The "Quack Attack" - a new offensive gameplan for FOF 2007

[QuikSand]

Behold, the duck.

http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/The_Birds/J/March-07/JR68338-wood-duck-.jpg

Ducks are impressive in that they give you two completely different looks. Everyone knows about the duck swimming on the pond above – they look so calm from above the water, but underneath they have tremendous power.

Meanwhile, when they take to the air, ducks can be deceptively speedy and agile – they are actually quite graceful flyers, on top of their waterborne abilities. All in all, pretty impressive.

http://i.pbase.com/t1/57/483457/4/57757660._JFF0013WoodDuckNE.jpg

As a birdwatcher, I have a certain respect for ducks – I even own a birding book entitled Ducks in Flight, dealing with the specific difficulties in identifying them when airborne and moving, rather than the calmer persona they present on the water’s surface. It’s an interesting challenge for birders, as well.


So, you likely don’t watch birds like I do, but you do play FOF. Who cares about the beauty and majesty of ducks?

Well, try on this flavor of majesty…

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/fowl_ravens_summary.jpg

Hopefully that gets your attention, then. This was from the first season in the FOWL (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/newleague/), the fast-paced league hosted here at FOFC. My Ravens (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/newleague/logo02.jpg) (no relation to the ducks) admittedly were blessed with good talent overall – a high quality veteran QB, a couple of strong receivers, and two outstanding offensive tackles – but our level of performance was very impressive. The 120 rating for the QB is excellent in any environment, but relative to the average performance in this league (where overall stats were depressed by every team having essentially no cohesion) the Ravens passing game was off the charts. And while thee QB was good, he also had posted a QB rating over 100 only one time in his long career before this monster season.

And, if you note the details, we came an overtime field goal away from a perfect 19-0 season as well. Certainly not all due to the game plan, but perhaps some of it was.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/quack_poy.jpg

So, named partially in honor of the QB who guided the team for most of that season, and partially for the dually talented avians whose style it most closely represents, I’m presenting for public consumption the “Quack Attack” offense.


QUACK ATTACK OFFENSE
(Or if you prefer, the A-9, as I can’t resist fitting in a puzzle somewhere)

The basic concept:
-split the offense into two completely different looks, using different formation subsets
-in fairly even run/pass situations, rely on the multi-WR sets, and throw short
-in pass-heavy situations, rely on more base formations, and throw downfield

I created this offense with a certain vision in mind – in competitive leagues, it’s just really tough to assemble the top-tier QB/WR/WR combination that seems to be central to really optimizing your offense. If your team is generally fairly good, you get a steady diet of draft picks at 1(25) or thereabouts, and it’s hard to get anchor-caliber players at the key positions of QB and WR from there. It’s awfully tough to get the draft picks needed to grab those players without getting lucky or making a big investment to move up. Many teams are just going to have to make do with lesser talent at the key positions.

I wanted to work out an offense that didn’t rely on having three or more stars at those positions – especially at WR. I started thinking about an offense that would feature different WR personnel at different times, allowing a team to invest more in specialists – maybe slotting a certain WR into a “mostly short” position, and another in a “mostly deep” position, and hoping to make the most out of each. I think these are the players at WR that we’re most likely to end up with if we’re facing picks in the lower tier of the first round and beyond, rather than the top handful of selections.

From that concept, I ended up with the two-look offense that I’m labeling the Quack Attack. The key to the whole thing is the use of formations… here’s the above/below pivot at work:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/a9_gp_sidebyside.jpg

The pivot point here is the 70% passing line. For the formations up to 70% passing (most of the time, in most games) we use a limited array of formations like on the left - basically just the multi-receiver sets, plus the basic pro formation. However, when we switch to 71% or more passing, we trigger the rest of the formation map – using mostly 2WR sets, and all of the 2TE sets as well.

Why?

Well, there are several theoretical arguments behind the dual look offense. In no particular order…

-The latest patch made short passing much more viable, and not many MP defenses (even on pretty good teams) have the personnel nor the general wherewithal to really stop it… so I think for the first time in memory, a serious FOF offense based on short passing is reasonable to pursue

-Multi WR formations force the defense into nickel personnel, so running from those might have a chance to face less run-D inclined players for many defenses, and the converse is also true – passing situations without giveaway pass formations may help catch the defense off guard more often

-In the situations when you’re passing more than 70% of the time, you likely have more at stake than the standard 1st-and-10, tied score situation. So, reserving many formations and keeping them unused except for this fairly narrow strip of situations seemingly makes it less likely that you’ll hit the dreaded “familiars” when you face a critical (late game) passing situation.

-Allowing some formations to essentially be short-passing and others long-passing, there’s a chance to dictate personnel more selectively. In this offense, you can insert players at RB, TE, and WR who have good “getting downfield” skill for the multi-WR formations, and then go with players who have more big play ability for the base formations. I think it’s a good a way as I have found to really make situational role players fit into the places where they are best suited.

TESTING

I confess I have not tested this gameplan so rigorously as to have a great feel for what it gets out of a generic team, as compared to any particular benchmark. I fiddled a while with the idea of building an offense that would take good advantage of a limited-skill offense, and this structure evolved from that. With one team whose personnel was basically built around the central concepts of this offense, I noted results of one test as follows:

-Using Rex offense for Week 1, held static throughout season: 8.3 wins
-Using a custom (and pretty effective) short passing offense: 9.1 wins
-Using the A9 Quack Attack offense (with split SE roles): 9.5 wins

It’s not a monstrous delta, but those numbers above are from 30 seasons of each system, with everything else held constant (injuries off, same defensive scheme, etc). The win totals are supported by some other comparable gains in the passing offense as well. I do not have full confidence that this offense is truly “better” than a simple short passing attack for an average team – my offhand guess is that it might be a wash – but I think that a commitment to the A9/Quack might well allow a given team to make better use of marginal players on offense, for some improved results.

By the way, if a delta of 1.2 wins a season between the “Rex” offense and the A9 doesn’t impress you, then I’m comfortable speculating that you haven’t done this sort of testing yourself. That is, in my view, a pretty substantial increase to bear out over a fair number of trials.

NOTES ON PERSONNEL:

Two things I’ll note here in this setup relevant to running this offense.

-The QB simply must have wide formation knowledge – since most of the game will be spent among only six formations, if he’s short even two of those, it makes it much likelier that the offense will get so compacted to become too predictable. This is a very tough offense for a young QB to run well. When drafting players for this system, I mostly went for guys with decent formations already known, and preferably “long passing” style QB, who seem to gather the multi-WR formations most rapidly.

-I built the offense around the use of a platoon at split end. Conceptually, I ended up anchoring the offense around my Flanker 1, my best receiver who had pretty high endurance. FL1 and SE1 are the guys slotted in the must-pass situations, so they both need to be pretty good, but the SE1 can be a guy who’s only decent but who has good BPR skill. Conversely, the FL2 and SE2 both are used in most of the multi-WR formations (SE1 is only used when we get to 4 or more WR, so fairly few), so it’s designed to be okay to use short-yardage receivers there – perhaps guys with solid ratings in courage and getting downfield. With the Ravens offense above, I admittedly made my quality SE starter into more of a full-time guy (note his targets dwarf that of the 3rd WR) but in this offense’s purest form, I expect to see two comparable receivers slotted at SE1 and SE2 to get pretty equal numbers of targets.

THE OFFER

So, there it is. The most interesting thing I’ve come up with in trying to think a little bit “outside the box” in gameplanning.

I’m going to share the gameplan files below, and I have one request. Get the file(s), use the gameplan, and see if it works for you. If you like, do some actual testing (not just a few games, but run some controlled seasons, that sort of thing). But if you **take** from this thread, I’d like to ask that you commit to **giving** back as well.

Please report back how it has worked. Or what things you have tweaked (and to what end). If you like it in concept, but want to adapt it to a more pass-crazy offense, give it a try and tell us here how it works. Or, make it a smash-mouth offense. Whatever.

Let’s see if this can become a sort of open source project. I candidly don’t really think this is a massive groundbreaking advance in gameplanning – it’s kind of interesting, I like that it makes me feel like I’m getting more out of my marginal players, but I don’t expect it will turn an 8 or 9 win fringe contender into a powerhouse by any stretch.

Give it a look, put it through its paces, and see what you find. Or, if you prefer a “thought experiment” approach, feel free to discuss here facets of the idea, and what you think might work better if changed a bit. But do share.

THE FILES

Quack Attack Offense – Original with SE platoon (http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/a9_quack_attack_split_time_se.fop)

Quack Attack Offense – FOWL version with full time SE starter (http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/a9_quack_attack_full_time_se.fop)

[Kodos]

I don't think this offense is all it's quacked up to be.

[Izulde]

This intrigues me and if I ever get back into FOF MP, I might try this.

[MacroGuru]

Quick,

I will give it a solid test in some of my MP leagues...and provide feedback and such.

[MacroGuru]

I don't think any game plan in FOF can be truly tested in MP leagues in a reasonable amount of time. There's just too much fluctuation and not enough trials. I don't even begin to make decisions (let alone draw real conclusions) until I've seen a game plan in action for ten test seasons in a controlled environment with injuries turned off and whatnot.

Sorry, I didn't get to expound upon my statement as I had kids fly into my office and the phone ring at the same time.

I will do the general 10 season+ sim with my SP and MP leagues I have set up for personal use.

[Celeval]

This is a concept I've played around with before, but around players in the backfield - a good overall RB and stud run blocking FB in the backfield for formations I plan to run out of, and swap in a RB/FB who can't run routes and will blitz pickup/pass block for formations I plan to throw out of. I didn't get nearly this far with it, but it's a very nice concept.

[cuervo72]

QUACK ATTACK OFFENSE
(Or if you prefer, the A-9, as I can’t resist fitting in a puzzle somewhere)

What better, A9 or ducks?


This will make for some nice morning reading tomorrow. I've never much paid attention to formations to be honest - that is, until a week or so ago when dealing with a limited rookie in IHOF (whose formations don't overlap well with the "starter") and some weak WR. Looks like paying more attention to them could be worthwhile.

[QuikSand]

By the way... one of the biggest weaknesses in my ability to "test" a novelty offense like this one is no coordinated way to check for "familiars." By and large, I presume that the results speak for themselves -- that an offense beset with too many familiar messages will itself be ineffective in the stats and wins area... but monitoring the "familiars" by themselves is pretty much a manual process. I did some looking through game box scores, but it's too laborious to do in any organized way.

Don't know what it would take for some clever script-jockey to come up with a tool on that front, but it seems like it would be useful for pretty much anyone. I'd love to be able to run a script on my team in a MP league and see how often (by quarter?) my team's offense triggered the "familiar" messages.

[Hammer]

Very innovative plan, kudos.

I particularly like the part where you use receivers according to their strengths. However, now you have highlighted this plan, smart defensive players can counter this. :) Very kind of you to share your work though. Its not going to be so obvious to work out others who use the quack offense though, or elements of it, so perhaps not so easy to counter in that respect.

I would be interested to see the bars of the players involved.


Multi WR formations force the defense into nickel personnel, so running from those might have a chance to face less run-D inclined players for many defenses

Are you not weakening yourself so you can weaken the defense? Your running from a poor running formation against the Nickel. The formation doesn't influence the run/pass decision does it?


passing situations without giveaway pass formations may help catch the defense off guard more often

Wouldn't the defense still simply be in pass defense as its a passing down? Your being in a balanced set can't influence that can it?


-in fairly even run/pass situations, rely on the multi-WR sets, and throw short
-in pass-heavy situations, rely on more base formations, and throw downfield

I have encountered people playing these types of offenses before. They either throw short in a situation or downfield. Is that basically the premise?

The former I have found easy to shut down, BnR and 1 deep zone tends to work a treat. The later is tough. If you combine a good running game with downfield passing its tough to commit against either.

So, reserving many formations and keeping them unused except for this fairly narrow strip of situations seemingly makes it less likely that you’ll hit the dreaded “familiars” when you face a critical (late game) passing situation.

I really like this. Only recently have I started to go into the detail of getting certain formations and personnel on the field on those crucial 3rd and 3-7 type downs. I never considered it from the "familiar" aspect, but its also clearly something that should be considered when you are planning.

The results speak for themselves here, great work.

[QuikSand]

Are you not weakening yourself so you can weaken the defense? Your running from a poor running formation against the Nickel. The formation doesn't influence the run/pass decision does it?

You're right, in theory running from passing formations should lessen the effectiveness of the running game. I haven't see this effect to be too profound in my limited testing, but I fully expect this to be a black mark against this offense. It's certainly *possible* to run effectively from this offense, but whether we're eating a 5% penalty or a 20% one, I don't have any easy way to divine.

Wouldn't the defense still simply be in pass defense as its a passing down? Your being in a balanced set can't influence that can it?

I'm not sure what gain there is here, it's more hypothetical than tested. I don't have the game open, but I think there's a potential advantage in personnel packages, more than defensive expectations. Again, pretty much impossible to quantify.

I really like this. Only recently have I started to go into the detail of getting certain formations and personnel on the field on those crucial 3rd and 3-7 type downs. I never considered it from the "familiar" aspect, but its also clearly something that should be considered when you are planning.

The results speak for themselves here, great work.

As I started mucking around with this, I started out with the core concept of building an offense that would work well with limited, role-player type guys, especially at WR. In time, I really warmed up to trying to "beat the familiars" and that ended up being a big part of this idea. I do think there's likely a core idea there that's worth exploring, for those who have more endurance or passion than I do anymore for this sort of thing.

[QuikSand]

The results speak for themselves here, great work.

I don't want this to go unchecked. Seriously, the Baltimore team above benefited from a very strong roster, and was likely headed toward a 12+ win season with pretty much any gameplan in place. Whether this particular system made a meaningful difference, I'll never know... but I don't want it to come off as thought I believe this offense "solves" anything.

It's interesting, it seems to be pretty effective, and it *might* be a useful tool for an offense with limited skill position talent. But I'd actually disagree with the notion that the very limited set of results above say all that much. Just an attention-grabber, more than anything else.

[Celeval]

Don't know what it would take for some clever script-jockey to come up with a tool on that front, but it seems like it would be useful for pretty much anyone. I'd love to be able to run a script on my team in a MP league and see how often (by quarter?) my team's offense triggered the "familiar" messages.

I can do this, will try and churn it out soonish.

Kevin

[TheMeat]

Extremely interesting QS. I have spent quite a few hours in the last few weeks working specifically with the familiar messages as they are the great limiter in any passing offense, seemingly not as poisonous to a running game (for various reasons).

What I had been working on was testing passing offenses using a very talented SP team, trying to squeeze the most yardage/TDs out of my passing game while maintaining a good QB rating and win%. I hadn't yet stumbled into formation usage in great detail, mostly playing with the basic and miscelaneous gameplanning screens but this seems like a superb approach in trying to ensure that when your team is 3rd and 10 in the 4th quarter you are in no danger of getting familiars.

Having a way to run a utility on game logs and get some useful stats not supplied by the game GUI would be miraculous. I've spent hours reading game logs, using FIND to count and analyze familiars and try to figure out how/why/when they come out. It would be nice to know how many 'fams' a QB had in a season, from which formations, and in which down and yardage situations they are occuring. I've also thought I'd love to know how many bad throws my QB has made, and how many were related to familiars, or being hurried into bad throws. The quarterbacks #'s throwing into/away from double coverage, etc etc.

So someone out there make us a log parser! I wouldn't even know where to start.

I like the spirit of your quest here too, trying to do something new and interesting which seems to be at the very least a competitive approach, and possibly a great strategy for the GM who can assemble the players to use the Quack Attack to full advantage. Also, being in your division in the FOWL I was already familiar with Quackenbush and like the flavor you've added, I can see the headlines now "Quack QB uses ducky offense to lead his birds to FOWL supremacy" mmmm, delicious puns.

[Celeval]

I've also thought I'd love to know how many bad throws my QB has made, and how many were related to familiars, or being hurried into bad throws.

FWIW, I don't think any of them are directly related to familiars, not in the way they are hurried, etc. The familiar message - multiple levels of it - is present in many more plays than shows up in the log. However, it's only printed in the log when a negative play occurs. My "working theory" is that it's something that is present throughout the game, grows as similar plays are called, and has some sort of dampening/amplifying effect on the effectiveness of the play/defense; rather than causing a specific effect in and of itself.

[Celeval]

Couldn't remember if I had read that or not, and didn't want to put words in Jim's mouth if I was remembering wrong. :)

[TheMeat]

Now that you mention it ya, I remember reading something like that. Makes me wonder... if a guy had a breakdown of stats from the game logs, specifically things like bad throws and interceptions, it could help gameplan testing. Say you could see that out of 16 INT's you threw 12 of those from the singleback formation... It could tell you, after considering other variables, that maybe you're in the singleback too much.

I think a log parser (is parser the right term?) would be ultra valuable. To simply have a breakdown of your passing/running stats in each formation would be great info for us math nerd types.

[Celeval]

It's been in the works.

[flere-imsaho]

Very cool stuff.

[QuikSand]

FWIW, I don't think any of them are directly related to familiars, not in the way they are hurried, etc. The familiar message - multiple levels of it - is present in many more plays than shows up in the log. However, it's only printed in the log when a negative play occurs. My "working theory" is that it's something that is present throughout the game, grows as similar plays are called, and has some sort of dampening/amplifying effect on the effectiveness of the play/defense; rather than causing a specific effect in and of itself.

Well...I don't think we really *know* quite how the game works in this overall regard. Does it calculate through some sequence of things that could go wrong with a pass play (like... hurry, sack, bad throw, receiver covered, pass defensed, pass intercepted, pass dropped) and then if the play passes all those tests, then it's a completion? or, is there some sort of top-down process where the stats (hurry, PD, etc) are essentially "assigned" after the determination is made that the play failed. From what we see from the outside, I don't think we can say. (And it might not matter)

Regardless, however familiarity works, I think it's safe to say that reducing the number of times it appears in your offense's game logs (especially early on) would be good, all else equal.

[marcmoustache]

Well...I don't think we really *know* quite how the game works in this overall regard. Does it calculate through some sequence of things that could go wrong with a pass play (like... hurry, sack, bad throw, receiver covered, pass defensed, pass intercepted, pass dropped) and then if the play passes all those tests, then it's a completion? or, is there some sort of top-down process where the stats (hurry, PD, etc) are essentially "assigned" after the determination is made that the play failed. From what we see from the outside, I don't think we can say. (And it might not matter)



I would guess at it being a series of dice rolls with modifiers resulting in a final dice roll for a completion.

[QuikSand]

I would guess at it being a series of dice rolls with modifiers resulting in a final dice roll for a completion.

Well, if I were designing a game, I think I'd do it that way, more or less. But there are some things in FOF that don't square all that well with my intuition, so I'm trying to play it safe and just declare that I don't think we really know how it works. (And I am honest when I say that on a certain level, it might not matter)

One point, though... your notion of a "final" dice roll seems to be disrupted by the fact that *every* incomplete pass charts to a certain documented outcome in the game. For every single incomplete pass in any FOF game, you will see exactly one of the following stats accumulate: hurry, bad throw, pass defensed, or drop. I don't think there's anything else involved -- if it's a linear series of dice rolls like you suspect, then my guess is the very last one is whether the receiver drops the ball, and if he does not, then it's a reception at that point. All just FYI and FWIW and other relevant acronyms.

[Front Office Midget]

The basic idea of this gameplan would have done me really well in the last few seasons of my multiplayer leagues. I had one WR who was constantly among the league's fastest men, 99 in big play receiving until his final 12th season, and was 50-60 in other areas. Unfortunately, he was always below 20 in endurance... I think as low as 9 in his last season.

It would have been perfect to set up different formations to be exclusively for different situations, to make him get in the long yardage situations. Duh.

Well, now he's retired, and we lost in the divisional playoffs last year. Whoops.

[Celeval]

One point, though... your notion of a "final" dice roll seems to be disrupted by the fact that *every* incomplete pass charts to a certain documented outcome in the game.

Not necessarily.

0-10 : Hurry
11-24 : Sack
25-45 : Defensed
45-50: Drop
50+ : Completion

Or whatever would make it a single random generation. Given that random number generation is reasonably expensive computationally, and I'd think that that is actually a much more likely possibility (or, at least a reasonable design, whether used or not), where what gets modified is the chance for each of these. So the total chance for a hurry is modified by the stats of the pass rushers, modified negatively by the stats of the blockers, ditto for sack.. .then defense and drop are modified by the defender and the receiver... etc. Just brainstorming, since we don't know for sure, but it's certainly possible the way mm suggested.

[QuikSand]

Obviously, any sequence of individual rolls could be accomplished by one roll just as easily. Like your one-roll series...the exact same array of outcomes could be generated (albeit less efficiently) by a series of d100 rolls (something approximating 0-10 = hurry, then 0-12 = sack, then 0-15 = PD, etc). Not really a material difference whether it's a series or compressed into one die roll.

The crux of my argument wasn't that the rolls are done in series... rather that there's pretty clearly not a *separate* determination of whether the pass is complete if it passes the various other rolls. There's no such thing as a pass that fails to register in any of the bad categories that just falls incomplete.

[Hammer]

The basic idea of this gameplan would have done me really well in the last few seasons of my multiplayer leagues. I had one WR who was constantly among the league's fastest men, 99 in big play receiving until his final 12th season, and was 50-60 in other areas. Unfortunately, he was always below 20 in endurance... I think as low as 9 in his last season.

It would have been perfect to set up different formations to be exclusively for different situations, to make him get in the long yardage situations. Duh.

The endurance would still be a big issue though wouldn't it? You couldn't ensure he would be on the field at any one time could you?

[TheMeat]

The endurance would still be a big issue though wouldn't it? You couldn't ensure he would be on the field at any one time could you?

Well, not guarantee but if you only have him on the field for your standard formations (the ones you use for long passing) then he would get rested when you used your 3wr plays. And the theory would be that you're choosing when to rest him instead of never knowing when he comes out, and hopefully ensuring that he was good to go for your 3rd down plays and other important situations.

Makes me wonder, if you have a great WR with low endurance slotted as your FL2, and put him in on standard formations instead of FL1 would it bypass the endurance check as it does when you do the same with RB2? I'm off to get drunk and sing karaoke or i'd test it quick, but anyone know if this works?

[Hammer]

And the theory would be that you're choosing when to rest him instead of never knowing when he comes out

I always thought endurance was effectively the percentage of time he will be playing when asked. I didn't think you could "rest" a player. He will just be in x% of the time. Probably wrong, but thats what I figured.

Your FL2 idea may stand up. Personally I feel the RB2 strategy isn't fair to use in a MP league, bypassing a players endurance is really trying to find cracks in the code to my mind, not in the spirit of the game. Its not a subject that has come up in a few of the leagues I play in, bit of a grey area in some leagues I suspect.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not convinced that the RB2 thing is actually an exploit at all any more. I've seen some fairly compelling evidence lately that performance declines when players are overused. (Thanks, Quik.)

[Dutch]

By the way... one of the biggest weaknesses in my ability to "test" a novelty offense like this one is no coordinated way to check for "familiars." By and large, I presume that the results speak for themselves -- that an offense beset with too many familiar messages will itself be ineffective in the stats and wins area... but monitoring the "familiars" by themselves is pretty much a manual process. I did some looking through game box scores, but it's too laborious to do in any organized way.

Don't know what it would take for some clever script-jockey to come up with a tool on that front, but it seems like it would be useful for pretty much anyone. I'd love to be able to run a script on my team in a MP league and see how often (by quarter?) my team's offense triggered the "familiar" messages.

I wanted to jump back to this post. I would love to see more data on this as well. In IHOF (and GEFL too, I think) my pro-passing offenses always were plagued with "familiar" messages.

But in any event, the occurance of the dreaded "familiar" messages always seemed a bit random. Since I run the same two gameplans in MP over and over again, I find it somewhat interesting that no two games are alike in terms of the quantity of "familiar" that pop up. So, naturally, I think the blame is to be placed elsewhere.

I suspect it's more of an equation of matching up my offplan vs your defplan. For instance, if I call for a large % of deep passes and you call for a large % of 4-deep zones, that might trigger a "gotcha" response before the game even starts and that determines how "familiar" the defense is with your offense.

I have never really concerned myself with the "familiar" messages though. While I agree that it can't be good, I generally believe it's trying to stop an exploit. And if the way to nullify them is to nueter my gameplan, I'm not interested. I'll play with the exploited %'s for a quarter or two and hope I score in bunches before they start popping up.

And if it's true that your opponents defplan %'s affect that fine line between "familiar" or not, I'm not going to spend too much time trying to find the gameplanning sweetspot if I guess I'm close enough and not completely penalizing my team (0 and 100 are still bad numbers).

Basically, balance as much as you can and exploit what you think you can. But never try to balance everything or exploit everything in the gameplan settings. Passing is one of those things in my MP gameplans that I'm trying to exploit as much as possible, so I don't mind seeing those "familiar" messages from time to time. Hope some of that makes sense.

[marcmoustache]

I think the familiar issue has a bigger impact on the outcome of a play if you're already the underdog, in that I suspect that it's not a percentage modifier, rather an absolute value.

So if you're running a quick slant against loose M2M, then you're such a favourite that the familair impact is lessened. If you're running into goalline D aggressively expecting the run, then it will have a bigger effect.

[QuikSand]

Well, I don't know how much we really disagree, Dutch. Despite saying you don't worry about this stuff much, your summation:

Basically, balance as much as you can and exploit what you think you can.

...to me, basically sounds a whole like where I am. I really have lost my appetite for testing" FOF, but overall I don't know much about how else to define what "as much as you can" means. To me, your sentence above actually invites testing, rather than refutes it, if you follow my drift.

[Dutch]

Well, I don't know how much we really disagree, Dutch. Despite saying you don't worry about this stuff much, your summation:



...to me, basically sounds a whole like where I am. I really have lost my appetite for testing" FOF, but overall I don't know much about how else to define what "as much as you can" means. To me, your sentence above actually invites testing, rather than refutes it, if you follow my drift.

I think so. I think we've all come to understand obvious things like chemistry is good and "familiars" are bad. But what we haven't been able to successfully do is quantify any of it.

There are, however, certain things that I feel very comfortable about that I like to take advantage of. For instance, when I have a great receiving corp and great TE's, I can afford to throw the ball a shorter distance (vs a longer distance) in order to get what I want (a 1st down) with little negative impact. To me, that's what could be the interesting part of FOF gameplanning. In order for that to work, some of the mysteries of FOF would have to be peeled back for the gamer. Unfortunately, things are so shrouded in mystery that most people shy away from any sort of gameplanning against specific opponents and just go with "what wins in testing". Like me, hence the willingness to keep things not understood as "balanced" as possible.

[QuikSand]

Quick sandbox update

I have been running the Quack offense I the FOWL league, the fast-moving MP league partially housed at FOFC. Last season was pretty interesting, as my experimental defense let us down a bit, but the offense did pretty well, all things considered.

Our personnel in the post-Quackenbush era includes:

-A minimum salary free agent pickup at QB, rated 42/42, although with a pretty good fit for specific bars

-One high quality veteran receiver, rated 69/69

-A pretty mediocre supporting cast at RB, WR, TE, and FB

-A very good offensive line


And here’s the summary for the recent 2023 season:


Front Office Football 2007
2023 Summary for Baltimore Ravens

Year 2023
Record 10-6
Winning Pct. .625
All-Time 157-99
Winning Pct. .613
Playoffs 5-6
Playoff Visits 8
Bowl Wins 1
Head Coach Eric Mathis
Record 100-82-1
Winning Pct. .549
Off. Coord. L. Guthrie
Def. Coord. P. Rasmussen

Baltimore Ravens Team Rank
Rushes per Game 23.6 26
Rushing Yards 104.3 23
Yards Per Carry 4.43 8
Pass Attempts 43.8 1
Completions 29.6 1
Completion Pct. 67.5 5
Passing Yards 321.3 1
Yards Per Attempt 7.33 7
Yards Per Catch 10.87 14
Total Yardage Gained 416.2 1
3rd Down Conversions 48.8 2
Points Per Game 28.0 2
Pass Rush Pct. 23.5 3 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 62.5 8
Turnovers 24 12
Turnover Margin +7 9

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 25.6 8
Rushing Yards 119.2 21
Yards Per Carry 4.65 29
Pass Attempts 32.7 12
Completions 18.8 2
Completion Pct. 57.6 6
Passing Yards 204.1 8
Yards Per Attempt 6.24 14
Yards Per Catch 10.85 21
Total Yardage Gained 311.6 13
3rd Down Conversions 44.2 28
Points Per Game 20.6 18
Pass Rush Pct. 17.2 6 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 32.6 1
Turnovers 31 8 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 41 PIT 34
2 20 ARI 13
3 29 at OAK 24
4 27 at IND 24
5 7 at CIN 21
6 17 at TEN 19
7 35 CLE 38
8 6 JAX 24
9 42 HUT 7
10 31 at PIT 28
12 41 at SFO 14
13 28 NYJ 24
14 52 at STL 7
15 31 CIN 9
16 21 SEA 23
17 20 at CLE 21
$$WC at IND

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
6 B. Heath QB 677 458 4998 7.38 38 11 101.2
**Team --- 701 473 5141 7.33 38 12 99.8
$$Opp --- 523 301 3266 6.24 29 24 75.4

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
48 L. Bartels RB 217 1013 4.67 8 3
42 K. Oliver RB 129 529 4.10 5 3
**Team --- 377 1669 4.43 13 22
$$Opp --- 410 1907 4.65 6 19

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
86 B. Shellhaas WR 210 138 1853 13.43 8.82 8 19
18 J. Waddy WR 100 66 710 10.76 7.10 4 5
88 L. Cook WR 85 57 622 10.91 7.32 4 1
87 G. Lewinsky WR 79 51 713 13.98 9.03 1 6
48 L. Bartels RB 58 43 314 7.30 5.41 2 1
15 G. Warren TE 50 35 382 10.91 7.64 3 2
42 K. Oliver RB 31 22 143 6.50 4.61 1 1
11 D. Samuels TE 31 21 161 7.67 5.19 0 0

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
47 T. Woods S 98 28 0.0 1 3 6 78.2
25 M. Blackwell CB 87 26 0.0 0 5 7 79.3
96 R. Marshall OLB 71 19 4.0 2 2 3 75.0
31 F. Saunders S 59 18 0.5 0 4 8 81.4
32 S. Schreiner CB 56 13 0.0 0 4 15 82.7
37 G. Briggs S 53 21 0.0 0 0 3 74.7
92 N. Goodwin ILB 51 21 3.5 5 3 3 83.7
23 T. Henry CB 46 8 0.0 0 2 6 77.7
94 G. Shackelford DE 40 15 7.5 26 0 0 82.3
78 W. Dotson DT 39 14 6.0 11 0 0 82.0
98 A. Sampson DE 36 7 6.0 37 0 0 82.0


We were not a particularly dominant team, but it’s tough to blame the offense for that. We posted over 5,000 yards passing, and our QB was named OPOY and first team QB (so was our top WR). We certainly went to the pass a lot, but as long as our guy has all the relevant formations, it seems we avoided crashing and burning from familiars.

Anyway, one more data point to consider with this general approach.

[QuikSand]

One season later, and while the team is clearly a full notch or two below the serious contenders (largely, I think, due to my continued meddling with a deeply flawed defensive gameplan) the Quack offense continues to run pretty effectively. Same cast of characters returns, though this season the QB is down 6 points and the top WR is –9. So, that backbone apparatus is depleted, and we made no meaningful additions to the offensive personnel, other than a better-blocking starter at TE.

Here’s the summary:


Front Office Football 2007
2024 Summary for Baltimore Ravens

Year 2024
Record 9-7
Winning Pct. .562
All-Time 166-106
Winning Pct. .610
Playoffs 5-7
Playoff Visits 8
Bowl Wins 1
Head Coach Don Fitzgerald
Record 159-126
Winning Pct. .557
Off. Coord. L. Blanchard
Def. Coord. P. Rasmussen

Baltimore Ravens Team Rank
Rushes per Game 23.1 28
Rushing Yards 103.5 26
Yards Per Carry 4.48 5
Pass Attempts 43.4 1
Completions 29.8 1
Completion Pct. 68.5 4
Passing Yards 314.9 1
Yards Per Attempt 7.25 12
Yards Per Catch 10.59 17
Total Yardage Gained 406.3 2
3rd Down Conversions 50.0 4
Points Per Game 27.1 4
Pass Rush Pct. 18.2 20 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 44.4 22
Turnovers 26 19
Turnover Margin -10 29

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 27.8 21
Rushing Yards 126.3 29
Yards Per Carry 4.55 25
Pass Attempts 29.3 2
Completions 18.8 2
Completion Pct. 64.0 19 (T)
Passing Yards 192.3 2
Yards Per Attempt 6.56 15
Yards Per Catch 10.25 7
Total Yardage Gained 306.2 7
3rd Down Conversions 39.7 14 (T)
Points Per Game 25.1 29
Pass Rush Pct. 14.4 1
Pass Defense Pct. 33.1 2
Turnovers 16 31

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 10 CIN 34
2 34 DAL 27
3 30 TEN 16
4 17 KCY 31
5 28 at OAK 16
6 24 SDO 34
7 27 at DEN 20
8 21 at CIN 24
9 24 CLE 34
11 31 at PIT 37
12 35 NYK 45
13 33 at BUF 17
14 34 at PHI 30
15 31 at CLE 10
16 20 at WAS 17
17 35 PIT 10

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
6 B. Heath QB 689 471 4996 7.25 38 15 98.6
**Team --- 695 476 5039 7.25 39 15 99.1
$$Opp --- 469 300 3076 6.56 26 8 94.1

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
48 L. Bartels RB 202 862 4.27 5 5
42 K. Oliver RB 137 664 4.85 8 3
**Team --- 370 1656 4.48 13 21
$$Opp --- 444 2021 4.55 16 18

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
86 B. Shellhaas WR 202 121 1498 12.38 7.42 10 11
87 G. Lewinsky WR 101 70 814 11.63 8.06 5 4
18 J. Waddy WR 94 69 881 12.77 9.37 3 5
88 L. Cook WR 73 49 474 9.67 6.49 7 5
82 J. Hammonds TE 61 46 399 8.67 6.54 4 3
48 L. Bartels RB 52 41 318 7.76 6.12 3 2
83 Z. Herzog TE 42 28 304 10.86 7.24 1 3
42 K. Oliver RB 27 21 118 5.62 4.37 1 2

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
47 T. Woods S 114 27 0.0 0 0 13 76.4
96 R. Marshall OLB 77 26 1.0 2 1 10 78.7
92 N. Goodwin ILB 73 35 1.0 0 0 6 74.7
31 F. Saunders S 72 18 0.0 0 0 7 77.0
94 G. Shackelford DE 52 20 7.5 15 0 0 81.4
22 A. Jay CB 51 16 0.0 0 6 8 81.7
37 G. Briggs S 48 27 0.0 0 1 3 76.9
98 A. Sampson DE 46 17 12.0 17 0 0 82.3
78 W. Dotson DT 42 22 4.5 8 0 1 80.9
32 S. Schreiner CB 39 9 0.0 0 0 5 75.1
25 M. Blackwell CB 34 20 0.0 0 0 1 77.4


A 9-7 team misses the playoffs here, but I look at key reasons why and I see:

-gathered very few turnovers with our defense
-did not mount enough pass pressure (both DE are good, but really young)
-low quality play from the secondary (same with my top two CB)

Maybe in time this defense gets its act together… but sadly, I expect to ditch both the starting QB and top WR this offseason, so we will be looking for alternatives on the offense. WR Waddy has been my short-passing SE these last two years (a pretty neat division of targets between him and Lewinsky, the downfield guy) but he may have to move into the starting flanker role, barring a trade or a big FA pickup.

Anyway, another pretty solid season… despite the dropoff in skills, heath posted nearly as good a season as last year (missed the yardage record by exactly 2 yards) but with a few more picks. Tough to complain about that from a guy who probably won’t even get a bid in free agency from any team next year, unless we decide we want him back.

[LondonBrown]

Curious as to how you select your WRs. I had the same thought with a RB by committee approach (I have four, all with their own strengths, around the 35-45 mark). Solution I came up with, as I'm playing SP, was to call the plays and shuttle them in and out myself.

[stevew]

Hmm. What about trying to run an split offense with 2 different mediocre QB's. Say a long passing specialist and then a dink and dunk timing type short passer. I might have to experiment with this.

And for receivers, One batch of getting downfield and courage guys. Another batch of "big play" guys.

Who knows if it would work, but i think it'd be fun to mess around with.

nvmd, i just realized you can't free swap QB's.

[QuikSand]

Curious as to how you select your WRs.

Well, that is a pretty central part of this offensive concept. In the starting thread I try to lay it out, but basically I have several formations that are designed for mostly short passes, and I generally have two complementary guys at SE and tend to use the "short pass" specialist in those setups. In other formations, I use the "long pass" guy instead.

My usual staff setup for the Quack is as follows:

FL1 = overall star caliber player
FL2 = short passing reserve
SE1 = short passing guy (high GD)
SE2 = long passing guy (high BPR)

It's a lot cheaper and easier to stock the shelves this way than to try to pull together a full 2-3 top grade receivers, one of the driving ideas behind the entire concept here.

[TheMeat]

While testing a 3WR style run offense I was reading through some game logs and I seemed to notice that when my test team was in 3WR sets it didn't always force the D into nickel packages......

New Jersey: Single-Back formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with goal-line personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the run.
2-1-BUF03 (1Q: 10:10) Monty Foley ran inside the right tackle for 1 yard. Tackled by ILB Todd Bridges. Key block delivered by Floyd Gatti.

New Jersey: Single-Back formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with goal-line personnel and 1-deep, bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
1-10-BUF38 (2Q: 13:26) Leslie Mast pass completed to RB Quentin Reeg for 6 yards. Tackled by DT Kim Corriveau. Reeg gained 5 yards after the catch.

New Jersey: Single-Back formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
1-10-BUF21 (4Q: 08:21) Leslie Mast pass was dropped by WR Roosevelt Riley.

Any idea why not? It made me think of this gameplan and was wondering if QS might know something about it.

[QuikSand]

I don't recall specifically, but it may only be the 4-5 WR formations that force defensive personnel changes.

[QuikSand]

Another regular season in the books for the Quack Attack Ravens in the FOWL, and suddenly the team leapt up to prominence. Not as many passing yards as we had the last two nearly-identical seasons with Benjamin Heath in the irons, but at least part of that was probably due to us being way ahead in a lot of games – we finished 14-2 and a league-best +225 in points differential. So, a welcome surprise.

With a new 6th year QB rated 43/43 overall, who knows all the multi-WR formations except the 5-WR set, I was expecting a step back on offense. Instead, he was sterling, putting up a much more efficient season than the last two, and making full use of the still-declining WR Bubba Shellhass.


Front Office Football 2007
2025 Summary for Baltimore Ravens

Year 2025
Record 14-2
Winning Pct. .875
All-Time 180-108
Winning Pct. .625
Playoffs 5-7
Playoff Visits 9
Bowl Wins 1
Head Coach Don Fitzgerald
Record 173-128
Winning Pct. .574
Off. Coord. L. Blanchard
Def. Coord. L. Fishman

Baltimore Ravens Team Rank
Rushes per Game 27.6 14 (T)
Rushing Yards 107.4 18
Yards Per Carry 3.89 26
Pass Attempts 35.8 10 (T)
Completions 27.1 1
Completion Pct. 75.7 1
Passing Yards 287.0 1
Yards Per Attempt 8.03 3
Yards Per Catch 10.61 11
Total Yardage Gained 387.2 3
3rd Down Conversions 49.7 2
Points Per Game 28.6 2 (T)
Pass Rush Pct. 20.9 13
Pass Defense Pct. 65.6 2
Turnovers 23 10 (T)
Turnover Margin +7 7 (T)

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 23.0 3
Rushing Yards 112.8 12
Yards Per Carry 4.90 31
Pass Attempts 36.5 27
Completions 20.6 14
Completion Pct. 56.5 4
Passing Yards 194.4 6
Yards Per Attempt 5.33 3
Yards Per Catch 9.42 2 (T)
Total Yardage Gained 296.1 8
3rd Down Conversions 38.9 16
Points Per Game 14.5 1
Pass Rush Pct. 12.9 1
Pass Defense Pct. 16.9 1
Turnovers 30 6 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 38 CLE 6
2 30 at CHI 9
3 20 KCY 24
4 18 at NYJ 15
5 19 NED 16
7 24 BUF 7
8 25 CIN 31
9 28 at CLE 17
10 31 at MIA 14
11 45 PIT 19
12 28 at DET 17
13 20 at HUT 14
14 32 GBY 17
15 41 at PIT 10
16 31 MIN 6
17 27 at CIN 10

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
17 C. Patterson QB 568 430 4576 8.06 41 8 116.9
**Team --- 572 433 4592 8.03 41 8 116.6
$$Opp --- 584 330 3110 5.33 11 25 59.8

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
48 L. Bartels RB 232 914 3.94 5 7
42 K. Oliver RB 151 624 4.13 5 1
17 C. Patterson QB 44 153 3.48 0 7
**Team --- 442 1719 3.89 11 31
$$Opp --- 368 1805 4.90 13 18

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
86 B. Shellhaas WR 170 122 1738 14.25 10.22 4 19
87 G. Lewinsky WR 82 66 708 10.73 8.63 3 5
1 T. Farley WR 75 55 497 9.04 6.63 3 4
18 J. Waddy WR 52 40 538 13.45 10.35 2 2
82 J. Hammonds TE 45 36 326 9.06 7.24 2 0
48 L. Bartels RB 42 33 250 7.58 5.95 3 4
42 K. Oliver RB 38 31 155 5.00 4.08 1 1
26 N. Wayt FB 22 19 146 7.68 6.64 0 2

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
47 T. Woods S 88 26 0.0 0 6 9 84.2
96 R. Marshall OLB 86 30 2.0 1 4 9 79.5
92 N. Goodwin ILB 75 29 1.0 1 0 5 76.2
37 G. Briggs S 70 19 0.0 0 0 6 72.5
25 M. Blackwell CB 70 21 0.0 1 6 23 86.5
31 F. Saunders S 67 18 0.0 0 6 5 80.9
32 S. Schreiner CB 50 16 0.0 1 2 8 77.5
98 A. Sampson DE 46 17 14.0 30 0 0 81.5
78 W. Dotson DT 44 15 2.5 13 0 1 82.6
94 G. Shackelford DE 39 15 8.5 29 0 0 82.1
22 A. Jay CB 32 12 0.0 0 1 3 80.6


So, overall – defense played much better, we got well ahead in more games, our running game struggled more than before, but we’ll gladly take the 14 wins and a bye week.

**quack**

[gstelmack]

Well, I tried this for a few weeks over in WOOF, and QB formations has a lot to do with success here. We certainly moved the ball much better, but by the third quarter started getting hammered with familiars and ended up blowing 2 late leads. I like the gameplan if I can ever find a QB to run it.

[QuikSand]

In my view, the real key is having adequate coverage of the six main multi-WR formations (Strong 3WR, Weak 3WR, Single Back Base, Single Back 3WR, Single Back 4WR, and 5WR). My guy in FOWL (Patterson, above) knows all but the 5WR (or did last season). Getting him to include that sixth formation will make some difference, I believe -- but I think the offense is likely unsustainable with fewer than 4 of those six available. Not many young QB will be able to run the Quack effectively, thus my preference for cheap vets in FOWL over big money draft picks who might need 3 or 4 camps just to learn the playbook.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, I want to try this again when I have the correct formation coverages. Back to trying to come up with something sane on my own for the talent I do have.

[QuikSand]

Well, if you start with the base Quack, and flip in a couple of the formations that your WOOF starter does know in place of the ones that he doesn't, and put in the appropriate personnel, you ought to be able to run a customized version of this fairly well, I'd think. While there's some attraction of using the multi-WR sets in standard situations, there's nothing all that magic about it. Why not sub in, say, the Strong and I as your two extra formations to use in those situations, and perhaps pull them out of the "go downfield" circumstances?

[QuikSand]

QUACK ATTACK OFFENSE
(Or if you prefer, the A-9, as I can’t resist fitting in a puzzle somewhere)

As a deep aside... nobody ever solved this puzzle (or tried, or even noticed, most likely).

[Dawgfan19]

Not sure if this answers your riddle Batman, but at least you inspired me to look.
Avian Influenza (http://bioel.stanford.edu/avianflu/sampleA9.html)

[QuikSand]

...appreciate the effort, but alas a false lead.

[dzilla77]

Grumman "Goose" A-9 aircraft

[QuikSand]

This is not easy. And I don't think it's actually google-able in the traditional sense. Searching for terms like "A-9" won't get it done, I'm rather sure of that.

Everything you need is in the top post of the thread, very visibly. I assume you, you don't need to get all the way down to the species level to figure this one out.

That, maybe coupled with the recollection that this thread arose at the time when people were talking about that other gadget high school offense, the A-11 (the name similarity struck me as amusing at the time, the context has seemingly been lost since then).

And yes, the likelihood is that this will turn out to be an unrewarding result, once it's solved. So, there's that.

[DavesGang]

Just wanted to give a long overdue thanks for this.
It was a eye opener for me, and I believe should be required fundamental reading.

Still affects some of my core offensive gameplaning.
I had a QB that was light on multi formations which forced me to adapt the idea...
took this in the direction of making sure the correct RB and TE are on the field as needed.

Never solved the puzzle, but assumed it had to due with 01 language.

[QuikSand]

Behold, the duck.

http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/The_Birds/J/March-07/JR68338-wood-duck-.jpg

Actually, that's all you really needed to get the main element of the now-overblown puzzle.

[QuikSand]

Just wanted to give a long overdue thanks for this.
It was a eye opener for me, and I believe should be required fundamental reading.

Still affects some of my core offensive gameplaning.
I had a QB that was light on multi formations which forced me to adapt the idea...
took this in the direction of making sure the correct RB and TE are on the field as needed.

Never solved the puzzle, but assumed it had to due with 01 language.

Glad you got something from it, sir. I don't think it's as relevant as it was back then -- but I have contemplated dusting it off for use in a league where I have strange personnel, and maybe a A9.1 could be in the offing.

[corbes]

All I can tell you is that you've got yourself a wood duck, the latin name for which is aix sponsa. By happenstance, a nine-letter word.

[QuikSand]

http://lostinyourinbox.com/resources/DartBoard-main_Full.jpg

you're the yellow guy

[gstelmack]

Well then it has to be the aix, or a-ix, or a-9 bit.

[QuikSand]

yup

[corbes]

Not all the way down to the species level. Got it.

[QuikSand]

Two observations:

-I wish the notion of "sharing a gadget gameplan" had taken off in this community more than it did (though I understand the reasoning)

-I might see if there's anything from this that still could be relevant in FOF 7

[BallHawk21]

...I might see if there's anything from this that still could be relevant in FOF 7

Here are the results from my eight-game effort running the Quack Attack offense in FOF7 MP (2041 OSFL):

http://i.imgur.com/nq9kcW7.png

I used the SplitTimeSE version and the only alterations I made was to switch the RB/FB/TE Pass Block % to 100-100-0.

Here is the personnel I used to run the gameplan:

http://i.imgur.com/f0UIyyA.png

I had hoped to run this gameplan all season, but for some reason it does not seem to jive well with my defensive gameplanning and I am in danger of missing the playoffs for the first time in seven seasons.

My average points against this year is 26.6, while it has averaged 18.0 over the previous six years. Also my average yards allowed this year is 362.3. while it has averaged 325.0 over the same previous six seasons.

It seems that the QuackAttack offense is much more pass-oriented in FOF7 than in the previous version. Although, this is a very small sample size.

[QuikSand]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

I think the golden age of a truly short-passing offense has slipped away for now, and this offense mostly just ends up replicating that. High completion %, fairly low yards per attempt, low interceptions. Your QBs probably help a lot, too.

While a nice QB rating of 105 is superficially nice, you'd probably be in just about the same place running a more conventional conservative offense - ad likely with better rushing stats.

[rush_27]

Waco have had great success the last few seasons (four bowls in a row) so I am intrigued as to why you decided to move away from making your own offensive gameplan this season?

For what it's worth, I think you are one of the best GM's in the OSFL with an incredibly talented roster and I think you will still top your division this season after a 5-5 start