone to keep the chains moving. Run defense is a little more stout since the SS is playing close to the line.

If they are using BnR coverage throw some screen passes or go deep on them.

If they use M2M, I prefer medium passes because you have a higher success rate, plus there is a chance that the coverage will screw up.

...tell me that you are familiar with NFL football, and that you understand that the nature of a 2-deep sone defensive scheme in the NFL is to basically allow some underneath options and certain seams in the middle depth zones that can be exploited. A savvy NFL coach will try to target these spots to do well against that defensive style. Fine, maybe a trifle oversimplified, but fine.

It seems to me like you are carrying that logic wholesale into the FOF game. Asuming that a team using a 2-deep zone is going to have similar weaknesses -- weak against underneath outlet passes, weak against middle depth passing, etc. I have yet to see any evidence at all that this sort of thing is the case in FOF. Perhaps it is, and neither I nor anyone else has (publicly) found this out... but there's certainly a possibility that the game simply doesn't work in that complex a fashion.

Perhaps there are just three different ratings for pass defense, and the specific player(s) assigned to be responsible for coverage on that play are judged on that rating -- and that your vision for how zone defense structures and the like all work in real life has no bearing on this at all. It's just a number -- the game works through the coverage scheme and the settings for both teams, picks a DB as the primary cover man for the receiver, they have some dice rolling to determine whether the receiver gets open enough to become the target, and (if so) when the ball gets thrown, those same two guys have some dice-rolling to see if the pass is defensed or complete. If you're in zone coverage, your DB's rating for zone is used, if you're in man, it's that rating that's used.

I don't claim that I *know* how this works... I'm just arguing that there is no evidence that every single layer of the complex game of footbal and its deep strategy in real life has been ported directly into this game. It's quite possible that this game is far more about fairly simple numeric matchups than it is about specific physical location and dimension calculations.

Hope that elaboration helps, though it may not help solve your problem.



I also can't imagine that lookinbg at results from one game, or even a handful of them, really tells you all that muich about anything meaningful. What if in your next game Lincoln lights things up? Is the problem declared solved at that point? I'd think not.

[QuikSand]

In a broad sense, think in terms of dice rolls and probabilities rather than physical players on a field.

Yeah, that.

[Warhammer]

I don't claim that I *know* how this works... I'm just arguing that there is no evidence that every single layer of the complex game of footbal and its deep strategy in real life has been ported directly into this game. It's quite possible that this game is far more about fairly simple numeric matchups than it is about specific physical location and dimension calculations.

Hope that elaboration helps, though it may not help solve your problem.



I also can't imagine that lookinbg at results from one game, or even a handful of them, really tells you all that muich about anything meaningful. What if in your next game Lincoln lights things up? Is the problem declared solved at that point? I'd think not.

That's what my problem is, how complex is the simulation. My only question then is how are the matchups generated? Based upon the coverage and the passing zones?

Regarding Lincoln, this has gone on long enough with Telluride that with him I realize that it is a matter of getting talent around him. What is frustrating is I have done all that I can to protect him, but it still doesn't work. I think going back 10 games, he's thrown something like 20 INTs.

Part of this is tied to my other MP team which has more talent on offense, but still has some "issues". I think in their case it is a matter of who they have played, but they still shouldn't have played THAT poorly.

[QuikSand]

Regarding Lincoln, this has gone on long enough with Telluride that with him I realize that it is a matter of getting talent around him. What is frustrating is I have done all that I can to protect him, but it still doesn't work. I think going back 10 games, he's thrown something like 20 INTs.

A couple things...

- If you are convinced that 10 games tells the story, then why not focus on what you're doing differently now compared to, say, the ten preceding games (when Lincoln was still throwing 30 times a game, but had only half as many picks -- 7 to 14 by my quick count?

- Lincoln is a 3rd year QB with 30 starts and a rating of under 40 in avoiding interceptions. If you have him throwing 30+ passas a game, and he averages a pick a week, I find it hard to expect a whole lot better, really. Not sure how much of that is the gameplan and playtcalling, as opposed to a young, slightly wild passer.

[MIJB#19]

- Lincoln is a 3rd year QB with 30 starts and a rating of under 40 in avoiding interceptions. If you have him throwing 30+ passas a game, and he averages a pick a week, I find it hard to expect a whole lot better, really. Not sure how much of that is the gameplan and playtcalling, as opposed to a young, slightly wild passer.But you don't understand the fun in having an interceptions throwing quarterback... :(

[Warhammer]

A couple things...

- If you are convinced that 10 games tells the story, then why not focus on what you're doing differently now compared to, say, the ten preceding games (when Lincoln was still throwing 30 times a game, but had only half as many picks -- 7 to 14 by my quick count?

- Lincoln is a 3rd year QB with 30 starts and a rating of under 40 in avoiding interceptions. If you have him throwing 30+ passas a game, and he averages a pick a week, I find it hard to expect a whole lot better, really. Not sure how much of that is the gameplan and playtcalling, as opposed to a young, slightly wild passer.

This is not limited to Lincoln, actually, this came up due to my other MP team. I am just including Lincoln because I see the same sort of thing happen with him.

That's actually what has me scratching my head with Lincoln. The general game plan has not changed all that much. That was what had me scratching my head last year, after mid-season, he was an interception machine. I have had QBs that have had much worse ratings than he across the board, throw more times and have fewer picks.

In my other league, I have a QB who using the same game plan one week throws 3 INTs, and the next throws 2 TDs. Could it just be rolls? Yes, but if he throws INTs, he throws 3 or 4 at a time. I don't understand that. Why is it so streaky? Sometimes it is against a terrible pass defense, which confounds things even more.

What makes things more frustrating is I see other players take QBs that are worse and get better results, my question is what are they doing that I am not? That is what the whole point of the thread is. What is it I need to be looking at, or better yet, what is the passing algorhithm?

[MIJB#19]

In my other league, I have a QB who using the same game plan one week throws 3 INTs, and the next throws 2 TDs. Could it just be rolls? Yes, but if he throws INTs, he throws 3 or 4 at a time. I don't understand that. Why is it so streaky? Sometimes it is against a terrible pass defense, which confounds things even more.Speculation: Hidden ratings during the game for confidence and/or boosters for the day om the int's rating?

[QuikSand]

That's actually what has me scratching my head with Lincoln. The general game plan has not changed all that much. That was what had me scratching my head last year, after mid-season, he was an interception machine. I have had QBs that have had much worse ratings than he across the board, throw more times and have fewer picks.

In my other league, I have a QB who using the same game plan one week throws 3 INTs, and the next throws 2 TDs. Could it just be rolls? Yes, but if he throws INTs, he throws 3 or 4 at a time. I don't understand that. Why is it so streaky? Sometimes it is against a terrible pass defense, which confounds things even more.

There is just so much problem trying to make judgments with small sample sizes, you simply have to keep that in mind. you yourself judged your Int total in ten games to be 20, when it (by my count) was really 14 -- that's a big difference, and goes to the ease in making errors that are possible. In the short run, it often seems far worse than it really is.

Does your QB *really* have interceptions in bundles like you suggest? Maybe, I suppose. Maybe an early pick or two gets the team behind and in trouble, and then lets the opposing pass defense sit back and be ready for him next time -- nothing underhanded necessary to explain that sort of thing. The idea that results will vary significantly over the course of one game at a time is just a complete truism for any sort of complex system.

I recognize it's frustrating, and mysterious, and full of uncertainty. We do what we can to put together the best teams we can, but in the end, the results are a product of all our hard work and efforts and planning, mixed in with a sizable share of short-term luck.

What makes things more frustrating is I see other players take QBs that are worse and get better results, my question is what are they doing that I am not? That is what the whole point of the thread is. What is it I need to be looking at, or better yet, what is the passing algorhithm?

Some possible contenders to explain this:

key ratings difference
surrounding talent
gameplanning
cohesion
chemistry
selective observation
dumb luck

[QuikSand]

Speculation: Hidden ratings during the game for confidence and/or boosters for the day om the int's rating?

I don't have any way to rule it out, of course, but it's totally unnecessary for there to be some underhanded hidden activity to result in wildly different outcomes in one game compared to another. One football game is a very small sample size.

It's rather like flipping a coin a hundred times in a row. You might go back and see times when heads was "hot" for six in a row, and then when tails was "hot" for nine out of eleven... but don't be fooled into thinking that suddenly there's something suspicious going on with your coin. Random events, or those with a substantial random element, can have a tendency to look like they are behaving in some organized fashion when you look at a small sample size... even when there's nothing of the sort going on.

[Dutch]

Some possible contenders to explain this:

key ratings difference
surrounding talent
gameplanning
cohesion
chemistry
selective observation
dumb luck

And that's what makes the ability to build a successful team in FOF very similar to real life.

If the blueprint for success was so blatantly obvious, I would suspect everyone would do it that way.

And even if you tied all the way across the boarrd with your opponent (to do all the things right), the coin flip (dumb luck) would still make you scratch your head and wonder what went wrong.

MP FOF is a great game.

[MIJB#19]

I don't have any way to rule it out, of course, but it's totally unnecessary for there to be some underhanded hidden activity to result in wildly different outcomes in one game compared to another. One football game is a very small sample size.

It's rather like flipping a coin a hundred times in a row. You might go back and see times when heads was "hot" for six in a row, and then when tails was "hot" for nine out of eleven... but don't be fooled into thinking that suddenly there's something suspicious going on with your coin. Random events, or those with a substantial random element, can have a tendency to look like they are behaving in some organized fashion when you look at a small sample size... even when there's nothing of the sort going on.
Where did I write that randomness isn't a big factor in this game and where did I write that 5 games is a good sample size?


I wasn't talking about the randomness, you don't have to tell me how it works. I sucked a theory out of my big thumb about a potential hidden variable which could be used during the game to alter the randomness a bit in a way to represent mental boosts and let downs. Life is random, but only to a certain degree, I think. If I were to code a game like FOF, I'd probably insert a variable during the game to represent 'momentum', 'mental breakdown' or something similar.

[albionmoonlight]

Where did I write that randomness isn't a big factor in this game and where did I write that 5 games is a good sample size?


I wasn't talking about the randomness, you don't have to tell me how it works. I sucked a theory out of my big thumb about a potential hidden variable which could be used during the game to alter the randomness a bit in a way to represent mental boosts and let downs. Life is random, but only to a certain degree, I think. If I were to code a game like FOF, I'd probably insert a variable during the game to represent 'momentum', 'mental breakdown' or something similar.
I agree that it is more comforting in some weird way to think that things like "clutch" and "momentum" are coded into the game. But I think that Quik was only saying that we have no way of knowing whether it is or not. And that the fact that things appear to us in the box scores that look like clutch and momentum does not mean that they are there.

We all know that, in the end, the game is just dice rolls and algorithms. If a certain algorithm is not in the game, then we know that, whatever effect we perceive, cannot be a result of that algorithm.

For instance, Jim has indicated that there is no "rust" factor in FOF (at least, I am 99% sure I remember him saying that). Your QB will play the same in week 1 whether he played during the pre-season or not. If you happen to see that your QB always seems to play worse after a week off, you know that it is just a coincidence. That it is not a "rust" effect in the game. To me, that makes the game a little less fun because it pulls it a little farther away from reality. Most of us beleive that there is a rust factor in real life. When we know that there is not one in the game, it makes it harder to pretend that one exists--even when there is some circumstantial evidence on which to base that conclusion.

So, when I say that it is more comforting to think that there are algorithms, I think that I mean that it is easier to get caught up in the game as a reflection of the complex world of football. Fairbanks' game tying drive in which we completed two 4th downs and a Hail Mary may have just been three dice rolls where I got lucky. But, I like to think that there was some "clutch" rating at work regarding my offense, or an "anti-clutch" rating at work on the defense.

The idea that the odds of completing an 11 yard pass on 4th and 10 late in the 4th quarter are the same as completing an 11 yard pass on 1st and 10 early in the game (all other things being equal) might very well be true for FOF. But it is not true in real life (in my opinion), and I would like to think that FOF reflects that.

FOF may or may not reflect that, but I suppose in this instance, I kind of like blissful ignorance.

[Dutch]

Just a quick note--I am 99% positive the coaches "motivation" rating, how much effort you put towards your players understanding the coaches "motivation" rating (in training camp) and the ammount of QB's 4th Qtr comebacks are coded to mean "clutch".

And I remember Jim writing about a no-rust factor as well.

[Warhammer]

Here are the stats for Jim Hickman:


Att CMP PCT YARDS TD INT
30 22 73.3 214 0 0
25 20 80.0 244 1 0
25 12 48.0 107 1 3
27 18 66.6 193 0 3
28 17 60.7 144 1 0
29 17 58.6 219 2 0
26 17 65.3 177 1 1
25 13 52.0 134 0 3
28 12 42.8 126 0 2
36 17 47.2 154 0 1
19 13 68.4 194 2 1


The one INT games make sense. The problem I am having is with the 3 INT games. Only one was against a top notch secondary. Two of them were against teams that had below average secondaries. This QB is rated 40/71 in avoid interceptions. I threw fewer INTs in more attempts with an 18/41 guy! The offense is basically the same. In this league, a QB rated 32/34 in avoid INTs has 6 fewer INTs, over 40 fewer attempts!

This is part of where I am having trouble with figuring out what to do. Yes, a big part of the game is the ratings of the players, that goes without saying. However, without additional information from the game, I do not know why the INTs are taking place. Is it due to WRs not adjusting to the ball? Is it just a bunch of dumb luck? Is the QB not getting the ball where it needs to be?

If it is due to the WRs, I need to get better WRs. If it is dumb luck, I need to keep putting the ball up. If it is a QB problem, in this case, I just need the QB to mature a bit more. In each case however, the solution is different and has a huge effect on the future of the team. That is what I am getting at.

[QuikSand]

Well, I suppose you can check the data you have -- things like "bad throws" do show up in the game box scores for your QB, so that might be a reasonable indication to see if the QB is just throwing lots of bad passes. The game logs would help tell you whether these were the result of pressure, or just poor execution, I think. (I confess to fairly little experience with doing this in much detail)

As far as what to blame on your receivers -- I don't even know what ratings in specific too look at, but at the WR position the discussion always starts with "route running." If your wideouts are weak there, that might be contributing to the problem as well.

But I guess I'm a more simple minded guy than you are -- when I have a young QB with a middling rating in avoiding interceptions, I don't look for anything all that complicated to explain why he's throwing interceptions. And I do my best to read too much gospel truth from short term results.

I guess if you're looking for "the answer" then you're just going to get this kind of mishmash from everyone, since I don't think there is such a thing. It's anything, it's everything, and maybe it's nothing at all.

[Warhammer]

But I guess I'm a more simple minded guy than you are -- when I have a young QB with a middling rating in avoiding interceptions, I don't look for anything all that complicated to explain why he's throwing interceptions. And I do my best to read too much gospel truth from short term results.

I think you thinking too much about Lincoln, I probably shouldn't have used him as an example at all. At the time I was at work, and I could get to his stats relatively easily.

I was really more puzzled by my IFL guys because for three consecutive seasons I have used rookie QBs, except for this season. These rookies threw:

10 INTs over 403 ATTs (worst QB of the bunch an 18/36 at the time)

2 INTs over 337 ATTs (was a 21/55 at the time. His avoid INTs was very low at the time, currently 64/72 in avoid INTs with another team)

12 INTs over 322 ATTs (currently his avoid INTs is 40/71) His passing bars are the best of the bunch, but he has the worst INT numbers. The only difference is that his WRs are worse than the previous QBs were (due to aging)

The last rookie is my current QB (because he showed the ability to win games by himself, which the other guys were not able to do). This year, he has had some terrible games, followed by some absolute gem. I have been unable to get a read on what is and what is not working with him, which has been frustrating.

My track record with rookie QBs has been nothing less than outstanding, the first two years, I made the playoffs, and with the second QB, all that stood between me and the big game was a bout of food poisoning that sidelined half of my starters for the AC Conference Final. The last two years, we have been much more competitive than our record indicates while we have been rebuilding.

[QuikSand]

I wish you the best of luck with this.

[MrBigglesworth]

Another thing I thought of watching the Dakota game on the viewer, what if the disparity in long completion percentage is party the result of the distances that the throws are? Since the stats only show 30+ or something, it could be that most of Dakota's passes are 30-40, while most of your long passes are 50+. Just a thought.

[Warhammer]

Another thing I thought of watching the Dakota game on the viewer, what if the disparity in long completion percentage is party the result of the distances that the throws are? Since the stats only show 30+ or something, it could be that most of Dakota's passes are 30-40, while most of your long passes are 50+. Just a thought.

I agree with you here.

My gut is this, you have a base passing %:

Screen - 75%
Short - 65%
Medium - 55%
Long - 40%
Deep - 20%

From here you have modifiers added. Harry Moss, who single handedly saved Hartford's 03 season had no business being one of the top rated QBs in the league, but he was. I used a ball control offense in which something like 75% of the passes were 12 yards and in. Everytime he went deep, he tended to throw an INT, but it was needed to keep the defenses honest, and sometimes he completed them for the big gain.

Or it is possible that you have a base chance of say 85% to complete a pass, and everything from there is a penalty. If you have a 95 rating in a given range band, all but 5% of the penalty for that band goes away.

[Warhammer]

I wish you the best of luck with this.

I was going to get really radical with my Hartford team, but them my QB went wild with a 19 of 22 performance for 176 yards 1 INT and 1 TD. Looks like the INT was just a bad roll.

From the results of the game though, I had targeted their LBs figuring that their DBs were fairly good. We were perfect on throws to the TE as he had 6 receptions, 5 went to my FB, 3 to my RB, and then 5 to my WRs. The longest reception went for 18 yards with 7 yards after the catch.

It looks like what happened was they ran a M2M coverage with their defense. I implemented a short passing game to throw in front of their coverage, which resulted in a good completion percentage. I also figured that even if they ran zone, going against the short zones should pit my receivers against their LBs which I should win (my TE and FB are among the best at receiving in their positions) the battles. I relied on YAC to get a good amount of my passing yardage, which accounted for 67 of my 176 yards passing.

A couple of hypotheses from the results:

1) M2M coverage is a downfield coverage, it can be nickel and dimed on underneath routes.

2) Against poor coverage LBs, you should pass short to maximze the mismatches there.

[Saucy]

I'm a new FOF player, playing single player, and this thread has fascinated me. It bothers me a little to think that logic and gameplanning borne of 'real football' logic might be irrelevant in FOF, as more than one poster has suggested. Particularly given Jim's comments about how the first step in creating the game was to study NFL football in great depth.

In order to enjoy the game on my terms, I think I will have to continue to believe that logic such as Warhammer's approach to throwing 'in front of' zone coverages applies in some way in FOF.

This gets me thinking of another question: Are receivers ever wide open in FOF? I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in the play by play. Shouldn't there be a function of a receiver getting completely free of his covering defender, whether in man-to-man OR zone coverage?

[Warhammer]

I'm a new FOF player, playing single player, and this thread has fascinated me. It bothers me a little to think that logic and gameplanning borne of 'real football' logic might be irrelevant in FOF, as more than one poster has suggested. Particularly given Jim's comments about how the first step in creating the game was to study NFL football in great depth.

In order to enjoy the game on my terms, I think I will have to continue to believe that logic such as Warhammer's approach to throwing 'in front of' zone coverages applies in some way in FOF.

This gets me thinking of another question: Are receivers ever wide open in FOF? I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in the play by play. Shouldn't there be a function of a receiver getting completely free of his covering defender, whether in man-to-man OR zone coverage?

Actually, I think it is a bit of both worlds. QuickSand's post about match ups was spot on. I decided to tinker with my offense a bit more and tried to push any advantages I had a bit more in the game. The result was a 4-2 record to finish the season, and I beat three teams that were in the playoffs, and my win against the 4th team kept them from going to the playoffs. My two losses were against teams that had playoff aspirations as well.

I'm not sure if I like the fact that match-ups are possibly more important than being in the right coverage or such, but I will need to explore this a little more.

[Saucy]

Actually, I think it is a bit of both worlds. QuickSand's post about match ups was spot on. I decided to tinker with my offense a bit more and tried to push any advantages I had a bit more in the game. The result was a 4-2 record to finish the season.... (snip)
...I'm not sure if I like the fact that match-ups are possibly more important than being in the right coverage or such, but I will need to explore this a little more.
Well, I have tried to exploit match-ups and glad that that 'works' in FOF. But it does bother me slightly that you never see a receiver described as being 'wide open', regardless of coverage. They're always 'making their way through serious traffic' or 'risking quite a hit', which is fine, but in reality receivers do catch the ball in quite a bit of space whether creating separation from a man to man defender or finding seams in zone coverage.

I wouldn't have thought it would be terribly hard - for somebody capable of creating the incredibly detailed game of FOF, that is - to program such things into the simulation, based upon the routes being run on a given play.