Low RR

[merry]

Hi,
If all your recievers have low RR what happens?
Does the % comp drop or does the it remain the same.
Does the new pass distribution simply stay proportional the the recievers RR?

What % of RR does the TE get compared with a WR?
i.e. If a WR has a RR of 50 and the TE of 100 is the distribution 1:2 or more like 1:1, or?

Same question for RB's?

Thankyou,
Merry:)

[Ben E Lou]

Hi,
If all your recievers have low RR what happens?
Does the % comp drop or does the it remain the same.Poor completion percentage.

Does the new pass distribution simply stay proportional the the recievers RR?Yes.

What % of RR does the TE get compared with a WR?
i.e. If a WR has a RR of 50 and the TE of 100 is the distribution 1:2 or more like 1:1, or?

Same question for RB's?

Thankyou,
Merry:)It's not 1:2, but it's not 1:1, either. The other big factor is pass distance. You can keep drop a RB with 100 RR from 60-80 catches to 20-30 catches by throwing downfield more, and you can increase his catches by throwing shorter passes. Similarly, TE targets are to some degree dependent on pass distance.

[Hammer]

If all your recievers have low RR what happens?
Does the % comp drop or does the it remain the same.

Poor completion percentage.


Thats news to me. I was under the impression RR was just a bar that effectively distributed targets.

[Ben E Lou]

Keep in mind that he said if "all" your receivers have low RR.

(OK, maybe "poor" wasn't the right word. "Lowered" maybe is better there.)

[Hammer]

I kind of read thats what you ment. But I didn't even know it would be lowered at all in that scenario. Has there ever been any work to establish what size of an effect there is?

I appreciate in the real world a RR skill is totally different animal, but the help file descirbes it as "their catch frequency". I didn't know it went any deeper than just deciding where the pass is aimed.

If all were low RR receivers in an offense, the distribution would be as if all were high, and the completion percentage would be unaffected. That would of been my answer to this question. Thats how I understood it.

[Ben E Lou]

Part of the problem here is that in 6.2, you could heavily game that system. Just get one stud WR and scrubs with extreme low RR at RB/FB/TE/WR, and you could do stuff like this:

http://fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/chubbyuass.png

That has changed, and I maybe the all-low RR stuff is a residual effect of said change.

[strickzilla]

Keep in mind that he said if "all" your receivers have low RR.

(OK, maybe "poor" wasn't the right word. "Lowered" maybe is better there.)


ok so having a WR corps with low RR but high avoid drops will still lead to "lowered" completion %?

[jeffrey]

ok so having a WR corps with low RR but high avoid drops will still lead to "lowered" completion %?

yes

[aston217]

Ben, TEs and RBs seem to both favor short/medium as opposed to long passing routes, is that correct? In that case, what if you are trying to get the ball to your TE, but not your RB?

[QuikSand]

If the underlying question is "Fucking Receivers, How Do They Work?" then here's a part of my working theory, that might be useful in thinking this through:

My best guess is that if you think of the game as a series of "dice rolls" then there's one that governs something along the lines of "is the receiver open enough to be the target for this play?" My *guess* is that this is probably a selection driven by the play that was called, and also by the receiver's route running rating (and perhaps by the QB's rating for timing, and likely either an assigned defender's rating or some collective defenders' ratings in the appropriate coverage/s, but let's set that aside for now).

So... your offense calls for a play that makes WR2 the primary target. The game does some analysis using his RR rating to determine whether the play will, in fact, go to that guy. A guy with 80 RR will have more of those plays go to him as designed, and a guy with 40 RR will have fewer of them do so. I don't think it's necessarily as simple as a 2:1 ratio, but the RR rating is clearly a major player in this.

Continuing that theory, my guess is that if you field a team with a ton of low RR guys, you will end up with a lot of plays relegated to second or third choices for targets, and my best guess is that this is inherently a lower-percentage option in the game (like, it's sort of rigged to be less precise than the designed play). On a team loaded with low-RR guys who are failing this dice roll a lot, you end up with more "broken" plays and suffer the consequences for it (lower completion %, lower overall performance).

If that framework is useful in thinking about how it works... it's basically how I do so, and it seems to help me keep it straight. (Basically independent of whether it's accurate)

[Ben E Lou]

Ben, TEs and RBs seem to both favor short/medium as opposed to long passing routes, is that correct? In that case, what if you are trying to get the ball to your TE, but not your RB?Not entirely correct there. RBs favor screen/short, not really medium. TEs favor 0-4 on up to Deep, iirc (forget the exact number), so there's some play there.

That said, if your RB has high RR, he will get some of the passes you would have liked to go to your TE. Use a lower-RR RB in passing situations if you want to avoid him getting the ball.