MythBusters Bunny Trail (Passing Distances)

[Ben E Lou]

I don't want to get that thread sidetracked, but I think this might be an important bunny trail.

From doing a bit more examining of the data, it's clear that both medium and long passing (21+ yards) are more effective overall in the NFL than in FOF, both in SP and in MP. Now, given the human tendency to throw down the field more often than in real life, I suppose medium and long passing present a bit of a quandary for Jim; if he had them working as well as they do in the NFL, he'd probably either have to:

1. force us to use a much more narrow range of game plans, either by severe nerfing of anything outside of that narrow range, or by just restricting game plans (ugh)
2. have us put up insanely good numbers as we stretch the field more than real team do (ugh)

From that perspective, I'm guessing he thought the best way to handle this (assuming he knows the differences between the breakdowns and FOF) would be to dial down the success of the downfield stuff a bit, and in so doing, giving us more freedom with our game plans. If that's what he was thinking here, I can't really argue with that way of doing it. I'd definitely prefer the ability to play 70s, 80s, 90s AND 00s offenses like we *almost* can in FOF, rather than being narrowly restricted into one offensive style.

Thoughts?

[gstelmack]

I dunno, I think he does a good job with the "stuff gets less effective the more you use it" bit, so if he had it accurate but you used it all the time, you wouldn't end up being very effective with it in the long run. So #2 wouldn't really happen.

[Ben E Lou]

I dunno, I think he does a good job with the "stuff gets less effective the more you use it" bit, so if he had it accurate but you used it all the time, you wouldn't end up being very effective with it in the long run. So #2 wouldn't really happen.But here's the thing: if medium/long passing were as effective as NFL numbers, he'd have to ratchet up the "stuff gets less effective the more you use it" quite a bit more to avoid #2--which would create more of issue #1. This way gives the system more flexibility. Rather than nerfing medium passing if you throw it, say, 25% more than average, he'd have to nerf it at a much lower percentage away from the norm; it would create much more vanilla game planning, I would think.

[Celeval]

Why do you think that? We're talking in generalized numbers here. Take the NFL out of the equation, basically you're saying:

If medium and long passing were more effective, we'd have to restrict to a narrower range how much it is used.

I think you're missing the point there. The "stuff gets less effective" argument isn't necessarily a throttle to keep people in line with certain numbers; it's realistic. If Brady threw 50% of his passes in the same area of the field, the defensive reaction would be to try and take that away. Would it work completely? No, but the overall numbers in that range would go down. There are two pieces that are perhaps missing in the book of FOF knowledge that relate to that: the adjusting of a defense during the game to what the offense is doing - which is modeled, we know this, but we don't "see" it; and the ability to pre-scout, know that X team is going to throw in the medium range a ton, and set your defense up to combat that. That's not wholly possible right now for two more reasons: there isn't enough knowledge about how defense works to select a defense that can stop a medium passing game; and two, it's far, far easily to change an offensive scheme in FOF than it is in the NFL.

[Ben E Lou]

there isn't enough knowledge about how defense works to select a defense that can stop a medium passing game; and two, it's far, far easily to change an offensive scheme in FOF than it is in the NFL.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly on both of your points here, as well as your general premise. I think part of the issue here is the "fun computer game" factor. I wonder how well people would react to a system that feels like it has very little flexibility. For example, I wholeheartedly agree that it's wholly unrealistic to be able to change our offensive schemes from week to week like we can and do, but I'm not certain we'd want it otherwise (particularly for MP). *shurg*

[Ben E Lou]

Dola: It's fun having these discussions, especially when Kevin and I are IMing each other AND responding to each other in threads. I'm getting a little confused. :p

[gstelmack]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly on both of your points here, as well as your general premise. I think part of the issue here is the "fun computer game" factor. I wonder how well people would react to a system that feels like it has very little flexibility. For example, I wholeheartedly agree that it's wholly unrealistic to be able to change our offensive schemes from week to week like we can and do, but I'm not certain we'd want it otherwise (particularly for MP). *shurg*

I dunno. I'd actually be all for completely pulling gameplanning, even though I don't think it's a realistic marketing move. I'd *LOVE* to see hiring an OC with certain offensive tendencies and a DC with certain defensive tendencies, and then be up to you to find the right players to run it. At least in a GM-based sim like this. It would even be great if you tracked experience in a system (paging Cam Cameron and Trent Green) like you do cohesion between QBs and receivers.

It seems like FOF MP is primarily a gameplanning experience, as a good gameplanner can overcome poor roster material, while a good GM can't overcome poor gameplanning. Even as a guy who typically does the AI recommend thing for most settings (due to a lack of time), I still have specific tweaks I have to make each week due to limitations in the game (such as calling a 4-deep zone with a run aggressive playcall). I'm not sure that's a good thing in a sim that is focused on the GM aspects.

[Ben E Lou]

See, I'd argue that FOF is no longer a sim that is primarily focused on the GM aspects. Sure, it's called "Front Office" Football, but it has clearly moved to being a combination of a GM and Coaching sim. (And I think that's part of the cause of a certain level of frustration for some.) Things like seasonal rust, expanded depth charts, the ability to do detailed game planning, and weight training are all purely "coach" features, and they were all added or expanded in FOF2K7. I understand that many were initially drawn to FOF because of the GM stuff, myself included. However, as the game is now, it's a mischaracterization to call it a "GM-based" sim or say that it is "focused on the GM aspects." It's defintely both coaching and GMing.

[tarcone]

I would love to see this addition to the game:
As a GM I build a run based offense. Instead of going in to the gameplan section, there is a button that allows me to be more run oriented. I believe EAs NCAA football is the best example of what im talking about.
I can dial up a run-and-shoot offense or a Grinding Run attack. Hit the button and go play GM.
The hiring of OC and DCs and letting them play call effectively and gain cohesion with the QB or MLB would be awesome also

[Synovia]

For example, I wholeheartedly agree that it's wholly unrealistic to be able to change our offensive schemes from week to week like we can and do, but I'm not certain we'd want it otherwise (particularly for MP). *shurg*

Sky, I disagree. While its not common, there are a couple of teams that run almost completely different offenses every week. New England is one. Some days they're a run heavy 3-TE type team, and some days they play 4-wide all day. It just depends on who theyre playing.

[JMO]

I dunno. I'd actually be all for completely pulling gameplanning, even though I don't think it's a realistic marketing move. I'd *LOVE* to see hiring an OC with certain offensive tendencies and a DC with certain defensive tendencies, and then be up to you to find the right players to run it. At least in a GM-based sim like this. It would even be great if you tracked experience in a system (paging Cam Cameron and Trent Green) like you do cohesion between QBs and receivers.

It seems like FOF MP is primarily a gameplanning experience, as a good gameplanner can overcome poor roster material, while a good GM can't overcome poor gameplanning. Even as a guy who typically does the AI recommend thing for most settings (due to a lack of time), I still have specific tweaks I have to make each week due to limitations in the game (such as calling a 4-deep zone with a run aggressive playcall). I'm not sure that's a good thing in a sim that is focused on the GM aspects.

I'd love to see this. I think you would end up with alot more system guys and it would add to the realism.

[ddrrbb]

Sky, I disagree. While its not common, there are a couple of teams that run almost completely different offenses every week. New England is one. Some days they're a run heavy 3-TE type team, and some days they play 4-wide all day. It just depends on who theyre playing.


I guess this would fall under gameplanning against a specific opponent. But, I think teams use a basic overall strategy that the head coach or coordinator uses as his core philosophy. Teams can't practice every single play and formation in FOF every week and run it to perfection. But in FOF, every play in the game (ok, limited by QB knowledge) can be run at any time on offense and defense.

Most of the time, the Patriots are just spreading out the defense and then using draw plays for their primary running scheme. It is very rare to see them run a standard i-form and grind it out for a whole game. They use short passes instead of grinding runs and adjust when the defense cheats. Whereas the Colts are using singleback a huge percentage of the time (3 WR or 2 TE). Do they even have a fullback? They make Dallas Clark a FB, TE, and WR. Or, the Bears only ran a handful of shotgun plays all season last year because Ron Turner doesn't use it in his system (stubbornly).

Maybe the answer is coaches and coordinators with more limitations or more impact on the game itself (maybe with skill bars like players). Like an OC with skills in west coast that give a bonus (like football D&D) to those types of formations and plays or a DC that likes 3-4 and blitzing. Coaches could have different tendencies. Hiring coaches could be as intriguing and fun as the draft. And you would have to draft certain types of player skillsets.

I guess that would make it more of a complex GM game, and less of a complex GM, HC, OC, DC game. It might limit gameplanning, but would add another dimension that would affect the outcome of games.

[Dutch]

I don't mind seeing OC's and DC's expanded, but I agree with others that I don't want to see gameplanning reduced because of it.

[Synovia]

Most of the time, the Patriots are just spreading out the defense and then using draw plays for their primary running scheme. It is very rare to see them run a standard i-form and grind it out for a whole game. They use short passes instead of grinding runs and adjust when the defense cheats.

Have you ever seen a patriots game, other than the Pats/Colts game this year? I think they ran about 12 Draws all season, and 10 of them were int hat game. Seeing them in an I-Form is VERY COMMON. They ran Pro Sets all the time.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

They did spread it out and run draw against the Vikes as well. I wouldn't say they run pro-sets all the time. They often go single back as well. But sometimes, 2 TE and FB too. They're all over the board.

[Synovia]

Vinateri, that was exactly my point. They run a different offense every week. Some days its all single back and 4wr sets. (Vikings)

Some days its 3TE sets, Miami packages (extra lineman) and never more than 2 WR (bengals)

Is it common for teams to do this? No. Is it possible? Yes, definitely. The patriots do it.


I like the fact that you can run a different game plan every week. Why? Because teams do. It takes a very versatile team to do it though, and most teams cant.

[CU Tiger]

I for one would like to see the coordinator based Gp with GM input.
It would be more realistic and fun ,to me, to hire a west coast OC and then tell him hey with our talent you better throw more deep balls.

than to call everyone into a meeting and say ok from now on on 3rd and 3 we will be passing 29% of the time but on 3rd and 4 you are to pass 71% of the time.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I like this. With a new and improved staff feature, you could do a lot. For instance, you would have OC and DC coordinators. They would be rated on player development as well as playcalling. But the playcalling would also be sliced up into style preference, but also ability to call plays against certain defense styles; or a separate skill for calling pass and run plays; and a separate skill for call playing during a game. Then of course, the head coach has some ratings that affect it as well. You could also have ratings for ability to change scheme for next opponent. The point is you could do a lot.

Then for the GM control, you give us the FOF players sliders. That way while you can't tell the coach to run 80% of the time on 3rd and 2, but you could tell him, "hey, let's in general run the ball a bit more -- or a lot more." Or let's blitz more. Or let's play a 3-4 instead on defense. Or let's not be so aggressive on the pass. Something like that. This would satisfy the people who like to do some coaching.

As I've said before, this kind of scout/staff overhaul would make the next game a must buy for a lot of people.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Let me add. To me FOF is both a GM game and a coach game as it stands now. The way it is now, it is more fun if you want to be a coach, because you can do a lot of things. But if you want to be a GM, you are left only with hiring 3 staff and 1 scout who have very limited ratings differentials and hitting the recommend button. That is a real fun killer for the guy who just likes to be GM. The biggest decision any GM makes probably is picking his head coach. In FOF, that decision takes about 1 minute to decide. And then that's pretty much it.

You also should be able to fire a head coach in midseason and hire another one or promote your coordinators. And they should all be signed like the FA players do, by offering contracts at any time during the regular FA stages, not some 3-stage limited period at season's beginning. And you should be able to sign away another guy's coordinator to be your head coach in the offseason. You see where I am going with this? There is so much that could be done in this area that would elevate this game to incredible new heights - and make it a must buy for GM players.

In fact, I would like to see Jim spend his valuable time working on this aspect that souping up gameplanning.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Ok, while I am at it. Let's add the ability to sign away restricted free agents. Make them available during the FA period. Have the game post the compensation and fire away. Or sign away a franchise designated player.

This restricted FA/franchise player/hire a coordinator from another team would be just an awesome addition to the MP experience. Can you imagine how much fun it would be for Skydog to franchise the "Solution" and then have somebody offer him a monster contract that Skydog can't match under his cap, and then lose him for 2 first rounders. This would be awesome, I'm telling you. So, anyways, these are the types of things I would like to see Jim concentrate on rather than gameplanning.

[CU Tiger]

I couldnt agree more.

I would love a system where I tell the coach RUN MORE.
Or RUN A LOT MORE.
Ans then I analyze what he dos, of course each staff meber could have a stubborness rating where he would ignore your advice (parcells?) at which point you could fire him.

Then you could have a player's coach who builds massavie cohesion and if you fire him half the team could demand a trade
.

there is a lot that could be done here.

Of course if it was implemeted each coordinator would have to have an insight rating, that would be very vague in its actual meaning. The help documentation should mention this rating but tell you nothing specific about it. Then we could all speculate as to its usefullneess and get in huge arguments about whether there was significant data that supported our theory or just anecdotal evidence based on our thought of what insight means. And finally, there should be a bunch of coordinators with very low stubborness ratings, and very good passing ratings who refuse to pass the ball and instead run all the time especially at inoppurtine times. Then and only then would FOF be complete. :)

[st.cronin]

Sliders, baby.

See: FBCB, FM