Keeping RB/FB/TE in to block

[Tormaz]

Ok I am not seeing any difference here no matter what I set this at.

I have ran multiple seasons all of them set at 0, 50, 100. The numbers stay the same pretty much in terms of how often my QB get sacked. In a west coast style of offense my RB and TE are still catching the ball as much as my #2 WR. In some cases I have had my TE end up my leading WR with it set for 100 to stay in and block.

So please help me to understand what this really does or does it matter at all what you set these numbers as?

[tarcone]

The game says if the above position is not the primary or secondary receiver this is the percentage he will stay into block. In a west coast type offense I would imagine your TE and RB were the primary and secondary receivers a lot of the time.

[Tormaz]

So in other words I need to open my freaking eyes and read.

Thank you for your help. =)

[Hammer]

We have been looking at staying in to block in the vNFL, and have run tests. It appears there is a problem. Regardless of setting, it makes no difference as to how much your QB will be sacked. This is one of the primary reasons players are asked to stay in to block, so you have to figure something is wrong here. I emailed Ethan on 12th June, but have received no response as yet.

It appears some things in this game are merely window dressing - they seem to have no effect on the gameplay, which is disappointing.

[RedKingGold]

We have been looking at staying in to block in the vNFL, and have run tests. It appears there is a problem. Regardless of setting, it makes no difference as to how much your QB will be sacked. This is one of the primary reasons players are asked to stay in to block, so you have to figure something is wrong here. I emailed Ethan on 12th June, but have received no response as yet.

It appears some things in this game are merely window dressing - they seem to have no effect on the gameplay, which is disappointing.

Have you been looking at formations? I've found that using mainly short passes with TE-heavy formations does help the "sense rush" issue some.

[Hammer]

Have you been looking at formations? I've found that using mainly short passes with TE-heavy formations does help the "sense rush" issue some.


Sure, I know that short passes are less sensitive to the rush, as you would expect them to be. I was just discussing "staying in to block".

[tarcone]

I would like to see the results of the study done. During the study were you able to determine the primary and secondary receivers?

[zbuckley]

I would say having the TE and RB saying in to block would increase the amount of downfield targets. I remember seeing Jim saying something in regards to getting more targets for your WR by setting the TE and RB block % at 100. I'm just guessing here but it would seem that it has more to deal with pass targets instead of passing blocking.

[Tormaz]

We have been looking at staying in to block in the vNFL, and have run tests. It appears there is a problem. Regardless of setting, it makes no difference as to how much your QB will be sacked. This is one of the primary reasons players are asked to stay in to block, so you have to figure something is wrong here. I emailed Ethan on 12th June, but have received no response as yet.

It appears some things in this game are merely window dressing - they seem to have no effect on the gameplay, which is disappointing.

Can you posts the results from the tests you have run so that everyone can see the data you used to determine that it was merely window dressing?

In your tests is there any way to tell who the primary and secondary receivers are since it states that ..

Pass block percentage refers to percentage of pass plays when the main starter at that position is not the primary or secondary receiver, and is asked to defend the quarterback.

If you can't determine if the guys you are asking to stay in and block are primary and/or secondary receivers then how do you know if they are really making a difference or not?

[Hammer]

To be honest I haven't hung on to the data. I would invite anyone to test for themselves if they have any doubts, then they can see for themselves.

I used an AI gameplan with a fairly standard set of players.

I do not deem it is important who the primary or secondary receivers are. Therefore I made no attempt to look at that variable. I think you are over complicating the issue. What I do deem to be relevant is the fact that you can put any combination of figures into the 3 boxes, and it makes no difference. Thus giving us as players, a misleading impression that the staying in to block setting affects your team to any extent whatsoever.

As I say, please feel free to investigate, then you can control variable to your own satisfaction.

[Yoda]

If your view in indicative of your testing, then your methods are very flawed.

It states right there on the gump that this is the % the player will block UNLESS they are the primary or secondary receiver for that play. So, if you don't know who the primary/secondary receiver are (is there a way to tell?), then any testing you do is useless.

One think I would just like clairified, is that it also says 'When the MAIN STARTED is at THAT position', so if you have a backup in, they won't stay in and block.

Which, looking at this from a programming standpoint.

IF the player is not the PRIMARY or SECONDARY receiver
AND
IF the player is the MAIN STARTER for that POSITION
THEN
They might block.

So, backups will never block (and there for, their skills in such areas are useless), and starters will only block if they aren't the 1st or 2nd receiver on a play.

So, how can we tell on which plays/formations is the player a 1st or 2nd?

[tarcone]

I would say having the TE and RB saying in to block would increase the amount of downfield targets. I remember seeing Jim saying something in regards to getting more targets for your WR by setting the TE and RB block % at 100. I'm just guessing here but it would seem that it has more to deal with pass targets instead of passing blocking.


After I read this. It makes sense that it would be this way.

[MrDNA]

I remember when I had a QB with zero sense rush but great bars everywhere else I tried everything to keep him upright. I also ran a pretty robust series of SP tests with a similar QB and found him getting sacked MORE when I had everyone set to 100% staying in to block. Maybe taking away the extra targets made him hold onto the ball longer? It wasn't much more, but still, that's the opposite of the effect I was looking for.

[Hammer]

There were no significant differences in targets no matter what figures I put in the boxes. There was no difference to QB pressure.

You can try to find all the excuses in the world as to why this is so. End result is there is no point it being in the game - whatever you put in, it makes no difference to performance. Don't take my word for it, test for yourself.

[bignej]

There were no significant differences in targets no matter what figures I put in the boxes. There was no difference to QB pressure.

You can try to find all the excuses in the world as to why this is so. End result is there is no point it being in the game - whatever you put in, it makes no difference to performance. Don't take my word for it, test for yourself.

I have seen this also. I think what you are selecting here is how likely you want you RB,FB, TE to catch a pass if he isn't the primary or the secondary. By putting your FB at 100 you are trying to ensure that him being the target is minimized. It's like just a way to skew the pass target percentages but not actually used in the sack % calculation. I obviously could be wrong but never seen any actual reduction in sacks by manipulating these numbers either.

[Hammer]

By putting your FB at 100 you are trying to ensure that him being the target is minimized. It's like just a way to skew the pass target percentages but not actually used in the sack % calculation.


My results didn't show that it did anything of note to targets either. It simply made no difference in any way, to anything.

[bignej]

My results didn't show that it did anything of note to targets either. It simply made no difference in any way, to anything.

That could be true because I didn't pay attention to the targets. I just wanted to keep my qb from getting sacked.

[Yoda]

There are other things besides sacks.

In my limited testing, this reduces the number of QB hurries, the difference in the number of sack varied. But there was a significant difference in the number of QB hurries.

[Front Office Midget]

I remember when I had a QB with zero sense rush but great bars everywhere else I tried everything to keep him upright. I also ran a pretty robust series of SP tests with a similar QB and found him getting sacked MORE when I had everyone set to 100% staying in to block. Maybe taking away the extra targets made him hold onto the ball longer? It wasn't much more, but still, that's the opposite of the effect I was looking for.

That seems about right. If the only players going out to receive are your WR's, how are they going to get open? They'll be blanketed by the defense, and the QB will have nowhere to go with the ball.

Of course having everyone block all the time will lead to more sacks.

[Yoda]

There are other things besides sacks.

In my limited testing, this reduces the number of QB hurries, the difference in the number of sack varied. But there was a significant difference in the number of QB hurries.

In 20 quick testing seasons, I just took the same team, set all blocking to 0, then another 20 seasons setting FB blocking to 100, others at 0, then 20 with TE and FB at 100 and RB at 0.

With blocking at 0
Sacks Allowed Average: 30.3
QB Hurries: 90.2

With FB at 100, others at 0
Sacks Allowed Average: 24.5
QB Hurries: 68.2

With TE & FB at 100, RB at 0
Sacks Allowed Average 25.2
QB Hurries 61.4

Granted, the proper way to test would be have RB's, FB's and TE's of several levels of skill, a generic offensive line and a generic QB (generic as in all 50's). But I don't have that much time. And you'd need to know which formations they were the primary or secondary receiver, ect, ect.

But, this was done with the same team over and over. All I did was save the file week 1 and reload it at the end of the season. Making changes when needed.

Some will accept it, others will call is BS, and most will probably ignore it.

[Hammer]

Interesting Yoda. I simply had everyone at either 100, 50 or 0. That produced no differences, in anything.

I will duplicate your study and see what I find.

[Yoda]

Interesting Yoda. I simply had everyone at either 100, 50 or 0. That produced no differences, in anything.

I will duplicate your study and see what I find.

Well, I really should have gone more in depth with it. But I think it's ok for a base.

The FB that I used was Dan Kreider and his ratings:
Run 51, Pass 52, Blocking Strength 99, Blitz Pickup 51 and 91 Endurance

The TE was Randy McMichael:
Run 65, Pass 41, BS 51, End 92

I selected guys with high endurance, because it says that only the main starter in their position is the one affected by those percentages, so I wanted them to be in as much as possible.

There's alot more I'd like to do, if I had the time (as far as testing goes...especially double coverage)

[Hammer]

I used the same team as in my original test. The FB, TE and RB are all good players. I hand picked them with a full draft. Good blockers, high endurance.

Once again my results showed no difference in hurries or sacks after 10 tests per criteria. I used the criteria you specified Yoda. Actually, the triple 0 setting produced marginally less hurries than when the FB and TE were at 100, although nothing significant.

I'm really looking for something in my plan to explain these results, and why they differ to yours, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

[Subby]

Setting the stay in to block to 75-75-75 is a trap door, just fyi.

[TheMeat]

A trap door? Like to Narnia?

[Firefly]

To clarify, Subby:

Are you saying that if I set stay in to block at 75-75-75 I will go to Narnia? Wow! I'm outta here! See you guys there!

[Ben E Lou]

The Extender weights that I use give negative points to the QB for getting sacked. There's a reason for that.

[direct.entropy]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I have a question along the same lines. After setting TE/RB into block at 0, which helps just a little, how do you get more targets to a stud TE?

[Hammer]

I have found raising your 5-8 yard passing percentage helps more than anything.

[direct.entropy]

That's what I came up with too but I can't really figure it out.

He is an 85/85 TE and getting 20% targeted. I'll pay more attention to 'normal' TE stats I think. Maybe 20% targets is pretty good.

[Tormaz]

Another thing that works is to use heavier 2 TE sets.

I have one team that my top 2 receivers are TEs.

[direct.entropy]

I simmed a few seasons to test a couple of things. I normally shoot for depth at the WR position but when you have a stud TE and want to get him more targets - that's not good.

So, I filled my 3 WR slot with a decent(but really low rout running) receiver and changed my formation settings to use more 3 WR and normal personnel sets. It worked. My TE consistently had the best yards, YPC, targets, and YPT in the league.

And then I turned injuries back on to continue my file and he got injured in week 2. :( But it's still useful information to have just incase I pick up a stud TE in a MP league.

[DeltaWhiskey]

QUESTION:

Does the Developer typically place items in the game as window dressing?

THOUGHTS:

If the answer to above is yes, then never mind what follows.
RE: keeping FB/TE in to block: A team will typically utilize max protect packages against teams that have a pass rush that is superior to what their O-Line can typically handle (i.e. a successful Blitz scheme or against a very powerful D-Line). These packages are meant to be compensatory to address a specific , but hopefully relatively infrequently encountered threats (i.e. if you consistently need to keep the TE/FB in to protect the QB, perhaps obtaining better OL or QB who doesn't hold the ball all day is a better answer). Because of this, when overused, these schemes potentially do more harm than good. Perhaps keeping the TE/FB in is meant as a counter to blitzes.
Comment on testing sometimes, repeating a season/game 20 times is the best test; however, if #2 above is correct, then a test over multiple seasons might be more effective (i.e, in a given season, one might face several sack capable teams or relatively few sack capable teams - NYG, Pittsburgh, and PHI on the schedule vice Green Bay, Cleveland and Indianapolis on the schedule). Rather than repeating one season 20 times, repeating 5 seasons 4 times could potentially yield better data.

[Dave Hansen]

30+ postings over 4 months...

In trying to understand a game functionality ONLY, gee... I wish Jim would at least weigh in on the matter.

Does it improve the protection of the QB and/or a means to effect pass distribution...or other things?

A general overview/perspective from the developer would be appreciated.

[Hammer]

QUESTION:

Does the Developer typically place items in the game as window dressing?

I'm thinking more along the lines that it isn't working as intended. It wouldn't be the first time, so thats my guess.

[Dutch]

I don't know how this works either. But I go with common sense and hope that prevails here.

I keep my FB and RB in to block A LOT, and put my TE out on a route to give my QB another option.


My RB seems to get lots of looks anyway because of some other settings...

YMMV on whether what I just wrote means anything or not.

[Yoda]

I don't know how this works either. But I go with common sense and hope that prevails here.

I keep my FB and RB in to block A LOT, and put my TE out on a route to give my QB another option.


My RB seems to get lots of looks anyway because of some other settings...

YMMV on whether what I just wrote means anything or not.

It depends on the bars of the players.

[aston217]

I've given BP a lot of thought lately. I have nothing definite, just observations I'm gathering in MP play slowly over the recent seasons. First, how chuckd theorizes this thing works on a game mechanics level, and I agree:

-Every play there are two matchup battles going on. pass-pro vs rush and receivers vs coverage.
-Blitz pickup helps you in the former, at the expense of hurting you in the latter. Consider carefully where you want to sacrifice.
-Coverage and pass rush are tied together inextricably. Good coverage yields coverage sacks. Win that battle badly enough and you will also beat a good pass pro unit.

Now for my flippant ideas:

-Blitz pickup tends to hurt the short pass game. The pass rush already has their work cut out with only a short time to get to the QB.
-Less receiving patterns = easier job for coverage = more time spent looking for a target = more time available to get to the QB. Upping time-to-rush from "impractically little" to "enough to work with" >> any extra help another body back there can provide. On average, this is advantage->defense.
-Subby noted early in this thread that 75-75-75 is a trap. I'm inclined to agree. You need one of thes #'s to be low. If you want a short passing game, unless you overwhelm in other categories, you need one solid receiving option among RB/FB/TE.
-If your # for TE is high, you better have a darn good receiver out of either your RB and FB. I think this tends to be unusual.
-YMMV, stddisclaimer.h, and all that.

My feelings about this stem mostly from the OSFL, where my WRs are better than FB/RB/TE at receiving, but the QB's short passing skills are middling (50ish). High blitz pickup all around seems to be really killing the short passing game with fairly little consequence to the longer routes.

I'm inclined to think if there are any dominant strategies here, it's "keep blitz pickup #'s low whenever possible" and "get a decent receiving TE and never leave him in blitz pickup whenever possible." If you can't do this, be creative and pick and choose your compromises. But "maximize WR targets by upping all BP%'s for guys you don't want to throw to" does not, in general, seem to be a sound strategy. And I'd have to say, this seems like more than window dressing to me.

[TheFoosballWizard]

I've run a team with excellent receiving talent, a good but low sense rush QB, a good pass blocking TE and decent pick up blitz RB for a couple years. I maxed staying in for pass protect with the RB and TE and I've had a low sack total for him. I tend to run a downfield passing attack without as many short passes. It's been night and day for the QB getting clobbered since I made the switch.

Caveat: I've put together a pretty good OL too that focuses on pass blocking, except for my C and RG.