Bump and Run coverage

[Warhammer]

The last few weeks, I have been thinking about Bump and Run coverage. I have always thought this was a coverage to eliminate the short passing game of my opponent. Yet, after looking at two games and comparing it to a previous experience I had, it appears that Bump and Run coverage is better against the deep ball. In the last two games I have solid data for, teams are 1 and 13 on the deep ball. For medium and short passes, the teams are above 50% completions.

Does anyone else have any information on this?

[Passacaglia]

My HFL team runs bump and run, and has almost exactly the same thing going for it. Well, until this season, when offenses can do whatever they want to me.

[chinaski]

I ban the use of bump-n-run in all my leagues. I think its the worst coverage in the game, its too specific of what it effects (the deep ball). Man2Man and Zones will cover everything effectively, where as b-n-r will only cover the deep pass effectively. just my little ole opinion (3x MP Champion) :P



;)

[Daimyo]

Two games and 13 attempts is far too little data to even begin to make any guess about the effect.

[cthomer5000]

I ban the use of bump-n-run in all my leagues. I think its the worst coverage in the game, its too specific of what it effects (the deep ball). Man2Man and Zones will cover everything effectively, where as b-n-r will only cover the deep pass effectively. just my little ole opinion (3x MP Champion) :P



;)

Your thought on the BNR defense is pretty much the exact opposite of how I think it works in real life and in game. You should be more prone to the deep ball, because if the CB screws up jamming the WR and loses a step on him, there's basically no recourse.

It seems to me that BNR leads to more incomplete passes than other systems, but on average you'll allow more yards per catch because of that. I should really get around to doing a hardcore stat analysis on it.

My anecdotal evidence also seems to be that BNR results in less INTs than a man-to-man scheme.

[Warhammer]

Two games and 13 attempts is far too little data to even begin to make any guess about the effect.

I've only been looking at it for two games, so that is why the sample size is so small. But, the two teams that were involved in the games have pretty good passing attacks, which is why I think this is significant.

I have also experienced this anecdotally, but I did not really include that since I don't have any hard data from that game.

[Warhammer]

Your thought on the BNR defense is pretty much the exact opposite of how I think it works in real life and in game. You should be more prone to the deep ball, because if the CB screws up jamming the WR and loses a step on him, there's basically no recourse.

I agree with you 100% there. That is what prompted my question. I was prepping for a team, and noticed that against the short and intermediate game it was so-so, but against the deep ball it was great.

It seems to me that BNR leads to more incomplete passes than other systems, but on average you'll allow more yards per catch because of that. I should really get around to doing a hardcore stat analysis on it.

My anecdotal evidence also seems to be that BNR results in less INTs than a man-to-man scheme.

I think the reason for more incompletions is that most LBs are pretty good at BnR coverage. The LBs that I have that are good at zone tend to have more INTs than those good at BnR.

[cthomer5000]

I think the reason for more incompletions is that most LBs are pretty good at BnR coverage. The LBs that I have that are good at zone tend to have more INTs than those good at BnR.

Tough to say. I would hope it's happening more often because a QB simply has to throw into coverage. If I get bored this weekend I might think of running a study.

[QuikSand]

I've only been looking at it for two games, so that is why the sample size is so small. But, the two teams that were involved in the games have pretty good passing attacks, which is why I think this is significant.

This word, significant, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[albionmoonlight]

One should also think about how blitzing affects the coverage. I, personally, have no idea. I use BnR a lot, and I blitz a lot, and that seems to work well--but I have never done a study on it.

[Warhammer]

This word, significant, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Is there theory that someone can advance that you don't feel the need to deride?

I've only looked at this for two games, and so far, for two games only 1 of 13 passes were completed against this particular BnR defense over two games. So all my current data says that my theory is true. However, I am going to continue to follow this and see what happens.

Unlike others out there, I am trying to find answers to help people put together better game plans. The fact that there is nothing in the documentation about the pass coverages bothers me, because it is a significant part of the defensive game plan. Real coaches know what coverages guard against which type of pass plays.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, I ask that you refrain from posting. Myself, I am going to keep track of this defense through the course of the year and see what the results are.

[Warhammer]

One should also think about how blitzing affects the coverage. I, personally, have no idea. I use BnR a lot, and I blitz a lot, and that seems to work well--but I have never done a study on it.

I know this team switched from a 3-4 the first week to a 4-3 this week, I did not look at the blitzing to see if that caused any problems. What I did see is that they had a slew of passes defensed in the first two games.

[Daimyo]

If you want to know how the coverages work you're going to need about 1000 attempts against each one and you're going to have to normalize everything else. You already brought up one thing that will cause problems in that LB tend to have better B&R coverage than they do zone and man-to-man.

[wade moore]

If you want to know how the coverages work you're going to need about 1000 attempts against each one and you're going to have to normalize everything else. You already brought up one thing that will cause problems in that LB tend to have better B&R coverage than they do zone and man-to-man.

Exactly... trying to test any theory in two games and 13 pass attempts just baffles me.

If you're saying putting a theory out there it would be one thing, but making any claims that it is backed up from your two games and 13 pass attempts makes no sense.

[Icy]

The coverages and blitzing in FOF are a mistery to me too. I have done lots of tests in SP and if i have a good defense i allow less yards, but i haven't ever been able to find a real difference on running any coverage, on blitzing more or less or on setting a mor or less agressive running or passing defense.

For example, in one of the online leagues i'm in i play most of the time M2M as my secondary is great on that coverage. As i know from real football, i must blitz a lot to put pressure on the QB usign the M2M. Well i can't find any real difference on blitzing a lot or not blitzing at all. Also i don't know how to gameplan to get lots of sacks from my DE's. I have two amazing DE's and they dont' play as they should. I guess i should raise a lot the agressive pass defense to make my DE's to try to reach the QB, but i can't see any difference on it.


I don't want to know that if i set M2M to 55 and Blitzing to 43 i will win a team that runs 55 on 3rd and 1. None of us is asking for spoilers but for basic knowledge about how coverages, blitzing and agressivenes work in fof as i can't find how to apply my basic football knowledge to it.

[Warhammer]

Exactly... trying to test any theory in two games and 13 pass attempts just baffles me.

If you're saying putting a theory out there it would be one thing, but making any claims that it is backed up from your two games and 13 pass attempts makes no sense.

Look at my initial post, I was asking if anyone had anymore information on this. The only information I have, which is only based upon two games, is that it is far better at protecting against the deep ball than it is against anything else.

I am not saying that this is what it is good at for sure. I am advancing a theory to get a discussion started. Why is everyone threatened by this? I agree that two games is low, but it is all I have to go on since I decided to keep track of this. So far, the data I have is in favor of what I have said. Yes, I do need more data, which is why I REQUESTED MORE DATA.

[Warhammer]

If you want to know how the coverages work you're going to need about 1000 attempts against each one and you're going to have to normalize everything else. You already brought up one thing that will cause problems in that LB tend to have better B&R coverage than they do zone and man-to-man.

Why should this cause any problems? If anything, I would think that because of that fact, BnR would be better against short passes than it appears to be.

[cthomer5000]

Are you threatening me?

[Warhammer]

Are you threatening me?

Me? I'm not threatening anyone. I am just trying to get other insights on this since it seems very contrary to what I know about football. I am trying to keep this discussion focused. I realize that 13 attempts is too few, and I am trying to pool more data.

Sorry, I am not one of those guys that know how to test anything in the realm of FOF. So all I have to go on is game logs, and I am not trying to be choosy in who I focus on, which is why I am following this particular team in one of my leagues.

[cthomer5000]

Man, I was just joking around. Calm down. :D

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'll try to clarify, against my better judgment.

I've only looked at this for two games, and so far, for two games only 1 of 13 passes were completed against this particular BnR defense over two games. So all my current data says that my theory is true.

I would disagree. I would say instead that "all your current data says absolutely nothing about what may actually be happening in the game."

That's the point of the term significant -- it's got nothing to do with anything like what you suggested with your comment here:

But, the two teams that were involved in the games have pretty good passing attacks, which is why I think this is significant.

The type of teams involved with your tiny sample size, or their style of play, have nothing to do with its signficance... in this case, size does matter. 2 games and 13 plays simply doesn't tell us anything. It is not significant -- that's why we have such a phrase.


Your endeavor to collect more data sounds perfectly fine to me. It's tough to do this in any sort of truly controlled way, as Daimyo points out above, but any data is worth something, I suspect.

Personally, I don't claim to have any answers to these questions about whether BNR works better or worse against certain types of plays or in certain circumstances. So, since I didn't have much to add, I didn't.


My derision wasn't focused on your asking questions or pursuing data... just to your hostility toward the whole concept of "sample size," which is well-traveled ground.

[RedKingGold]

Okay, I'll try to clarify, against my better judgment.



I would disagree. I would say instead that "all your current data says absolutely nothing about what may actually be happening in the game."

That's the point of the term significant -- it's got nothing to do with anything like what you suggested with your comment here:



The type of teams involved with your tiny sample size, or their style of play, have nothing to do with its signficance... in this case, size does matter. 2 games and 13 plays simply doesn't tell us anything. It is not significant -- that's why we have such a phrase.


Your endeavor to collect more data sounds perfectly fine to me. It's tough to do this in any sort of truly controlled way, as Daimyo points out above, but any data is worth something, I suspect.

Personally, I don't claim to have any answers to these questions about whether BNR works better or worse against certain types of plays or in certain circumstances. So, since I didn't have much to add, I didn't.


My derision wasn't focused on your asking questions or pursuing data... just to your hostility toward the whole concept of "sample size," which is well-traveled ground.

Yeah,...so don't be front'in on Quiksand's def of "sample size, "G", or he'll bust your pumps downtown in Oaktown, Shyunit!

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah,...so don't be front'in on Quiksand's def of "sample size, "G", or he'll bust your pumps downtown in Oaktown, Shyunit!

Translation: Don't come to a stats fight with QuikSand armed only with a slide rule.

[Warhammer]

Okay, I'll try to clarify, against my better judgment.



I would disagree. I would say instead that "all your current data says absolutely nothing about what may actually be happening in the game."

That's the point of the term significant -- it's got nothing to do with anything like what you suggested with your comment here:



The type of teams involved with your tiny sample size, or their style of play, have nothing to do with its signficance... in this case, size does matter. 2 games and 13 plays simply doesn't tell us anything. It is not significant -- that's why we have such a phrase.


Your endeavor to collect more data sounds perfectly fine to me. It's tough to do this in any sort of truly controlled way, as Daimyo points out above, but any data is worth something, I suspect.

Personally, I don't claim to have any answers to these questions about whether BNR works better or worse against certain types of plays or in certain circumstances. So, since I didn't have much to add, I didn't.


My derision wasn't focused on your asking questions or pursuing data... just to your hostility toward the whole concept of "sample size," which is well-traveled ground.

So to sum up, game planning is completely irrelevant because any result in a single game is justified due to the small sample size of plays in any single game. :rolleyes:

To couch the argument in another way, how many games do I need to test out a game plan? If a single game is too small of a sample, is two games? What about three games?

I know I am being a bit ridiculous in the statements above, but let's face it, many of us do not have the time, energy, or know-how, to setup a situation to test every nuance of this game.

My hosility was toward the immediate shooting down of the whole premise of my post because I used the word significant in a non-scientific way. I didn't even use that in my first post. I was trying to generate a discussion and people come crawling out of the woodwork not with any data to refute my supposition, but basically saying, "Don't worry about it, two games is not enough information to base anything on." That isn't going to help anyone. The only reason I brought it up is that it stands my thoughts regarding how Bump and Run coverage is modeled in FOF on its head.

I am getting sick of people on this board that sit there and chide people for advancing theories or trying to help others. I think there are far too many people out there that are trying to protect their turf by trying to squash the flow of information regarding game plans. The root problem lies in the game's documentation in that it does not clearly say which coverage is best for what, information that a real coach would know.

I know that from a statistical standpoint the data which I presented is not enough to make a blanket statement. But all scientific threory is based upon putting forth a hypothesis and then setting up a method of testing the said hypothesis. I advanced the hypothesis and requested additional data to test that hypothesis.

I apologize for any undue hosility, I have been sick all week and not feeling well. Not only that, but the attitude of some people on the board (I am maming a blanket statement here) trying to keep people in the dark about things. Seeing a smart-ass response to my use of the word significant sent me over the edge, and I apologize for that. Especially since I was not using the word in a scientific manner. If you want to get technical, I was using the first definition according to Webster's. Yes, two games and 13 passes is enough to make me scratch my head and wonder if I really have BnR coverage pegged correctly. In that sense, it is significant. As far as statistically significant, no. Heck, I should have just gone with indicative, as that doesn't have the scientific connotation and probably would have gone unchallenged as such. Heck, if I thought my sample size was conclusive, I probably would never have made the first post.

[Crim]

:mad:

[Crim]

;)

[cthomer5000]

Honestly, I think you are completely delusional about people actively trying to keep others in the dark.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree. People may not be as motivated to share, but I don't think people are actively misleading people.

[fantastic flying froggies]

So to sum up, game planning is completely irrelevant because any result in a single game is justified due to the small sample size of plays in any single game. :rolleyes:
....

I actually am very close to believing this statement to be true...

[flere-imsaho]

Gameplanning in SP is certainly not irrelevant because of the advantages you can accrue over time translate directly into winning. Most QuikSand dynasties are a case study in this.

Gameplanning in MP, on the other hand, can be a crapshoot. If you're in a league where people don't gameplan or don't gameplan well, then, as with SP, you'll generally have an advantage (assuming you know how to gameplan). I think cthomer once said it was worth at least a TD a game, and I'd agree with that.

It gets murkier, I think, when you're in a league where others know how to gameplan. I think there's a real danger, in these cases, of "out-thinking" yourself. Yes, you should gameplan so that you maximize your team's strengths and minimize your team's weaknesses. However, against skilled opponents, I think it's quite often possible to over-think a gameplan designed to exploit them, with the result that you're actually acting to the detriment of your own team.


Having said all of that, "basic" tests regarding core aspects of FOF are clearly useful to any player. Translated, this is simply knowing what ratings actually mean.

To take a hypothetical example, let's take a 10-season test where a team uses only 2TE formations, with everything else normalized, as compared to a team that uses an equal distribution of formations. Let's say that from a passing standpoint we expect the 2TE team to have a higher completion percentage but a lower YPA figure. Now let's say that the test instead shows both a higher completion percentage and a higher YPA. In this scenario, the gameplanner now has a significant piece of information they can definitely use against other gameplanners who have less information.

So, in conclusion, until I see results from a multi-season, properly-configured test, I'm going to assume that BNR works the way I'd expect it to (lowers completion %, but gives up big gains). I'll also feel comfortable, at the moment, with this belief given that the vast majority of the anecdotal evidence presented here (i.e. "my experience is...) confirms this.

[Narcizo]

So to sum up, game planning is completely irrelevant because any result in a single game is justified due to the small sample size of plays in any single game. :rolleyes:


Not really. However it is impossible, or at least very dangerous, to draw any conclusions from one game. More so than in real life because the game is more random than real life. (Of course there's no real way of testing how random real life is without access to some sort of quantam device that can see alternate realities. But we won't dwell on that).

If you try out different gameplans and stuff in a test league and rerun the game a lot of times you'll notice just how random a game is. One time you might shut out your opponent. The next they run all over you. One time your quarterback might throw 5 picks, the next 5 tds. All times both teams are using identical gameplans. Just try it out to see the disparity in results, and not just results but the whole "feel" of the game. I think the random element is overdone, a game ought to retain the same "feel" from the start, at least until situational gameplans kick in. Compare this with FM06 where you can replay the same game over and over again (solely as a test of course ;) ) and see the game develop in pretty much the same way. The result will be different but it "feels" more realistic that the match develops in a similar fashion from game to game. Whatever "realistic" means when comparing alternate realities. (ie Not a lot).

So what's the point of gameplanning if it's all random then, you might ask. Well, what a successful gameplan does is increase the probability of a win. That's all you can ask from it. So you might still get the freak 5 interceptions or have your running game hit a brick wall but, maybe, you are 60% likely to win a game with a good gameplan compared to 40% with a bad one. (Those figures are plucked at random to illustrate my point).

You'll not see the benefit of that if you lose, of course - you'll doubtlessly focus on the things that went wrong and probably try to learn something from them. If you win you might try to make more use of what was successful in the gameplan for that game. This is natural and it's what happens in real life, with debatable effect. In FOF, unfortunately, it's more likely than not a mistake to do so. So a person who abandons a wild passing offence because their quarterback threw 6 picks in the first game they use it might be making a mistake. As might a person who sticks with the same offence because they happened to pass for 500 yards and 4 touchdowns.

So, in summing up, the fact that a bump and run defence seemed to stop a long passing game in a couple of games means no more than the fact that you happened to roll 2 6s with a couple of dice. If it happens throughout the season then it might be a better indicator. Albeit one that is contaminated by a horde of other variables. That's why it's better to have played a lot of single player games, because it gives you a greater body of results to draw your conclusions from and helps you understand how the game works.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Very well said by the 9-post man! I believe this is EXACTLY how the game operates with its randomness.

[Subby]

here's your significant data: the last two GEFL Bowl Champs run bump and run exclusively.

THAT'S OVER 30 GAMES OF DATA!

[Samdari]

here's your significant data: the last two GEFL Bowl Champs run bump and run exclusively.

THAT'S OVER 30 GAMES OF DATA!

This word, significant, I do not think it means what you think it means.

30 games is not significant. 30 repetitions of the same games, compared with 30 games of data, run under identical conditions, using the other coverages, would be significant.

Because repetition is anathema to MP leages, I do not think that the results from any active online league can tell us anything about gameplanning.

[cthomer5000]

I'm pretty sure he was joking.

[Subby]

Whenever I go ALL CAPS IT MEANS I AM KIDDING!!!!!

[KWhit]

Whenever I go ALL CAPS IT MEANS I AM KIDDING!!!!!

So are you kidding in this post? And does that mean that all caps doesn't mean you're kidding? I'm SO CONFUSED!!!!!

[Subby]

THAT'S BETWEEN ME AND MY CLEANING LADY!!!!

[RealDeal]

Someone just stuck their wicky in some icky.

BOO-YAH

WOOT

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO ME

UP IN YA

FUCK YEAH

BANGING THAT ASS BANGING THAT ASS

[Rizon]

I have found using the Bump-n-Run allows the following things:

Allows alot of short passes
Allows alot of medium passes
Allows a ton of deep passes
Allows alot of long runs
Allows the QB to scramble for an insane amount of yardage

The Bump-N-Run does not work against the following:

Runs
Passes

[Kobeck]

lol

so you only use Bnr against Kicking formations

[Passacaglia]

I'm surprised to see so much hate for the bump and run. Personally, I love it. You can always find cheap guys at LB and DB with talent in it, which lets you spend more money on your offense. And I find it pretty effective -- with mediocre talent in my secondary, I'm usually in the top 5 in yards per attempt passing.

[Vince]

In the GEFL, my secondary has ratings of 66, 44, 77 and 51. Prior to our most recent game (I haven't loaded the newest file yet), through 12 games we rank thusly:

(Opponents)
Pass Attempts: 10th
Completions: 6th
Yards: 6th
Yards/Attempt: 9th

In the IHOF, my secondary is rated 63, 28, 66 and 54. Through 3 games (small sample size, I admit), we rank...

(Opponents)
Pass Attempts: 30th
Completions: 18th
Yards: 20th
Yards/Attempt: 9th

We run a nearly exclusive Bump and Run scheme in both leagues. I love the coverage scheme -- though when I blow up my IHOF squad this next IHOF off-season (lots of old, old vets), I think I'm going to experiment with a different coverage scheme.

[MIJB#19]

We run a nearly exclusive Bump and Run scheme in both leagues. I love the coverage scheme -- though when I blow up my IHOF squad this next IHOF off-season (lots of old, old vets), I think I'm going to experiment with a different coverage scheme.
Just stay away from the zone defense, okay? :D

[SFL Cat]

Bump and Run or Tight Man Coverage came back into vogue when the West Coast offense and its timed routes and route cutoffs became popular. The idea is to line a DB up on the line of scrimmage in front of the receiver. When that player crosses the line, the DB jams him and tries to throw him off his route as much as possible. The idea is that if a QB is throwing a timed pass to an area, the WR won't be in a good position to make the catch. So b&r should be best against the short or intermediate routes. This type of scheme is best suited for a big, physical DB with good speed. The negatives -- 1) big plays, as ct said, if the DB doesn't get a good jam on the receiver and he manages to get behind him, look out for the big gainer; 2) greater chance for penalties -- defensive holding and pass interference -- b&r is a very aggressive coverage scheme; 3) less chance for interceptions (unless your db is just an exceptional athlete). Most teams that use a lot of b&r coverage blitz a lot too. It's all about throwing off the timing between the QB and his targets.

Loose man-to-man is similar to bump and run. The only difference is that DBs tend to give more of a cushion to the receiver. This means more completions on the short and intermediate routes, but less of a chance for the big play. A db also has a better chance of reacting to the ball once the QB throws it, so you'll get a few more interceptions in this scheme than b&r. This scheme is best suited for smaller, less physical dbs with good speed. As with b&r, teams that run a lot of man coverage tend to blitz a lot too, trying to get the QB to get rid of the ball before he is ready.

Zone is a total read and react coverage scheme, a tool of the "bend but don't break" philosophy. The idea is to give up the short stuff, but not to let a team have the big play. Generally a zone team will give up a lot of short and medium routes (especially if a team's receivers are adept at finding the "seams" in the coverage), but will rarely give up the big play. As a team gets closer to your goal line, they start to run out of real estate and the zone becomes more effective in shutting down the passing game. Most teams that play this type of defense have dominating front lines, which allows them to drop more guys back into coverage. If you have good athletes manning your zone with nice "explosion" to the ball, you'll usually get more interceptions using this type of coverage than you will with b&r and mtm. You'll also get some nice big hits, as players collapse toward where the ball is being thrown to the receiver, hopefully causing some fumbles! This is a really good coverage to play when you have "holes" in your secondary, or your top cover guys don't match up well one-on-one with the other team's top receivers.

In actuality, most teams don't play straight b&r, mtm or zone schemes each down. They'll mix it up. They may move their corners up to play b&r or mtm and drop the safeties back into soft zones. The idea is to confuse the other team's QB as much as possible.

[Dutch]

I break it down by trying to use FOF sense and work with the popular assumption that all things offensive and defensive are somehow counterbalanced.

So I weigh playing time based on overall starting player skill.

Good M2M guys? I play more M2M.
Good BNR guys? I add extra BNR.
Good Zone guys? I play more zone.

I also assume that 2-Deep zone equals standard 4-3/3-4 packages. 3-Deep is Nickel and 4-Deep is Dime.

So....if you run your Personnel Packages in certain ways, you get can increase or decrease how often you use 3 and 4 deep zones. Obviously, M2M is self explanatory every-time.

I also assume that 2-Deep counters/(is more effective against) Short passing, 3-Deep is for Medium and 4-Deep for Long. Or it could be a balancing act vs formation styles. I'm not really sure what I think about that.

My .02 on defensive coverages, which I admit I am not very knowledgable about. So take it with a grain of salt.

[MIJB#19]

I also assume that 2-Deep zone equals standard 4-3/3-4 packages. 3-Deep is Nickel and 4-Deep is Dime.Maybe, maybe not.
Usually I only play a 2-Deep Zone defense, but have the nickelback settings high enough to see my team line up with 5 defensive backs in 2/3rd of the passing plays. Or I'm not understanding what you're saying. ;)

[Dutch]

Maybe, maybe not.
Usually I only play a 2-Deep Zone defense, but have the nickelback settings high enough to see my team line up with 5 defensive backs in 2/3rd of the passing plays. Or I'm not understanding what you're saying. ;)

It all still works off of a hidden FOF deviation of some sort. So even if you had this gameplan...

M2M - 0
BNR - 0
2-Deep - 100
3-Deep - 0
4-Deep - 0

Nickel - 100
Dime - 0

...you would assume you would still get M2M and Dime packages.

But again, I'm not sure, let me check the user's manual. :)

[Saucy]

Bump and Run or Tight Man Coverage came back into vogue when the West Coast offense and its timed routes and route cutoffs became popular......

Excellent breakdown of pass defenses in real life.

Sadly, it seems to me that it doesn't work like this in FOF. Screw statistical significance for a moment, read the first three posts in the thread again, including chinaski saying he bans bump and run because it is too specific in defending against the deep ball.

I've lost a lot of interest in the game because while the salary cap, drafting and trading is great fun, the game engine doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, with bump and run being a prime example.

(The bizarre use of the terms 'volatility' and 'getting downfield' also dented my faith in the game, I must admit).

[MIJB#19]

It all still works off of a hidden FOF deviation of some sort. So even if you had this gameplan...

M2M - 0
BNR - 0
2-Deep - 100
3-Deep - 0
4-Deep - 0

Nickel - 100
Dime - 0

...you would assume you would still get M2M and Dime packages.

But again, I'm not sure, let me check the user's manual. :)
I doubt it. My GEFL Houston Oilers have never ran anything else than the 2-deep. Ever. You could be right about the dime package though, the nickel and dime settings seem to be dependant on the situation your team is in. On 4th and 30 (and goal), leading by 4+ with <10 second left, your team is bound to play a dime package.

[sovereignstar]

I like toast.

[flere-imsaho]

Toast. Mmmmm....

[st.cronin]

bump for Quiksand

[stevew]

This thread has been #1 on this board for the longest time.