Pass Coverage Game Plan Question

[korme]

One of the choices is:

Double-team Top WR
Double-team Second WR

Is Top WR always the FLANKER, or the best rated out of FL/SE?

[QuikSand]

Conventional wisdom is that it's the best guy, though it's not really clear according to whom -- presumably *your* scout. But I believe it will be the split end if he's the better off the two guys.

[korme]

Ok. It's obvious, my opponent's SE is over 30 scouting points better than the FL, I really hope it just looks at the best guy.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Hmmm. In 2k4, I thought top WR was believed to be the guy with the most pass targets? Is it now believed this has changed to top ratings bars in 2k7?

[jkat]

Top WR - Flanker postion in the depth chart
Second WR - Split End position in the depth chart

Strong Side - Flanker position in the Offensive Personnel screen
Weak Side - Split End position in the Offensive Personnel screen


Generally speaking, "Orient CB by WR Covered" refers to the depth chart and "Orient CB by Side of Formation" refers to the Offensive Personnel screens.

Hence why Top WR/Second WR refer to the Flanker/Split End positions, respectively, in the depth chart while Strong Side/Weak Side refer to the personnel slots named Flanker/Split End in the Offensive Personnel screens.

[jkat]

To add something else, if you want to keep a receiver from seeing two defenders sub him into the Slot WR position in a 3WR formation. He won't be able to be double covered in Strong/Weak setups and if I remember right the corners will stay outside anways in Top/Second setups as well, though that last part is off the top of my head.

Defensively there isn't much you can do to make sure you double team a specific receiver, in multiplayer, if your opponent takes advantage of the limitations in using double coverage. Rather you can use it, if you use it at all, to protect a specific cornerback.

[Icy]

Agree with jkat, to see it, click on recomend in the deep chart and you will notice that the best WR is placed in the FL position.

Btw, jkat, all your posts are gold and really well explained, are you Jim's second account? :)

[highfiveoh]

Agree with jkat, to see it, click on recomend in the deep chart and you will notice that the best WR is placed in the FL position.

I don't believe this is true. I just did a test and it took me 3 minutes to dispell this.

[RedKingGold]

I don't believe this is true. I just did a test and it took me 3 minutes to dispell this.

Can you post your results?

[jkat]

It certainly doesn't always do so but that doesn't really have to do with how double teams are assinged, though the nomenclature of Top/Second may relate to that. Rex using much better Split Ends at Flanker is probably just placing the best receiver in a position to get a cleaner release against press coverage. Whether there is any difference in Bump and Run (or other coverages) effectiveness against receivers behind/at the line of scrimmage is a different matter, but that "real life difference" between the positions would probably be the reason behind having Rex use Split Ends there with certain roster situations.

Rex might always put the best receiver at Flanker if positional bias was completely discounted, as setting it to 0 doesn't seem to entirely get rid of it. As it is, a SE has to be significantly better for Rex to do that.

Computer controlled teams, on the other hand, tend to keep players in their respective positions regardless of even significant differences in talent.

[Icy]

I don't believe this is true. I just did a test and it took me 3 minutes to dispell this.

I forgot to say that you need to put your positional bias at 0 so the players will be used by their abilities in the deep chart, not having as big weight in their position. You can also test this only having SE's or FL's, else if you have one FL and one SE, and you don't set the positional bias to zero, then the SE must be much better that the FL to be placed in that position.

[yabanci]

Top WR - Flanker postion in the depth chart
Second WR - Split End position in the depth chart

Strong Side - Flanker position in the Offensive Personnel screen
Weak Side - Split End position in the Offensive Personnel screen

Generally speaking, "Orient CB by WR Covered" refers to the depth chart and "Orient CB by Side of Formation" refers to the Offensive Personnel screens.

Hence why Top WR/Second WR refer to the Flanker/Split End positions, respectively, in the depth chart while Strong Side/Weak Side refer to the personnel slots named Flanker/Split End in the Offensive Personnel screens.

I'm not clear on how you reach the conclusion that top WR = FL on depth chart and second WR = SE on depth chart.

The help file reads:

* "When the cornerbacks stay on one side or the other, your choices are to double-cover either the split end or the flanker."

* "When they cover based on ability, your choices are to double-cover either the top or the second-best receiver."

So if we accept your proposition that top = FL and second = SE, then the help file is saying is you have the choice to (a) double-cover either the SE or the FL or (b) double-cover either the SE or the FL.

Under your interpretation, both options are exactly the same, and that conflicts with the plain meaning of the help file, which clearly states the choice is to assign double coverage by position or by quality.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Until I hear more, I'm simply not buying the FL/SE role as the determining factor on double coverage. I go with it either being ratings based or stat based. Otherwise, it allows you to circumvent the double coverage by changing the depth chart. Not saying it isn't this way, but I find this theory dubious at this point.

[jkat]

First of all, the help file is a joke.

Second, they aren't the same. Though they are similar.

Top/Second refers to the placement on the Depth Chart - Backfield screen and Strong/Weak to the specific places on the Personnel - *** Formations screen.


Using Top/Second:

If your opponent has receivers at FL and SE in the depth chart they will be the recipient of double coverage by the input box labelled Top and Second, respectively. This is irregardless of where they are placed in the formation. So if your opponent places Flanker1 in the Split End personnel slot in the Personnel screen he will still receive double coverage through the Top WR input box.

Using Strong/Weak:

Once you under stand how formations flip this actually works exactly as labelled. In I-Form Normal with Strength Left the formation is as it appears in the Personnel - I Formations screen. When the play is flipped to be Strength Right the Flanker personnel slot in on the right side, with the strength, instead of the left. This is the opposite of switching the play in a game like Madden, for example, where the receivers would stay on the same side of the field.

This means when you double team the Strong Side receiver you are always double teaming the Flanker personnel slot in a vast majority of formations (as it might be reversed in 2-WR slot formations as the Split End takes the outside edge on the Strong Side of the formation with the Flanker going inside to the slot).

The result is that, much to the opposite of Top/Second, the double team stays with the specific personnel slot and not the specific receiver. If your opponent switches the players in the Personnel - *** Formations screen it will switch which receiver is affected by which input box.

Meaning:

They are certainly similar in the sense that both often function to mean simply FL with the top box and SE with the bottom, but both reach that similarity for different reasons and will operate differently based on changes to the various gameplanning screens. The difference in the names themselves comes from how the corners operate, as is noted below.

Nomenclature:

As to the names themselves it comes from how the cornerbacks function in the respective sets, not the double teaming.

Oriented by the side of the formation keeps the cornerbacks in place. When your opponent switches the Strength of a play the cornerbacks will not follow the receivers. So in a I-Form Normal Strength Left play the LCB is with the Flanker personnel slot getting help in way of a double team based on the Strong Side input box. When that play is run Strength Right instead it is the RCB covering the Flanker personnel slot getting double team help by that same Stong Side input box.

Oriented by the WR covered will have the recievers switch sides of the formation to stay with their specific receivers.

Of Note:

Both methods use double teams on the outside receivers and will not let you double team a slot receiver (other than the two different 2WR slot formations).

In regards to Top/Second, while the double team is based on the Flanker/Split End positions in the depth chart the cornerbacks may choose in some manner who the actual Top/Second receivers are regardless of position. I don't remember how they choose (current ratings, targets, catches, etc.), whether they use Top CB/Top WR or LCB/Top WR, or if they follow their receivers into the slot positions off the top of my head.

Singleback Trips should be included with refrences to 2WR slot formations as it is a similar case.

For a more interactive version of this post reread it having a drink every time the work personnel is used.

[jkat]

Until I hear more, I'm simply not buying the FL/SE role as the determining factor on double coverage. I go with it either being ratings based or stat based. Otherwise, it allows you to circumvent the double coverage by changing the depth chart. Not saying it isn't this way, but I find this theory dubious at this point.

It doesn't take long to properly set up two gameplans to run against each other to find anything specific about the involved coverage styles.

You can see that you can not double cover an inside receiver when there are two outside receivers. You can see that always double teaming Strong Side will get the Flanker personnel slot (could be reversed in the 2WR slot formations and in trips), Weak Side the Split End personnel slot, Top WR the Flanker1 in the depth chart (or a sub when he comes in), and Second WR the Split End1 in the depth chart (or a sub).

Just Ctrl-F to find every instance of "into double coverage" in the log and see who is being double covered by that particular input box. Switch the players in the depth chart or personnel screens and you'll see them followed or lost in double coverage congruent to the preceding paragraph.


It isn't a lot of fun and I wouldn't really recommend it but that's the only way to see for yourself. I neglected to pay attention to what the corners were doing in "Orient by WR Covered" when I had looked at this or I'd probably know whether corners would follow their man into the slot in 3WR formations, so I would recommend paying at least some attention to the corners if you were to do so.


I do think the corners choose receivers through some means in Top/Second systems but as mentioned near the end of my previous post I don't know how they go about that. Double coverage, however, does not.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree with you that if you are doubling via the strong/weak and you pick mostly strong, that will be the FL that gets doubled more often. However, I still don't see anything in what your saying that makes me believe that when you double via top/second receiver that it doubles the FL when you pick mostly to cover the top receiver.

But you are saying you have tested this? You're saying you have actually tested this, and have discovered that choosing top, gets you double coverage on the FL, regardless of ratings or stats? If so, great. I'm learning something new here. But are you sure you are isolating the stats and ratings variables. That is, if you put in a scrub for his first game of the season (after other receivers have built up stats) at FL1 and a stud at SE1 and the defense chooses to double the top WR all the time, your test is showing that the scrub is the one getting double covered.

[yabanci]

jkat: you seem to be contradicting yourself and making this much more confusing that it is.

The question posed in this thread is whether the top WR is always the flanker.

You came in and said that the top WR is the flanker position on the depth chart and the second WR is the split end position on the depth chart, apparently answering the question in the affirmative.

Then later you came back and said, to the contrary, that when you choose the option to double-cover the top WR, "the cornerbacks may choose in some manner who the actual Top/Second receivers are regardless of position. I don't remember how they choose (current ratings, targets, catches, etc.)."

That's exactly what the help file says -- you can chose to double-cover by position (strong side/weak side, with strong side being the flanker in most formations) or by ability (with the game determining based on some criteria whether the flanker or split end is the "top WR" on a particular play).

So it seems to me that your first post saying that top WR = flanker is incorrect. The top WR may be but is not necessarily the flanker, which is what the help file states and what you concede in your later post.

[jkat]

But you are saying you have tested this? You're saying you have actually tested this, and have discovered that choosing top, gets you double coverage on the FL, regardless of ratings or stats? If so, great. I'm learning something new here. But are you sure you are isolating the stats and ratings variables. That is, if you put in a scrub for his first game of the season (after other receivers have built up stats) at FL1 and a stud at SE1 and the defense chooses to double the top WR all the time, your test is showing that the scrub is the one getting double covered.

Yes. If the SE1 is at 70-80 with more targets, catches, yards and the FL1 is 40-50; the SE1 will still receive double coverage under Second WR.

The cornerbacks will treat the SE1 as the Top WR, placing the LCB on him, but the double coverage doesn't work the same way.


In a SP season there was an opposing team that fit so I loaded a save before that game, changed the game plan (always double covering the "Top WR"), and re simmed it.

FL1 Sellers 49 targets, 24 catches 26/46 and SE1 Rockwood 75 targets, 47 catches 59/74

3-16-CHI47 (1Q: 01:14) Raylee White pass was blocked at the line, intended for WR Amos Devoe. DT Lewis Zgonina blocked the pass. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
3-9-MIA27 (2Q: 06:05) Raylee White pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Timothy Sellers. CB Trevor Culjat simply crushed the receiver as the ball arrived. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
2-10-CHI50 (2Q: 03:54) Raylee White pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Amos Devoe. DT Hunter Valles hurried the quarterback into a bad throw. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
2-9-MIA39 (2Q: 02:59) Raylee White pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Timothy Sellers. CB Marty Lyle knocked the ball out of his grasp. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
1-10-CHI20 (3Q: 12:57) Raylee White pass was thrown incomplete, intended for WR Timothy Sellers. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
3-22-CHI26 (3Q: 03:06) Raylee White pass was dropped by WR Timothy Sellers. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
2-5-CHI49 (4Q: 11:16) Raylee White pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Timothy Sellers. DE Jamie Cowher hurried the quarterback into a bad throw. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
1-10-CHI35 (4Q: 02:39) Raylee White pass was thrown incomplete, intended for WR Timothy Sellers. The quarterback threw into double coverage.
2-10-CHI35 (4Q: 02:26) Raylee White pass completed to WR Timothy Sellers for 8 yards. The receiver went out of bounds. Tackled by CB Marty Lyle, assisted by S Mickey Richardson. The quarterback threw into double coverage.

This is showing the Top WR for double coverage to be the crappy FL1. In a couple of the cases it was his backup Devoe who is a 14/35 with 35 targets and 18 catches. The better receiver the SE1 Rockwood, always had "away from double coverage" when he was thrown to. The backup at FL2, Devoe, had two instances of "away from double coverage" but both were in 3WR formations.

[jkat]

jkat: you seem to be contradicting yourself and making this much more confusing that it is.

The question posed in this thread is whether the top WR is always the flanker.

No the question posed by this thread concerns if the input box for using double coverage on the Top WR is always the Flanker.

You came in and said that the top WR is the flanker position on the depth chart and the second WR is the split end position on the depth chart, apparently answering the question in the affirmative.

The Top WR input box for double coverage is always the Flanker1.

Then later you came back and said, to the contrary, that when you choose the option to double-cover the top WR, "the cornerbacks may choose in some manner who the actual Top/Second receivers are regardless of position. I don't remember how they choose (current ratings, targets, catches, etc.)."

This can not be contrary as it does not have anything to do with double coverage. While the cornerbacks may choose the Top/Second receiver, the double coverage does not.

This means two things:
The Flanker1 will always receive double coverage under the label Top WR.
The LCB may cover either the Flanker1 or Split End1 when using the Top/Second system.Those two statements don't contradict, they refer to seperate parts of defensive coverage.

What I stated was "while the double team is based on the Flanker/Split End positions in the depth chart {not 'when you choose the option to double-cover'} the cornerbacks may choose in some manner who the actual Top/Second receivers are regardless of position"

To be clearer this should have said "while the double team is based on the Flanker/Split End positions in the depth chart[,] the cornerbacks may choose who [they align with, as] Top/Second receivers[,] "

That's exactly what the help file says -- you can chose to double-cover by position (strong side/weak side, with strong side being the flanker in most formations) or by ability (with the game determining based on some criteria whether the flanker or split end is the "top WR" on a particular play).

The part of the help file quoted earlier concerns double coverage. It is wrong because the receiver ability does not have anything to do with double coverage.

The cornerbacks may choose their specific man, but the double coverage does not involve this choice.

So it seems to me that your first post saying that top WR = flanker is incorrect. The top WR may be but is not necessarily the flanker, which is what the help file states and what you concede in your later post.
Using the Top/Second WR system:

If the LCB chooses the Top WR as the Flanker1;
LCB covers Flanker1
Top WR input box double covers Flanker1If the LCB chooses the Top WR as the Split End1;
LCB covers Split End1
Top WR input box still double covers Flanker1Both the cornerbacks and the double coverage operate differently.
As far as double coverage, Top WR is always the Flanker1.
As far as the orientation of the [I]cornerbacks, Top WR may be either receiver position.

[DougW]

I'm uncertain that this has been resolved - without question.

I sure wish stuff like this was obvious and clear. There should be no reason that I, as a coach (GM whatever), am not sure of what my defensive backfield is doing. I should be able to walk into practice and say ... "OK this week Deion you are Carl Pickens' shadow .. where he goes you go."

In FOF, I have no idea what is going on back there.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Ok, jkat, I understand what you're saying with the different treatment for what a top WR is for regular and then double coverage. And your testing also seems to show FL1 is always the top WR for double coverage. I've learned something new. I actually like it this way for SP because it does actually then allow me to know for certain who I will be double covering. Unfortunately as you pointed out, a team can avoid double coverage by switching the FL1/SE1 around each game -- a totally unrealistic result and a big flaw with the game in my opinion for MP. Not to mention a totally misnaming of the coverage, it ought just to say then double the FL or SE, if that is what it actually does, and get rid of the "top" WR nonsense.

[Hammer]

Agreed totally misleading. I thought top WR was the best WR in terms of ratings. No wonder my pass D always sucks.

[QuikSand]

Conventional wisdom is that it's the best guy, though it's not really clear according to whom -- presumably *your* scout. But I believe it will be the split end if he's the better off the two guys.

Not sure that this comment was incorrect, but I'll back down to jkat and assume that most of us just have had this wrong all along. *shurg*

[Warhammer]

Top WR - Flanker postion in the depth chart
Second WR - Split End position in the depth chart

Strong Side - Flanker position in the Offensive Personnel screen
Weak Side - Split End position in the Offensive Personnel screen


Generally speaking, "Orient CB by WR Covered" refers to the depth chart and "Orient CB by Side of Formation" refers to the Offensive Personnel screens.

Hence why Top WR/Second WR refer to the Flanker/Split End positions, respectively, in the depth chart while Strong Side/Weak Side refer to the personnel slots named Flanker/Split End in the Offensive Personnel screens.


Wow, this is pretty esoteric if you ask me.

[jkat]

One other general note on Double Coverage is how the plays are called.

There are three stages in determining if double coverage is called.
If the defense is using the Aggressive Run expectation or if the defense is blitzing 3 defenders, double coverage will not be called.
Otherwise the defense will call a ***, Double FL play the percent of time listed in the top input box.
If a ***, Double FL play is not called the defense will call a ***, Double SE play the percent of time in the bottom input box.In regards to "1", if you look at the play-calling interface you'll see that in either of the mentioned cases, agg. run and blitzing 3, the double coverage play-calls are not there. While using double coverage on every play possible, input box at 100, agg. run and 3-man blitzes are still called. This shows that this stage comes before the other two.

In regards to "2" and "3", at 100 Strong/Top and 50 Weak/Second the FL will always be double covered, the SE does not receive any double coverage. While at 50 Strong/Top and 100 Weak/Second, they will both receive double coverage and while it didn't seem worth adding up the instances to see if they were close to equal there didn't seem to be any blatant preference between them.

At 90 Strong/Top and 10 Weak/Second, I did not see a single instance of the SE being double covered over a year's game logs and did see a fair amount of situations where no double coverage was called (when it was not because of agg. run or 3 blitzers). This would indicate double coverage isn't called at a rate matching the combined percentage. In the manner shown above, there would be a 10% chance of the SE being double covered 10% of the time (the 10% that the FL isn't being double covered), coupled with the likelihood of the reciever being the target; maybe around one-third of a percent of 500 passes would be expected to show "into double coverage" when the SE is thrown to. None, instead of two or three, is actually fairly close to what the expectation would be.


So while the statement "Double-Team based on the percentage of all plays" holds true for the Strong/Top input box (with the exceptions of agg. run and 3-blitzers) it should be [based on the percentage of all plays where the Strong/Top is not Double-Teamed] in regards to Weak/Second.

So using;
[50]
[100]
would mean double covering each receiver half of all plays;
[33]
[50]
would mean double covering each receiver one-third of all plays, and;
[40]
[33]
would get a common Rex choice of 40% and 20% of all plays, while Rex's values of;
[40]
[20]
would actually be 40% and 12% of all plays.


That last part would imply that Rex is using this aspect of the gameplan incorrectly. I feel that the input boxes for double coverage is based on allowing you to double team both receivers at any given time and should be the total percentage you double each receiver (largely from it allowing you to exceed 100 between the two boxes but not in either individual box). Unfortunately you can't double cover both receivers (and this holds true over game logs from simmed games) because the simulation uses the play-calling interface and the options for a play don't allow it.

For example you have;
2-Deep Loose Man
2-Deep Loose Man, Double FL
2-Deep Loose Man, Double SE

but don't have a 2-Deep Loose Man, Double FL And SE play. Which results in you not being able to double team two receivers on a given play.

I think it is designed to choose either Normal, and then Normal or Double SE, or Double FL, and then either Double FL or Double FL And SE. But since Double FL And SE doesn't exist it gets stuck with just Double FL on all of those plays.

Rex might actually choose based on how the double coverage play-calling actually works and could just like to use extremely little double coverage on the SE. However, I personally doubt Rex does this and think his value for Weak/Second would actually need fudged somewhat upward to bring the gameplan in line with what he is trying to do. That is, of course, if you have Rex set up your defensive gameplan for you.

[DougW]

Who is Rex ?

[cuervo72]

Akin to how "Otto" is sometimes used for automatic/automated (draft picks, lineups), "Rex" is now being used for recommend on the various gameplanning screens.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

jkat. great stuff. great stuff.

[ace1914]

So let me get this right, If i set a double team up in the gameplanning screens, the top dt% is overall double team, and bottom is what % of that is SE double teams? IE. top dt:100 bot dt: 100...then the SE is always doubled?

[korme]

Agreed totally misleading. I thought top WR was the best WR in terms of ratings. No wonder my pass D always sucks.

Well the whole reason for this was to lock down Cleveland's big bad Split End named Jerry Rice

[Vinatieri for Prez]

So let me get this right, If i set a double team up in the gameplanning screens, the top dt% is overall double team, and bottom is what % of that is SE double teams? IE. top dt:100 bot dt: 100...then the SE is always doubled?

That's not what I got out of it.

[Hammer]

Well, you did a decent job of that, so I guess the thread was worth it. I specifically asked Marc for that game as I wanted to finish the sage off with relation to the trade. Having your first round pick ment it had some interesting implications.

We will be slightly in limbo QB wise next year, and with your Boomer Esiason coming on nicely it will be interesting to see how things pan out next year. Adding Houston and Pittsburgh to that mix, equal a very unpredictable Division.

[Solecismic]

Thanks for looking at this, jkat. FWIW, you seem like someone who would make an excellent beta tester.

I'm not happy where the pass coverage feedback is at this stage with the game's development. There's a lot in place in the engine. Solevision is an attempt to provide a report of what's going on, but only has about half of the variables required to make a full accounting.

This works okay for the most part. With pass coverage, it's just not enough. And in a couple of places (like the reporting for key run blocks), it's actually misleading and the text itself needs to be changed.

The system is not where it will eventually be, when you'll know who covered whom on every play, and it will be more clear who is in what zone. Unfortunately, that's out of the scope for a minor update. If there's an FOF7 at some point, you'll see this.

That said, I've looked into this double-coverage issue. This is a reporting issue. If your setting is to double-cover based on top WR, the engine gets it right, but Solevision assumes the top WR is always the flanker. The reporting of the double-coverage itself (as opposed to throwing away from double-coverage) is correct, so I'm not sure that matters because Solevision doesn't care who is in what position at that point in the reporting of the play.

I'm not sure there's a bug here. The basis of determining "top" receiver is the perceived route-running rating (by your scout) of the opposing receivers. That information should probably be in the help file.

The engine is using the settings correctly (except for the basis of the SE double-cover, which, as you correctly noted, is not compensating for the FL double-cover setting).

I'm very confident that double-coverage is effective as a strategy in that it does significantly reduce the chance of completion and, if so, a breakaway run for a long gain. I wonder if it does enough - that's one of those issues I waver on when watching games. Some receivers seem to gain separation at least on one side no matter what's going on.

[michael1123]

Why not just make the choices "double team flanker" and "double team split end"?

I'd almost have prefered the top WR to be considered the flanker in the game just so it would have been clear. I don't see why I should have to guess whether the 80/80 SE that's been injured most of the season is considered the 1st or 2nd WR since the 40/40 FL has had targeted on more passes.

If its just laid out as double team FL / SE it'd be much clearer.

[Ben E Lou]

Why not just make the choices "double team flanker" and "double team split end"?
That would make it far too easy to just switch your best WRs around to avoid the double coverage. Far too "gamey." It's much better to have a system wherein the defense effectively determines the opposition's best receiver, and doubles him. Otherwise, you get into guessing whether the best receiver will be slotted as FL or SE for every game.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm very confident that double-coverage is effective as a strategy in that it does significantly reduce the chance of completion and, if so, a breakaway run for a long gain. I wonder if it does enough - that's one of those issues I waver on when watching games. Some receivers seem to gain separation at least on one side no matter what's going on.

We all saw replay after replay of Moss running right by *three* DBs for long catch. It would be "fun" (in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way) to see some peoples' reaction if a long pass got completed into *triple* coverage in Solevision.

[Icy]

If jkat is not a Jim's second account to help us to understand better the game without revealing it himself, he truly deserves the title of one of the most knowledgeable guys in FOF and for sure deserves a betatester spot as Jim said.

[Hammer]

Thanks for helping to make the picture clearer Jim, much appreciated. No game is perfect, and it can only help to explain whats going on.

I agree with Michael, keeping it simple seems the way forward. But for the mean time explaining a few more details really helps.

[Hammer]

If jkat is not a Jim's second account

Lol, yeah, must admit I have been looking over the way Jim and jkat's style of writing compares :)

[Warhammer]

We all saw replay after replay of Moss running right by *three* DBs for long catch. It would be "fun" (in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way) to see some peoples' reaction if a long pass got completed into *triple* coverage in Solevision.

Every once in a while is ok, but happening 2-3 times a game would have me steaming.

[ace1914]

So would the value of 0/100 still hold true to double the SE?

[MIJB#19]

Well the whole reason for this was to lock down Cleveland's big bad Split End named Jerry RiceYou don't say? I remember thinking I double teamed him all day long, only to find out he never was in double coverage and racked up 170 yards... :o

[DougW]

So would the value of 0/100 still hold true to double the SE?

From Jims post, it seemed to me .. this is a NO.

a value of 0/100 - would double team the WR with the 2nd highest route running rating according to your scout.

Basically what I got, was that jkat was spot on about the percentages of plays the WR1 & WR2 are doubled.

But, was wrong in regard to who is #1, and who is #2. As they are ranked according your scouts value of their route running rating.

Do I have that right ?

[DougW]

That said, I've looked into this double-coverage issue. This is a reporting issue. If your setting is to double-cover based on top WR, the engine gets it right, but Solevision assumes the top WR is always the flanker. The reporting of the double-coverage itself (as opposed to throwing away from double-coverage) is correct, so I'm not sure that matters because Solevision doesn't care who is in what position at that point in the reporting of the play.

I'm not sure there's a bug here. The basis of determining "top" receiver is the perceived route-running rating (by your scout) of the opposing receivers. That information should probably be in the help file.

The engine is using the settings correctly (except for the basis of the SE double-cover, which, as you correctly noted, is not compensating for the FL double-cover setting).

K. I reread, and now I'm more confused.

I get :

1. Solevision always views WR1 as the flanker.
2. The reporting (solevision) is correct.

3. Engine always views scouts RR rating to determine WR1.
4. Engine is correct.

.. Help please :).

[jkat]

Strong Side- Flanker position in Personnel screens
Weak Side- Split End position in Personnel screens


Top WR- Highest Route Running receiver, incorrectly reports as FL1 in depth chart
Second WR- Second highest Route Running receiver (or 2nd outside receiver?), incorrectly reports as SE1 in depth chart

Don't know if double coverage works only on the outside receivers, as in Strong/Weak (unless there is a reporting issue there, too), or if it chooses out of all receivers. Leaving the question of; if the Top WR is in the slot in a 3WR formation will the cornerback follow, and will double coverage follow? Also, if in Orient CB by WR Covered the Top WR is covered by the LCB or some manner of choosing Top CB?

[jkat]

I wonder if it does enough - that's one of those issues I waver on when watching games. Some receivers seem to gain separation at least on one side no matter what's going on.

Double coverage tends to approximate tight man coverage, with the defender in good position. If you look at Over/Under coverage, for example, the cornerback and safety each have different responsibilties in regards to the routes they are defending. As Jason David showed so well in the Colts/Saints game, the player covering underneath is basically out of the play if the route goes to the player defending over the top. In those cases the safety wasn't there, whether because the safety was out of position or David played the wrong coverage, and they were virtually uncovered. If the safety had been there it would have been a one on one matchup as far as playing the ball in the air.

A great coverage corner (Bailey, Springs while in Seattle, Law a couple years ago) will maintain good man coverage throughout a significant majority of plays. Over/Under coverage approximates this fairly closely. The difference is a lone cornerback will have worse position as he can't cheat on any specific routes. The underneath player will have great position to make plays on short outside/inside (depending on what shoulder of the receiver he shades to) routes, while the over-the-top player with have great position on deep inside/outside routes (on the opposite shoulder of the receiver).

If FOF uses a safety in double coverage I would expect it to be similar to this type of coverage. With the expectation being that it would approximate the coverage of a very good/great corner (assuming the players aren't bums) but with significantly more plays on the ball from their positioning and less YAC as there is another defender near the receiver. The stats at <url>http://www.fof-research.com/passinfo.php</url> seem to reflect this fairly well, though it doesn't show plays on the ball or YAC specifically. As it is from solevision or game logs, it is victim to the reporting error (as far as Top/Second) and the stats are probably showing it to be less effective than it actually is when ran by the engine, in that case.

Other help assignments, like inside help and linebackers dropping into passing lanes (to take away short passes to the inside), would be more a product of the plays. The Split Man/Zone plays, for example, would have something like a short zone (CB), deep zone (S), and inside zone (LB/NB) covering one side of the field while the other corner is in man either on an island or with a little deep help. If you were actually watching the game, this is when you'd see zonal triple coverage, especially when double covering that receiver as you'd have the double coverage with that third inside zone still there.


We all saw replay after replay of Moss running right by *three* DBs for long catch. It would be "fun" (in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way) to see some peoples' reaction if a long pass got completed into *triple* coverage in Solevision.

Usually when a player, like Moss, seems to score on triple coverage two of the defenders should already have been out of position from the routes they gave up, as they released those responsibilities to the third defender. While they still trail the receiver they shouldn't be a factor unless the ball is badly thrown. In such situations you end up with a window where the safety should have great position and by the end of which your pass rush should have reached the quarterback, if they don't get there.

In Moss's case, he was released to the inside by the cornerback into under/over between a linebacker and a safety. The linebacker couldn't get there as he simply was not fast enough to have any chance on a deep route, the safety in over-coverage overplayed the outside shoulder, a mistake as his inside help was a LB, and couldn't recover in time to make a play on the ball. The third defender was the other safety who had an empty field and went to help, but he never had any chance. So in the end there was only ever one player who had any chance of defending that route. The LB had the inside zone, where he would of released a crossing route to the other safety on the far side of the field, and was only ever in position to defend those routes. Basically a zone play, not even double coverage, as the LB and S were reacting to where his route went and did not actually plan to be in under/over coverage at the start of the play.

Although, with receivers of that caliber you may see the occasional play where they get two defenders both in tight man coverage, possibly with extra linebacker/safety help, but it is fairly rare to see anymore.

[Celeval]

Perhaps a less confusing way to explain that part:

Strong Side: The receiver on the strong side of the formation. In nearly every formation, this is the Flanker (as the strong side would equals the side with a tight end, and the outside receiver would necessarily have taken a step back from the line of scrimmage, making him a flanker).

Weak Side: The receiver on the weak side of the formation. In nearly every formation, this is the Split End (as he would be lined up even with the offensive line).

Questionable formations:
I-Form/Pro/Weak/Strong TE Pairs: Only one outside receiver. Is the TE double-covered, or no double-coverage?
I-Form/Pro WR Slot: Flanker and Split end are on the same side. Makes the wording confusing, but possible/likely that FL/SE are still strong/weak receivers.
Single Back TE Pairs: Balanced formation, no strong/weak side.
Single Back Trips: All WRs are on same side.
Single Back 4 WRs: Balanced formation.
Goal-Line, 3 TE: No outside receivers

[Ajaxab]

Top WR- [/I]Highest Route Running receiver, incorrectly reports as FL1 in depth chart
Second WR- Second highest Route Running receiver (or 2nd outside receiver?), incorrectly reports as SE1 in [I]depth chart

If I'm interpreting this correctly, does this then mean that when we use top/2nd coverages that we're relying on the chronically unreliable scouts?

[yabanci]

At least I feel better about defending the help file. Despite its inadequacies, I still believe it's by far the most reliable source of information about this game.

[ace1914]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, does this then mean that when we use top/2nd coverages that we're relying on the chronically unreliable scouts?

You are really bitter about the scouts I see?:mad:

[jkat]

At least I feel better about defending the help file. Despite its inadequacies, I still believe it's by far the most reliable source of information about this game.

The help file was right and the solevision/game logs were wrong. That'll teach me not to believe everything I see with my own two eyes.

[yabanci]

The help file was right and the solevision/game logs were wrong. That'll teach me not to believe everything I see with my own two eyes.

great work on getting all of this cleared up.

Really looking forward to the day we see this kind of game log:


New England Patriots at 09:53

1-10-NE 25 (9:53) 39-L.Maroney left tackle to NE 32 for 7 yards (99-I.Olshansky, 42-C.Hart).

2-3-NE 32 (9:19) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short right to 83-W.Welker to NE 43 for 11 yards (23-Q.Jammer).

1-10-NE 43 (8:37) 39-L.Maroney left end to NE 45 for 2 yards (54-S.Cooper, 20-M.McCree).

2-8-NE 45 (7:57) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 81-R.Moss to SD 45 for 10 yards (29-D.Florence).

1-10-SD 45 (7:18) NE 68-O'Callaghan eligible. PENALTY on NE-74-B.Yates, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at SD 45 - No Play.

1-15- (7:09) 39-L.Maroney right tackle to 50 for no gain (97-R.Bingham, 56-S.Merriman).

2-15- (6:29) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 83-W.Welker to SD 35 for 15 yards (20-M.McCree, 29-D.Florence).

1-10-SD 35 (5:43) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 81-R.Moss pushed ob at SD 29 for 6 yards (29-D.Florence).

2-4-SD 29 (5:19) 39-L.Maroney left guard to SD 24 for 5 yards (51-T.Dobbins, 74-J.Cesaire).

1-10-SD 24 (4:39) 39-L.Maroney left guard to SD 23 for 1 yard (76-J.Williams, 42-C.Hart).

2-9-SD 23 (3:59) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass deep right to 81-R.Moss for 23 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

3-S.Gostkowski extra point is GOOD, Center-66-L.Paxton, Holder-6-C.Hanson.

SD 0 NE 14 Plays: 10 Possession: 5:58

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow, I almost fell out of my chair when Jim piped in to clear things up! I like it. Jim, even these little nuggets when people get confused and are barking up the wrong tree make the game better. Keep it up.

Jkat, you need to stay on this board. Your analysis of FOF and the Moss catch in post 46 is one of the most insightful posts I have ever read here. I also am slowly joining the group that really think you are also Jim. So keep it up. You very concisely pointed out to people who consistently find fault with too many passes being caught in double coverage in FOF that it really is nothing more than tight single coverage. That was incredibly insightful.

[Solecismic]

I'd like to pipe in more often. Just have to find the right balance so that everyone doesn't get sick of me. I don't know who jkat is. I don't think it would be cool for me to hide behind a second account. The Jim G. account, not hidden, I'm using for non-FOF posting.

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).

I was thinking about what I said last night about the cosmetic portion, and realized the engine doesn't always say who is being double-covered, so the first error I found was irrelevant to the perception bug people were seeing.

[Celeval]

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).

This would only affect when the corners are put on top/bottom WR, and not strong/weak side, right?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'd like to pipe in more often. Just have to find the right balance so that everyone doesn't get sick of me.

Nope. Not gonna happen, unless you start a thread about a muslim congressman who was incorrectly described as wanting to get sworn in on the Koran.:)

[QuikSand]

Now that i'm pretty confused about most everything, this thread seems like a good place to ask a timely question.

I have just used a top pick to take a CB, nominally listed as a LCB, but my scout says he can move effortlessly to RCB. My team already has a high quality (and pretty young) player at LCB to whom we are pretty committed, and who lacks experience at RCB, so switching him wouldn't make much sense.

If, for the foreseeable future, my likeliest plan will be to slot the rookie as my "second CB" -- that essentially puts him into the second/right role in the current depth chart screens, regardless of whether I'm setting up based on left/right or top/second... at least that's what I think it will tell me.

So... with that backdrop, is there any reason why I should not (or should) move the rookie over to play at the RCB position, rather than LCB? Is this even relevant if I'm using the "top/second" setting for my gameplan -- does LCB/RCB even have meaning in that setup?

[cuervo72]

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

[jdavidbakr]

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

As I understand it (which really is meaningless) it's going to consider the adjusted route running for each receiver (since the RB's receiving bars are adjusted for his position, his route running would probably be lower when he plays WR) rather than considering SE vs. FF.

[ddrrbb]

In a historical league, I have a receiver rated 49/49. He has 100 RR, but 20s and 40s in everything else except 58 in Adjust to Ball (productive nonetheless). My other WR is Michael Irvin with 82 RR, and 80/80 overall.

So, if I move Irvin around from FL to SE so my opponent doesn't know where he will be the next game (to counter the strong/weak coverage), he would be double covered very rarely since his RR is the lower of the WRs (which is a built in counter for Top/Second WR)?

Is this correct? The game already makes him unstoppable, but this maybe more so. Which is good and bad (since my opponent can do the same to me. I just happen to have a great receiver ATM).

[cuervo72]

As I understand it (which really is meaningless) it's going to consider the adjusted route running for each receiver (since the RB's receiving bars are adjusted for his position, his route running would probably be lower when he plays WR) rather than considering SE vs. FF.

This could be - but how is there any way to know what that number is? If you are specifically looking to double the natural WR (w/o attempting to go strong/weak), how can you make a concrete comparison between the two? Granted this probably won't happen often, but I am curious.

[QuikSand]

Maybe you should do some testing.

[Hammer]

In a historical league, I have a receiver rated 49/49. He has 100 RR, but 20s and 40s in everything else except 58 in Adjust to Ball (productive nonetheless). My other WR is Michael Irvin with 82 RR, and 80/80 overall.

So, if I move Irvin around from FL to SE so my opponent doesn't know where he will be the next game (to counter the strong/weak coverage), he would be double covered very rarely since his RR is the lower of the WRs (which is a built in counter for Top/Second WR)?

Is this correct? The game already makes him unstoppable, but this maybe more so. Which is good and bad (since my opponent can do the same to me. I just happen to have a great receiver ATM).


I have faced this situation before. The top rated guy couldn't go deep or run after the catch. Both WRs had high endurance, so I just doubled the 2nd receiver more often and left the top receiver in single coverage most of the time.

He caught a lot of balls but didn't really hurt us.

[Yoda]

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).


Any chance we could find out if this was fixed in the recent patch?

[Fritz]

I see you little man.

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

[cuervo72]

Hehehehe.