FOF8 Gameplan Libary (Offense/Defense)

[kingazzal]

We will share our gameplan's in here, Everyone feel free to share and tell us details what your offense is then ill bookmark it in this original post

The whole goal is create a thread like Ben's Belco gameplan libary.

[Mobarak]

I like it.

[MattG]

Just remember the playbook has to match too...and the number of plays changes for different OC's. So you want to keep the playbooks under 58 or so I believe.

[Sef0r]

Would be great if Jim had the number of plays on the right hand window in the gameplan screen so we know how many of those plays we have.

Then to make it even better, allow us to load a 68 play count playbook even for a 58 play count Offensive Coordinator but not let us confirm it. With the number listed on the right next to the play we can then go and remove the plays where there is only 1 count and get the play count down to 58 to allow us to save it.

[PackerFanatic]

Would be great if Jim had the number of plays on the right hand window in the gameplan screen so we know how many of those plays we have.

Then to make it even better, allow us to load a 68 play count playbook even for a 58 play count Offensive Coordinator but not let us confirm it. With the number listed on the right next to the play we can then go and remove the plays where there is only 1 count and get the play count down to 58 to allow us to save it.

Do you mean actually see the count of each play in the gameplan? That is available on the playbook (left) side under the Cnt. column

[Sef0r]

Do you mean actually see the count of each play in the gameplan? That is available on the playbook (left) side under the Cnt. column

Yes, but good luck trying to find the play on the right hand window quickly enough. At the very least have the plays on the right hand window HIGHLIGHTED when we select the respective play on the left hand window.

[Mobarak]

I find it strangely interesting that nobody has shared a single game plan here...

[Hammer]

I think we are all still learning right now. In FOF7 a really good gameplan was not only specific to your offense and defense, but specific to your opponent that week. A static gameplan really couldn't compete with a moving target. I imagine FOF8 will be the same. Probably even more so on offense as we can be so specific with using our players skill sets.

[korme]

I just found out that defensive gameplans can have more than one play per situation, and I have been playing 1-2 seasons a day for months.

[Julio Riddols]

I plan to share some playbooks I'm developing, but not game plans. Can't use a game plan if you don't have the playbook. Currently developing them but its gonna take weeks before they are done.

[korme]

I plan to share some playbooks I'm developing, but not game plans. Can't use a game plan if you don't have the playbook. Currently developing them but its gonna take weeks before they are done.

I assumed this year people would share a combo Playbook + Gameplan

[kingazzal]

Should be awesome once we get this page up and running, wil teach newer members to learn gameplanning etc much easier.

[sawblade300]

Yes, but good luck trying to find the play on the right hand window quickly enough. At the very least have the plays on the right hand window HIGHLIGHTED when we select the respective play on the left hand window.

This is exactly how I feel. If I want to remove a play from the game plan I have to go hunting for it. If it's in there moire than once, it's a pain in the ass. Having the play highlighted after clicking on it would be tremendous.

Is there a thread we can post this as a potential patch/fix for next time?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Would be great if Jim had the number of plays on the right hand window in the gameplan screen so we know how many of those plays we have.

Then to make it even better, allow us to load a 68 play count playbook even for a 58 play count Offensive Coordinator but not let us confirm it. With the number listed on the right next to the play we can then go and remove the plays where there is only 1 count and get the play count down to 58 to allow us to save it.

This is a great idea.

[QuikSand]

Creating a playbook seems to be like writing a novel. I have several ideas of what I want to do, and I have put together parts of it (maybe 80 plays) but I know there's a lot more labor ahead, and every time I think I have the path cleared to do it, I seem to get distracted by the smallest trifle, and find something else to do. It just feels like a chore, for some reason.

Meanwhile, my teams seem to be doing fine (at least so far) with a mostly Rex playbook/gameplan, so I don't feel a ton of urgency. Maybe in time, good gameplanners will start to lap people like me, and I will feel pressured to do better. But for right now, I'm having trouble overcoming the FOF equivalent of writer's block.

And... continuing on the theme of this thread... if I ever DO get around to finishing my novel, and it seems to be worthwhile, I candidly doubt I'm going to be giving it away for free to everyone who might like to save a ton of time and then use it against me. Sorry, just human nature, I fear.

[bdubbs]

Personally I hate the Rex gameplans for offense so I'm going to give creating an entire offensive playbook a shot. Playbooks are big enough that I don't think you necessarily have to have different playbooks for different offensive philosophies. I think it will also make game planning much easier because of the custom play names

[wustin]

I still have no idea what to do with defense. The AI knows how to carve up my secondary no matter what I throw at it. It's such a crapshoot gameplanning based on formations and the AI generates a different offensive gameplan every week.

[Ben E Lou]

I still have no idea what to do with defense.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/teq3s1tpc8o64ek/zzzTomHanksBIG_large1-599x400%20%281%29.jpg?dl=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ahtnayjudu6pl5/3a570759ac377f26e6414ba0d8d40f45.jpg?dl=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v5x8stuk6b51md6/4b3play-8bfm.png?dl=1

[wustin]

big red bars

[KODIAKBEAR]

I cant seem to get my playbook to match up, or load for my game plan, can anyone provide me with some advice on accomplishing this task?

[bdubbs]

I cant seem to get my playbook to match up, or load for my game plan, can anyone provide me with some advice on accomplishing this task?

Can you clarify a little more? An offensive playbook can be 200 plays and you can only alter it right before training camp. Your offensive gameplan can only be made up of from plays out of your playbook.

[KODIAKBEAR]

I figured it out, is there any FOF8 Defensive and Offensive Game Plans out there to be downloaded etc.

[PikeStance]

Yes, but good luck trying to find the play on the right hand window quickly enough. At the very least have the plays on the right hand window HIGHLIGHTED when we select the respective play on the left hand window.


I mentioned this same exact thing on steam as well. It is pain removing plays and then adding one you like. The verbiage for each play is far too convoluted to read and developing a renaming system would be way too tedious to do.

Jim did a great job creating the system, but is not user friendly at the moment.

-----

I am creating a two back west Coast style offense, but I am no where near where I want to be with it. When I do, I'll post it.

[Ben E Lou]

I mentioned this same exact thing on steam as well. It is pain removing plays and then adding one you like. The verbiage for each play is far too convoluted to read and developing a renaming system would be way too tedious to do. Don't focus on the words; just look at the route numbers. Since I started doing that, I find it far easier to find/remove plays. I may have 10-15 plays that are run out of 212 in a game plan, but no matter the personnel/formation, there's only one 125F0 play.

[PikeStance]

I'll give that a shot... thanks!

[PikeStance]

Ok, I think I just found something new with the recent patch.

In the Offense Game- Plan UI on the right column there is
Play Name | Pers (Personnel) | Type | Rte (Route?) | Cnt (Count)
The Count is new, right? Or else, I am crazy. Things are way easier now.

@Ben: the number thing works,... thanks!

[Sef0r]

Ok, I think I just found something new with the recent patch.

In the Offense Game- Plan UI on the right column there is
Play Name | Pers (Personnel) | Type | Rte (Route?) | Cnt (Count)
The Count is new, right? Or else, I am crazy. Things are way easier now.


No, it's always been there. It would just be good to have it on the RIGHT hand plane. What Ben does is what I do, look at the routes. It's easier, and unless Jim does something with the play count on the right hand side it will have to do.

Now the only thing that really pains me is the fact that it will not allow you to open a gameplan with a higher play count than your co-ordinator. Yes, of course you can build 6 gameplans with varying numbers of play count but really...can be managed better.

[corbes]

For purposes of offensive gameplans, has anyone analyzed (even roughly) the average number of times that each of the situations occurs during a game?

[Ushikawa]

It is pretty scheme dependent (i.e. running on 1st down leads to more 2nd and mids, passing leads to more 2nd and 10) but the AI populates according to the following scheme on 2nd down in my experience:
1-2: 3
3-5: 5
6-8: 8
10-12: 7
13+:4
Inside on 5 or Inside Opp 5: 3 each
RZ: 5

I generally have:
12 in new possessions
14-16 for earned 1sts
2 more than the suggested for 2nd down plays
3 plays each for 3rd and 1,2,3 - I usually just use the same 3 plays
4 plays for 3rd and medium 4-5 through 10-12
3 plays each for the 3rd and long groupings

My method is generally no play appears more than twice (if 3 times then towards the bottom of the grouping)- and certain formations that generate familiarity with the 2nd instance of the play often (i.e. 014, 104, 131) plus counters and PA only appear once each. The hurryup is usually stocked with a 2nd instance of some of these plays to accompany whater is left over from the rest.

[Ushikawa]

Don't focus on the words; just look at the route numbers. Since I started doing that, I find it far easier to find/remove plays. I may have 10-15 plays that are run out of 212 in a game plan, but no matter the personnel/formation, there's only one 125F0 play.

I rename the plays 212 Z5 for example makes the viewing and manipulation must faster. Someday I may invest the time to add the secondary route or a 6 or something for protection but probably not.

[bdubbs]

Anyone have any idea how formation variations affect plays? For example bringing a safety into the box should help run D, but make the defense more susceptible to a deep pass. More blitzers should lead to more sacks and tackles for loss but lead to big plays on short passes or runs because the defense is selling out on the blitz. This is just what I assume from general football logic though, anyone know how big an impact blitzes, safety position, and spies have on certain types of plays?

[rush_27]

It's very random

[Hammer]

In FOF7 a really good gameplan was not only specific to your offense and defense, but specific to your opponent that week. A static gameplan really couldn't compete with a moving target. I imagine FOF8 will be the same.

Just reading back I came across this. Got it wrong here I think. Completely agree with Rush. It is so random that I can't be bothered to write gameplans anymore. I have got it all right and got stuffed anyway, got it all wrong and kicked ass.

Roster quality followed by random luck seem to rule the day. In FOF7 a gameplan could carry a team, I consistently saw that. Those days seem to be gone now, which I think is a shame. Although I know a lot of others wanted the off season to rule the game.

I don't think all the bells and whistles on Offense are what they appear. You may as well press rex. If you try to get clever the game will punish you if you deviate too far from what it considers normality. Tweaking targets and the depth chart can help some I think, but the deeper you go the more likely you are to do something "wrong".

[bdubbs]

Just reading back I came across this. Got it wrong here I think. Completely agree with Rush. It is so random that I can't be bothered to write gameplans anymore. I have got it all right and got stuffed anyway, got it all wrong and kicked ass.

Roster quality followed by random luck seem to rule the day. In FOF7 a gameplan could carry a team, I consistently saw that. Those days seem to be gone now, which I think is a shame. Although I know a lot of others wanted the off season to rule the game.

I don't think all the bells and whistles on Offense are what they appear. You may as well press rex. If you try to get clever the game will punish you if you deviate too far from what it considers normality. Tweaking targets and the depth chart can help some I think, but the deeper you go the more likely you are to do something "wrong".

I disagree - somewhat. I think tweaking game plans are an absolute must on both sides of the ball. From my experience I never get the target distribution I want from rex, and rarely get the run / pass distribution I'd like.

Someone who's willing to take the time to game plan fluidly can also benefit from the fact that most people are going to set it and forget it, so you reasonably know what to expect in a given week. Sometimes you can catch someone with obvious tendencies and take advantage.

For example I just had a playoff game in a MP league where I was going up against the team that was fairly run / pass balanced but I noticed they were running the ball 10 times a game out of the 104 formation and they never passed out of it. By setting a man to man, 2 blitz defense against that formation I was able to stuff the run almost every time they came out in that package.

Another thing I've noticed is that rex hates throwing deep, even on 3rd and long. If you happen to have an elite QB you can probably afford to mix more deep routes into the mix, especially if you know your opponent is heavy in press 1 or m2m against a certain formation.

You also can factor in how often you want to set double teams. Some teams spread the ball out, other teams may funnel the ball to one guy. It's not hard to go through and swap out whatever coverages you're using in your GP for the same coverage with a double team, or without it. Same goes with the offensive game plan, if you know your best receiver is going to draw double coverage most of the time out of a certain formation you can shift your targets to other receivers in the formation.

The more balanced the opponent's game plans are the more difficult it it is to exploit anything specific. But if you can spot some obvious tendencies there is definitely an advantage to be had imo.

[Hammer]

I can't disagree with anything you have said bdubbs. I think your observations are spot on. I have seen exactly the same things as you. I think the difference is in how we interpret what we are seeing.

As I said in my posts some small tweaking is beneficial, for exactly the reasons you mention - if you make a decent job of it. But that is more clearing up a point rather than what I am referring to with "interpretations".

I don't know if you played FOF7, but much of my opinion is based upon comparing FOF7 and FOF8. In Cyber Football League we sim each season over 11 times with the AI in charge, taking 9 of those sims, throwing out the highest and lowest win and loss total. This will then give you an average win total that the AI (or Rex) achieves with your team. We then compare this to what we achieve as GMs.

The point I am making is I have something concrete to look. I can look at

a) The lazy GMs who can't be bothered/don't deem it necessary to press Rex
b) The GMs who press Rex every week
c) Those GMs who write their own gameplans every week (or possibly at the start of the season and let it sit there)

The way you have looked into the game I imagine you will find it easy, like I do, to see what a team is doing fairly quickly. I went through this process in FOF7 and I continue to do so in FOF8.

In FOF7 I made a living at it pretty much. I made changes based on what I saw. Year after year I beat the AI sims total significantly, and consistently. I won 4 bowls in 6 seasons, made 6 bowls in 7 seasons. The league is full with some very experienced players. I had a team that was pretty average, the AI normally hit 7-9 wins. I particularly was able to take advantage of the lazy GMs. "Out gameplanned" them if you like, whatever you want to call it. That is probably a stretch as they appeared to barely have their heads in the game.

That isn't happening anymore. It doesn't seem anyone is really gaining much of a significant advantage on a consistent basis. I think the tweakers and depth chart managers are probably gaining a small advantage.

But when you view the league in general, whether you are an a), b) or a c) it doesn't really matter a who lot. I find that pretty lame. Others probably don't. I don't really want this to become a debate about what the game should be. That should be a separate thread. For me this is about determining what the game is. I don't think many people have spent the hours and hours needed in gameplans to see what the game is.

The Offensive front end looks like it has endless possibilities. "A work of Art" a GM recently called it. I viewed it in a similar way myself, in the past. But in reality I think we are restricted on the Offensive side to what the AI determines to be the "right" way to play the game. Keeping balance, the 113 etc. Again not seeking to debate if this is right or wrong, I am stating how I see the game right now. You want to gameplan deeply you will probably make your team worse more often than not.

On defense in the help files we have a nice looking box with x's and +'s in. When we play these "a" type GMs often we can really exploit them (on paper). Running into Cover 4, getting M2M on them when they are running too much in a given formation. I have been doing this quite a bit. Yeah, I probably gain a marginal advantage from doing so. But roster strength will win the day usually, and if that doesn't random luck will. Again don't want to debate if this is right or wrong, but it is what is happening.

The above is an extreme scenario. Most people press Rex. Now I can't really make any headway against players when I know _exactly_ what is coming. I sure as hell can't make any headway when I don't know what is coming. For me, defensively, the strengths and weakness of the calls are not a big enough factor.

The way the game works I think it has to be that way. Rex is actually pretty awful, and pretty thoughtless. But it doesn't matter, because what you call doesn't really matter much. If you want to see how stupid Rex is just keep pressing Rex on defense. You will see there is no train of thought to what it is doing. Just comes with pretty random calls, no set "smart" pattern.

I am just about hanging in there. The best part of the game is gone for me now. I think a lot of players are playing the game under an illusion.

Even saying all of this, I think the game is still great. It is still massively appealing in a number of ways. I just need to change the way I think about the game, and forget what it was in the past.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

The offensive gameplanning is a masterpiece but the defensive gameplanning is broken. I perfer FOF7 defensive gameplanning, picking who to blitz, aggression towards pass/run, feeling like you can make a defense that could take advantage of your players.

I hope with FOF9, he allows us to create defensive plays. We pick the blitzers, the front, the coverage and the pass/run aggression.

But back to topic;

I found out playcalling from your cordinators plays a big part of a successful gameplan on either side.

I think the list goes; (most to less influential)

Players ratings
Coaches Playcalling rating
RNG (random number generator)
Gameplan

In FOF7 it went like;

Gameplan
players ratings
RNG
Coaches playcalling

[Jstraub]

I'm with Hammer regarding my disappointment in the flexibility and influence of a perceived enhanced offensive play-calling experience. I believe all the tweaks one can do in game-planning are "smoke and mirrors" and certainly don't warrant my time. The rank of influence posted by Husker seem spot on which begs the questions, why so much was put into revamped playcalling in FOF 8?

Two simple and quick examples of the issues.

A. I'm playing a team with a 3-4 front. I scout my opponent and note their WILB is a stud (+ 80 rating) and their SILB is averge (38 overall). As such, my gameplan strategy is to keep their WILB off the field by only using offensive formations like 113, 104, 005, etc. In practice this makes sense right? Gameplan to the opponent weakness. However, because the AI engine rewards balance, apparently, I could be penalized for not including an optimum number of offensive formations.

B. I have a strong left side of my offensive line and my opponent has a weak right side. As such, I want run plays that are run heavy (not exclusive) on the left side. Again, in my experience, I'm punished (or at least get the "familiars warning") if my game plan does not have balance.

Their are countless other examples but in short I firmly believe this " in reality I think we are restricted on the Offensive side to what the AI determines to be the "right" way to play the game" from Hammer.

[QuikSand]

There's an awful lot of certainty being expressed in this thread. A lot more than I'd feel comfortable expressing about any of these topics.

[Ben E Lou]

There's an awful lot of certainty being expressed in this thread. A lot more than I'd feel comfortable expressing about any of these topics.I'll add to the certainty. I am 100% certain that there are multiple statements in recent posts in this thread that are false. :p

[Hammer]

I'll add to the certainty. I am 100% certain that there are multiple statements in recent posts in this thread that are false. :p

Not sure you are really qualified to make that statement seeing as you barely dip your toe into gameplans. At least in the league we play in together. Surely tweaking targets isn't enough to claim gameplan improvements?

If you had anything under your hat I would of thought you would use it in the only league where cash can be won.

I know you try to push FOF in a positive manner, and I understand why. But again, lets be honest or the game will never become what it could be.

[Hammer]

There's an awful lot of certainty being expressed in this thread. A lot more than I'd feel comfortable expressing about any of these topics.

I can't speak for anyone else but I am just stating my opinion, I know it isn't factual.

Looking at your Cards in the CFL, you had 2 strong seasons before this years poor season. But studying your team in those 2 strong seasons I saw no significant gameplan changes offensively. Would you view that as a fair comment?

I would love someone to come forward and say, fellas you are missing a trick. Someone qualified with the track record of getting their team to perform consistently over its talent levels.

In FOF7 several guys did that consistently. Year in year out, well above and beyond. Past small movements that could be releated to smart depth charting, good off seasons and tweaks, I am coming up empty in FOF8. Anyone want to reveal themselves as a gameplan guru?

[Ben E Lou]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ei5nt1r0yjwys3/would%20of%20_clean.jpg?dl=1

[Hammer]

Ironic that last time we were bickering about gameplans Ben, you were telling me the benefits were marginal in FOF7. I would like to think my run in the CFL proved otherwise with 6 trips to bowl in 7 seasons and 4 wins with a 7-9 win team. Now it is roles reversed. I am saying no joy and you are saying you can make headway. I want to be wrong and be missing something.

I wouldn't tell you whats what regarding the draft, so understand words won't really cut it for me when it comes to gameplans. I need to see someone take this system and show that they can outperform Rex consistently, year in year out, in a competitive MP environment.

[Ben E Lou]

You are still incorrect with regard to the CyFL. And to be honest, I find it rather remarkable that after making similarly definitive and authoritative statements about cohesion for years, before being proven demonstrably wrong about said statements, you are still willing to keep fuckin' that chicken. I guess I should admire your confidence. ;)

The fact of the matter is that 8.1 plays differently, and few people have had the time to fully explore playbooks and game plans in this version. I have reason to believe that the ability to improve one's lot offensively with playbooks/game plans in FOF8 vs. FOF7 is roughly the same, perhaps slightly more in FOF8, but it has only been six-ish weeks. The statements in this thread are premature at best.

As far as defense, football isn't rock/paper/scissors, as several in this thread are seeming to suggest. Perhaps there were holes that allowed more r/p/s defensively than Jim intended in FOF7 and they've been closed in FOF8.

[Hammer]

Admire my confidence? The only league we played in together in FOF 7 I have done far better than you in. I admire your confidence! :-) Now I am saying my best weapon has been taken away.

Cohesion. Yes, I think my statements were somewhat too strong in that regard. I believe at the time BPR and SR were causing cohesion to be diluted in its effect. Now I am on joining you on the cohesion train, and since those game alterations were made. I was wrong-ish, but I think the effect of cohesion has grown since we discussed it.

We will see what the future holds in the fullness of time. Perhaps a program or two will be developed in the future that will further allow us to examine statistics. I think that we could possibly gain some insight, which could lead to more informed gameplan decisions being made.

[Ben E Lou]

Admire my confidence? The only league we played in together in FOF 7 I have done far better than you in. I admire your confidence! :-) Now I am saying my best weapon has been taken away.Far better? Now that's an interesting proposition. As I said when I took over the team, I build through the draft almost exclusively, and as such it takes me five years to get a team into the state I want it. I took over in 2038. Just checked the history. We have 110 wins since 2043. You have 101. Even if you want to include the years when I was building, you only lead 157-151. *shurg*

We will see what the future holds in the fullness of time. Perhaps a program or two will be developed in the future that will further allow us to examine statistics. I think that we could possibly gain some insight, which could lead to more informed gameplan decisions being made....or we'll start seeing more people figuring out how to push the limits to do stuff like this.

http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=33354

(Those three recent seasons are all 8.1.)

Or this...

RB Shane Thomas Player Details (http://www.fof-ihof.com/playercard.php?playerid=55728) (2069 with Air Coryell in 8.1)

Or this...

RB Kerry Donovan Player Details (http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=39997)

When it comes to game plans, I'm far more concerned about guys with marginal bars putting up monster seasons than perceived gains that come from week-to-week tweaks.

[Hammer]

I think you are missing the point, it isn't about stat building or manipulating stats. It is about winning. Out performing Rex in win totals. Yes you can manipulate stats easily.

You have only really come on par since FOF8 came around, although even then only in regular season win totals not bowls wins. The playoffs were when I put it up a gear in the gameplan stakes. Like I say, it is a different game now. You should do well as you draft well.

[Hammer]

The more you push your players into abnormal stats the worse your team will perform. The more you dip your hand into changing the structure of Rex the worse your team will perform. A few target tweaks can help some, beyond that slippery slope.

[Ben E Lou]

I think you are missing the point, it isn't about stat building or manipulating stats. It is about winning. Out performing Rex in win totals. Yes you can manipulate stats easily.

1. It's more fun to me to be in several leagues that move quickly and not bother with some of the details but get to observe some crazy statistical performances in multiple setups, even if that means I might win a little less frequently than if I were focused on 2-3 leagues. That's just what I call "fun." You seem incapable or unwilling to comprehend that there are other ways to enjoy a computer game besides your preferred way, and continue to stubbornly insist that success only be measured in the way you think it should be. You can't tell me what I think is most important to me. I don't find the minutiae fun. I'm a big-picture thinker in this game, and as such my interest is in decades of performance over seasons.

2. If there exists serious ability to push the limits with high efficiency (i.e. above the curve in ypa/ypt/ypc,) wins will follow that. That has been proven again and again.

You have only really come on par since FOF8 came aroundHmmm..ok. 2043-2047 (last FOF7 season)...you ZOMFG WTF BBQ FAR BETTER had 62 wins to my 60. THAT IS CLEARLY NOT ON PAR WITH YOU!!!!1111 I bow to your teh awesome game planning skillz in an outdated computer game. They are clearly far better than mine. *shurg*

[Ben E Lou]

The more you push your players into abnormal stats the worse your team will perform. This is true, but only to a point. See my last post: if you're doing it with efficiency (such as the 10ish ypt WR, 7+ ypt RB, and 5ish ypc RBs above,) you're going to increase wins. In those three BAL seasons of the crazy WR stats, the team won 37 games, for example, targeting a 60ish WR 240ish times per season for 2400ish yards per season. The 10ypt is the key. Sure, I've seen seasons where someone threw 240 times at a guy and got 6.5 ypt. Yeah, that'll reduce wins. But 10ypt will increase them every time.

[Hammer]

Agreed. I will look forward to seeing you can outperform the AI sims in the CFL consistently.

[Ushikawa]

Thought I would weight in with some trade secrets (are they still trade secrets if they don't particularly work?).

Very occasionally when I have time I will make a custom O GP from scratch. Looking primarily at where the weaknesses are in the secondary and front7 and loading up on plays to those areas (and conversely avoiding the stud D players), this generally leads to fewer plays in 113 and even 122/212. The benefits would be much greater but in my experience for pretty much all the other formations you can only run the play once before running a pretty severe risk of getting "familiared" so this "exploit" is neutered pretty good.

For D, it surprises me how many teams run the same O GP each week when planning. And I definitely get a big advantage by pretty much knowing where to put my strongest run and pas defenders based on that data. Even if they do change it up, you can still log pretty quick what plays are in the playbook and figure out where to put your better players.

Regarding the D playcalls, I took an offseason to log O playcall, D playcall and results for quality opponents and found some pretty valuable info. This was a very mature and stable roster so I felt like it was worth the timesink. Obviously it could be roster-specific as I only did it for 1 of my leagues but it wasn't particularly aligned with the bars. Next time I have some down weeks and a stable and mature D I will do another league likely.

[SweenDawg72]

I will start by stating that I am in no way an authority on anything with regards to any FOF version. Other than I thoroughly enjoy this more so than any other sim out there regardless of what version of FOF was better. I will say that when taking the time, the leagues I have taken the time to work on an offensive gameplan the results have been amazing and fun to see them unfold. In IHOF, NAFL and CCFL last season I had very impressive offensive performances by focusing on specific targets and it worked.

I will say that defense, however, is a totally different animal. I have not figured this out, but does seem to be more about the personnel fitting your scheme than the gameplan itself. This I feel is not too far from the real NFL, a truly great offense can torch a great defense in the real NFL. That is very true in the FOF world. So i still think this is the most realistic sim version we will find out there.

Again I could be way off and I too have the same frustrations as everyone else of feeling like I don't have complete control of my team like I did in the previous version, but when I take the time like I have on offense to explore different things, I have experienced nice results. So I think it it is a good thing that we are all still trying to figure things out, keeps the playing field competitive in my opinion.

[garion333]

This is true, but only to a point. See my last post: if you're doing it with efficiency (such as the 10ish ypt WR, 7+ ypt RB, and 5ish ypc RBs above,) you're going to increase wins. In those three BAL seasons of the crazy WR stats, the team won 37 games, for example, targeting a 60ish WR 240ish times per season for 2400ish yards per season. The 10ypt is the key. Sure, I've seen seasons where someone threw 240 times at a guy and got 6.5 ypt. Yeah, that'll reduce wins. But 10ypt will increase them every time.

It certainly helps that Quik had an all world QB (http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=32287) throwing to the guy. Still 0 rings though, sorry Quik. I guess riding that chemistry wave only takes you so far. ;)

[QuikSand]

Lost track of this thread. But a couple Quik thoughts:

-Let's not all rush to judgment that the outcomes of a season or six of FOF is some sort of definitive evidence of absolutely anything firm. The "AI simming" from the oft-cited CyFL here is a great demonstration of this -- my team is routinely autosimmed by the same AI in back-to-back full season sims to 12-win and 5-win outcomes. Seeing that happen all the time, but then coming away from the outcome of one "actual" season that now we know the real answer is laughable.

-The CyFL "your outcome versus baseline" is certainly trying to measure playcalling and gameplanning, but you simply cannot discount the effects of cohesion and chemistry there, too. It's hard to pinpoint, but potentially massive.

-I think there's room for both sides of this debate about doing a thing too much. Sure, my BAL team overtargeted that WR to push him to 14 targets a game (that wasn't really by design, FWIW, it just happened in a mostly Rex setup of personnel, and after it worked I didn't monkey with it a lot) and he was effective... but the team might have been incrementally better had we taken 5/game and spread them around to other guys. Sure.

-On the notion that the recent BAL team definitively shows that there's some deep flaw with chemistry as a cornerstone... see item #1 above. I'm not conceding that by any stretch. It could be true, but it's not like one sliver of a career arc settles the debate. Evidence (http://www.fof-ihof.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31983) from other teams I build the same way could be submitted as counterpoints... there's no doubt that building on very strong cohesion or chemistry is a meaningful factor in this game, but the outcomes of single games here or there is simply not enough to settle this.

[Hammer]

Let's not all rush to judgment that the outcomes of a season or six of FOF is some sort of definitive evidence of absolutely anything firm. The "AI simming" from the oft-cited CyFL here is a great demonstration of this -- my team is routinely autosimmed by the same AI in back-to-back full season sims to 12-win and 5-win outcomes. Seeing that happen all the time, but then coming away from the outcome of one "actual" season that now we know the real answer is laughable.

I am absolutely on board with this. What happens is one version of reality that you shouldn't get too hung up about. I think over the course of time, say 6 seasons for arguments sake, a clear pattern is something you can certainly take note of. It might not prove anything, but a consistent pattern over the time period is more likely to be factual than random chance. How much, you decide.

At some point with the hours some of us put in, we reach a point in our own minds where we cross a line and think we have seen enough to gain a true understanding. Most of us probably reach the conclusion too early, granted.

In the context of this thread it seems there are a heck of a contrast of opinions. But I bet a lot of the opinions are being aired by many who just tweak a little, or even by those who generally press rex.

Nice post though, thought provoking.

[Ben E Lou]

I've always assumed that the CyFL AI sims are done with injuries on, and that's a big reason that we see more variation than what is normal in multi-sim testing.

[garion333]

-On the notion that the recent BAL team definitively shows that there's some deep flaw with chemistry as a cornerstone... see item #1 above. I'm not conceding that by any stretch. It could be true, but it's not like one sliver of a career arc settles the debate. Evidence (http://www.fof-ihof.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31983) from other teams I build the same way could be submitted as counterpoints... there's no doubt that building on very strong cohesion or chemistry is a meaningful factor in this game, but the outcomes of single games here or there is simply not enough to settle this.

Good gawd, Quik, I was just yanking your chain not making deep comments about chemistry. People can build teams however they want as there's very much more than one way to do so.

[QuikSand]

Good gawd, Quik, I was just yanking your chain not making deep comments about chemistry. People can build teams however they want as there's very much more than one way to do so.

I'm just yanking back, since this thread seems to be evolving into one of those "well, here's what is definitely so" things. Not pissed off, sorry if I suggested that tone. Small sample sizes just underline and undermine nearly everything we are discussing.

[Ushikawa]

BTW, I just took a good gander at play fits during TC and holy cow the pass routes now play a significant role in determining fits- i.e. for Ehr-Perk it is hard to find solid or better fits on intermediate and deep routes (5-8).

We were running an intermediate passing game and ended up having to redo a good bit of the playbook to keep our only Solid and better fit thing going.

As with everything FOF, how much does fit matter? Who the heck knows? But a man has to have a code.

[Front Office Midget]

I disagree - somewhat. I think tweaking game plans are an absolute must on both sides of the ball. From my experience I never get the target distribution I want from rex, and rarely get the run / pass distribution I'd like.

Someone who's willing to take the time to game plan fluidly can also benefit from the fact that most people are going to set it and forget it, so you reasonably know what to expect in a given week. Sometimes you can catch someone with obvious tendencies and take advantage.

For example I just had a playoff game in a MP league where I was going up against the team that was fairly run / pass balanced but I noticed they were running the ball 10 times a game out of the 104 formation and they never passed out of it. By setting a man to man, 2 blitz defense against that formation I was able to stuff the run almost every time they came out in that package.

Another thing I've noticed is that rex hates throwing deep, even on 3rd and long. If you happen to have an elite QB you can probably afford to mix more deep routes into the mix, especially if you know your opponent is heavy in press 1 or m2m against a certain formation.

You also can factor in how often you want to set double teams. Some teams spread the ball out, other teams may funnel the ball to one guy. It's not hard to go through and swap out whatever coverages you're using in your GP for the same coverage with a double team, or without it. Same goes with the offensive game plan, if you know your best receiver is going to draw double coverage most of the time out of a certain formation you can shift your targets to other receivers in the formation.

The more balanced the opponent's game plans are the more difficult it it is to exploit anything specific. But if you can spot some obvious tendencies there is definitely an advantage to be had imo.

When you study an opponents' game plan, do you just use the film room? Or do you study game logs? Is there a utility I missed that helps us analyze other teams' game plans?

[Sharkn20]

When you study an opponents' game plan, do you just use the film room? Or do you study game logs? Is there a utility I missed that helps us analyze other teams' game plans?

I use both, film vision to give an idea of what to expect, then situational plays in the game log, 3rd and short, 3rd and long and goal line mostly.