Minwage Defense - a public FOF gameplan file, with testing results

[QuikSand]

The Minwage Defense

A not-very-good gameplan open to public use, comment, criticism, and input.

With test results, courtesy of the QuikTest Template

DOWNLOAD THE MINWAGE DEFENSIVE GAMEPLAN HERE

DOWNLOAD THE EXCEL TEST RESULTS HERE


I don’t expect this to be anything terribly groundbreaking, but I thought I would share a novelty defense that I have been playing with a bit of late. Actually, I built a new team, in single player, over a few seasons, around playing an unusual offense and defense – the offense is a total trainwreck and not worth discussing much, but the defense seems to be… well, okay. Maybe average. Maybe it would even work okay with perfectly-designed personnel. In any event, here’s the scheme:


THE SCHEME

The Minwage Defense is a 3-4 front, which will spend nearly all its time with nickel personnel on the field – making it essentially a 3-3-5 (maybe you’ll the minwage references there, if you’re roughly as old as I am and worked for $3.35 during your summer vacations like I did). The defense also employs blitzing on nearly every down on which it suspects a possible pass.

The settings I have been using on my “Defensive Personnel Choices” (which don’t seem to carry over as part of the saved gameplan) are as follows:

                  Opp 1 to Own 21         Own Red Zone
                 AR   R    P    AP      AR   R    P    AP
Goal Line        40   0    0    0       40   0    0    0
Nickel           60  100  100   70      60  100  100   70
Dime              0   0    0    30       0   0    0    30
Blitz 1&2         0   0    60   99       0   0    60   99
Blitz 3&4         0   0    70   99       0   0    70   99
Blitz 2+          0   0    50   50       0   0    50   50

So – almost always in nickel, only occasionally in goalline or dime. When we suspect the pass, we almost always send someone, often two.


THE PERSONNEL

Admittedly – the team that I built with this defense in mind has defensive backs who (mostly) have pretty respectable run defense ratings. But essentially, I was playing this defense with a team that features one star-caliber CB, one star caliber SS (without great run D talent, sadly), and mostly later draft picks and undrafted rookies elsewhere. The defensive line features three top tier players, and the linebacking corps included a star-caliber MLB. Here is the scouting summary of the team in total:

Front Office Football 2007
Dade County Gridlock Roster, Scout Overview
   
  Player                #   Pos   Start Exp  Current Estimate  Future Estimate Cntrct 
Griffith, Nicky         11  QB    QB    2    51                73                4 yrs
##Levi, Bucky           17  QB          9    33                40                2 yrs
Buckner, Donnie         12  QB          13   24                37                2 yrs
Talley, Andrew          19  QB          3    22                40                1 yr.
Godfrey, Tony           44  RB    RB    7    49                49                3 yrs
Gordon, Floyd           46  RB          3    30                32                1 yr.
Andrew, Cris            31  RB          2    26                42                2 yrs
Pearson, Rick           43  FB          4    42                42                3 yrs
Forrest, Victor         40  FB    FB    2    24                56                1 yr.
Rivera, Willie          89  TE          5    51                51                1 yr.
Bernard, Randall        82  TE    TE    5    44                54                1 yr.
Montgomery, Richie      88  FL    FL    6    75                75                4 yrs
Bernard, Travis         84  FL          6    40                40                1 yr.
##McLean, J.B.          86  FL          1    9                 16                3 yrs
Ellis, Chad             80  SE    SE    6    52                52                3 yrs
Guzowski, Bryan         81  SE          1    29                57                3 yrs
Harzstark, Wayne        83  SE          1    24                46                1 yr.
Ottesen, Renaldo        51  C     C     4    45                45                1 yr.
Waas, Alfred            59  C           4    44                44                2 yrs
##Tucker, Clarence      50  C           1    18                37                1 yr.
Farley, Butch           64  LG    LG    7    68                68                2 yrs
Patten, Clay            63  RG    RG    7    55                55                2 yrs
Whaley, Karl            73  LT          8    49                49                2 yrs
Poole, Dana             69  LT    LT    2    27                59                2 yrs
Gaines, Tyrell          61  RT    RT    3    53                53                1 yr.
Nelson, Frank           65  RT          7    51                51                1 yr.
Eblen, Fred             1   P           8    44                44                2 yrs
Kalu, Raymond           16  K           1    29                43                1 yr.
Gardner, Martin         75  LDE   LDE   8    63                63                1 yr.
##Compton, Cary         93  LDE         1    23                44                1 yr.
Franklin, Randal        74  LDE         2    20                51                2 yrs
Cage, Jessie            90  RDE   RDE   2    96                96                4 yrs
Gress, Randy            78  RDE         4    32                44                1 yr.
##Shapiro, Winfred      97  RDE         1    29                37                3 yrs
Manning, Sean           76  NT    NT    5    60                60                2 yrs
Westbrook, Mike         70  NT          1    20                48                3 yrs
##Bruener, Sedrick      71  NT          1    20                30                1 yr.
McGee, Gene             5   SILB  SILB  4    69                69                2 yrs
Wilkerson, Gilbert      92  SILB  WILB  6    56                56                1 yr.
Greene, Daryl           52  WILB        5    26                40                2 yrs
Dawkins, Lonnie         53  SLB   SLB   8    35                35                1 yr.
Joyner, Roderick        54  SLB         2    16                33                2 yrs
Ward, Ross              96  WLB   WLB   6    54                54                2 yrs
DiBlasio, Jim           55  WLB         10   15                15                1 yr.
Sanders, Joseph         33  LCB   LCB   7    67                67                4 yrs
Grant, Deon             47  LCB         3    37                56                1 yr.
Woods, Paul             37  RCB   RCB   5    55                55                1 yr.
Lyon, Burt              27  RCB         6    41                41                1 yr.
Young, Ike              41  RCB         5    35                41                2 yrs
##Radford, Cornell      25  RCB         2    26                47                2 yrs
Lyle, Deron             39  SS    SS    5    75                75                1 yr.
Dyer, Clayton           22  FS    FS    5    47                47                2 yrs
Poirier, Jeff           38  FS          6    39                39                1 yr.

So, a pretty solid roster on defense. Nothing that would be terribly difficult to assemble in a single player career, I suspect.


A NOTE ON DEPTH CHARTING

A real twist here is that by using the nickel defense so heavily, you render nearly your entire concept of substitution moot. The players who are listed as #1 and #2 in your main depth chart don’t matter, because this team **never** plays in the base defense. Indeed, for whatever reason, it appears that the nickel defense personnel will get very close to **all** your snaps on this team. I don’t yet know whether there is a penalty applied to tired, low-endurance players who are nonetheless trotted out for every play – but at the end of a season, the defenders on this team will have a higher number of plays than you’d expect – and anyone not listed as a starter in the nickel game plan will only be seeing time if someone else gets hurt. (In testing, with injuries turned off – my defensive backups saw hardly any plays at all) (Thus, a second meaning for the "Minwage" title -- you can fill your defensive depth with minimum wage hoboes and they will hardly matter... unless they are forced to play due to injury... YMMV)

Dumb, but we play with the game we have, not the game we want.


TESTING THIS SUCKER

Okay, I didn’t promise a great breakthrough. But I have run some tests with this defense, and it seems to work out --- well, okay. I suppose it might work better against certain offensive styles than others, but on balance, this works out okay. Perhaps by making this gameplan public, we might be able to make some improvements publicly, and do better with it.

I ran three different trials, using the exact same team, and with injuries turned off.

TEST #1 – Active Rex (Control)

Here I let the coaching staff change the gameplans each week, while using a 3-4 front:

Wins 11.70

Rush/Gm 29.3
YPC 3.76
Pass/Gm 32.53
YPA 7.08

DYPC 3.93
DYPA 6.00
Pts/Gm 14.43

TEST #2 – Passive Rex (Control)

I thought I wise to try to get rid of Rex’s week-to-week adjustments, so I took his recommendations for the Week 1 opponent, and kept them in place for the whole season.

Wins 11.40

Rush/Gm 29.4
YPC 3.71
Pass/Gm 33.01
YPA 6.85

DYPC 3.75
DYPA 5.96
Pts/Gm 14.43

So... not much differentiation there. That is somewhat reassuring. But we have a baseline from which to draw some conclusions when I run the actual test defensive gameplan.

TEST #3 – Minwage Defense, 3-3-5 Heavy Blitzing

This is with all the personnel changes detailed above, and the gameplan linked in this thread:

Wins 11.55

Rush/Gm 27.4
YPC 3.64
Pass/Gm 34.33
YPA 6.79

DYPC 3.89
DYPA 6.21
Pts/Gm 14.44

So… the defense yielded almost exactly the same point totals as before (eerily consistent there) and was statistically just slightly weaker against both the run and pass. Honestly, with only 10 trials of the system, I’m not even confident that the difference is statistically significant. But it doesn’t appear to be wildly worse than going with the recommended defense – and I haven’t really done any significant tweaking to try to see if it might do better with a change here or there.

DOWNLOAD THE EXCEL TEST RESULTS HERE


ADDITIONAL NOTES AND CONFUSIONS

In my defensive setup, I have blitzing set to what I call the 40-four system – where the two primary linebackers (SILB and SLB) are each set to 40% (the SLB split evenly between inside and outside rushing – I have no clue what to do there, so I just went with balance) and the remaining five defenders set to 4% each. Recall that in a 3-4 defense that drops into a nickel package (here, nearly all the time) the WILB is pulled for the nickel back – so my setup gives that LB slot blitzes assuming he’s a pansy-little DB, rather than a bona fide pass rusher.

Regrettably, the gameplan doesn’t seem to be following these instructions, and I don’t know what to do about it. In trial after trial, my nickel back (CB Woods, from the listing above – as Grant actually plays as the RCB starter) consistently sees at least 5 sacks (he had 5 or more in all ten trials, this is no fluke) and sometimes more (10.5 in one trial). So, he clearly is either (1) getting way more blitzing opportunities than I have him slotted for in the gameplan, (2) being **way** more effective with fairly few blitzes, or (3) some combination of the above. I think the smart money is on (1) but I have not been parsing game logs or cracking Solevision files to prove this – I’ll leave that sort of work (you know, trying to understand WTF is going on in the actual game) to the various technologically inclined types who are working on that project.

So… if getting 8 sacks from your nickel back good? I’m not sure. If he is blitzing a ton of the time, and only getting through of the opposing team has some sort of paper-thin blitz protection (no FB kept in, or else a very low blitz pickup rating?) then I’d think that’s a bad move. But if he is as effective as my LBs in blitzing… well, I guess that’s not so bad.

In this defense, my two outside linebackers – the always-blitzing WLB and the SLB – are generally awarded all-pro honors. Part of this traces to them being on the field a lot, and getting lots of tackles – but I generally see 6-10 sacks from each of them as well. The fact that the third CB is essentially producing just about as good pass rush totals as these two guys is troubling – but seemingly out of my control. Oh, and another note – I can pretty consistently count on the WEAK linebacker – the guy who is supposedly rushing on every single play – to have the fewest sacks among my blitzing corps.

The SLB routinely out-numbers him there, and so does the nickel back… and even the middle linebacker fairly often. This runs completey contray to my general common sense of the situation – if the WLB is just pinning his ears back and rushing the passer on every single play, and the various LBs (and the nickel back) are waiting for the right situation to even bother – you’d certainly expect the better numbers to come from the guy who is essentially playing DE, wouldn’t you? Alas – this one goes into the “bigger question than I’m trying to get at with this little test” basket – along with a few others, I reckon like why the hell is my nickel back blitzing like a fool?).


With that, I will leave this for comment and perhaps input. I have a few more things to say, but they are essentially global concepts and not specific to the gameplan itself, so I’ll drop them into the thread later.

[Eaglesfan27]

I only have time to skim this as I'm about to head out to work, but I'll say in advance thanks for sharing some knowledge and hopefully generating some interesting discussion, as well as (maybe) inspiring others to do so as well.

[wade moore]

What did the sack numbers look like from Rex? Both as a team total and how they're distributed amongst the positions?

[QuikSand]

Well, EF27, that's my main hope here. I have no illusions that this particular gameplan file will mean much. But if we could perhaps kickstart a bit of community interaction on this sort of thing... maybe this could assuage some of the reservations that many people seem to have about the game at the moment.

After all, -- we technically can save and swap gameplan files, yet absolutely nobody does so. I assume this is due to the people who are investing time into testing or thinking or whatever about this seeking to benefit their own MP experience. That's great. But if my MP leagues start folding due to half the owners being completely baffled by gameplanning... then I'm going to be the king of a big pile of shit, won't I? (And I don't really even mean "me" exactly -- as I am not at all on the cutting edge with gameplan development or testing by any stretch whatsoever)

If this considered effort helps to cut off this sort of development, all the better.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by wade moore

What did the sack numbers look like from Rex? Both as a team total and how they're distributed amongst the positions?

Without a detailed analysis, my eyeball says they are fairly comparable. But all the data I have is contained in the linked testing document, and is available for anyone's perusal or analysis.

Looking at the teamwide PR% number from the Team Summary data, I'd guess that the Rex team posted something like a 14, and the Minwage maybe slightly higher.. perhaps by a half point or so. My general guess here is that blitzing in FOF can yield sacks, but not many (any?) hurries or blocked passes -- and to the ability to generate lots of bad plays for the opposing offense (what PR% calculates) isn't as strong as the simple pass rush from the usual suspects.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Without a detailed analysis, my eyeball says they are fairly comparable. But all the data I have is contained in the linked testing document, and is available for anyone's perusal or analysis.

Looking at the teamwide PR% number from the Team Summary data, I'd guess that the Rex team posted something like a 14, and the Minwage maybe slightly higher.. perhaps by a half point or so. My general guess here is that blitzing in FOF can yield sacks, but not many (any?) hurries or blocked passes -- and to the ability to generate lots of bad plays for the opposing offense (what PR% calculates) isn't as strong as the simple pass rush from the usual suspects.

Didn't realize all of that data was there. I'll try to get the chance to break it up to look at a suspicion. I'm curious as to whether your gameplan matters all of that much to your pass rush or if it is really just related to the pass rush abilities of your players.

[QuikSand]

I will offer that I have seen some quite wild variations as a result of **badd** defensive gameplans -- so I wouldn't receive the news that this one turns out roughly the same results as Rex as an indication that *nothing matters* on this front. (I'm aware that's a possible conclusion based on this tiny data set -- but I'll ask you to trust me that there are indeed wide variations possible due to gameplanning)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I will offer that I have seen some quite wild variations as a result of **badd** defensive gameplans -- so I wouldn't receive the news that this one turns out roughly the same results as Rex as an indication that *nothing matters* on this front. (I'm aware that's a possible conclusion based on this tiny data set -- but I'll ask you to trust me that there are indeed wide variations possible due to gameplanning)

I can buy that. I guess I should adjust the question to whether you can have any significant impact on your pass rush with a reasonable gameplan, or if your pass rush is just so tightly tied to your players that your gameplan is not going to significantly increase your pass rush.

[QuikSand]

I don't really know the answer to that, I fear.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't really know the answer to that, I fear.

Right, I realize that. It's the question I plan to use your data to start to answer. You're using Rex and a gameplan that, in theory, should dramatically increase the pass rush even if it lacks in other areas. So it seems like a good place to test that question.

If it seemed like I was asking you to answer that question, I wasn't - just posing it out there as something I'm going to try to use your data to start to answer. Unfortunately without game access at work I can't run the tests, but when I have chunks of time I can manipulate the data in Excel.

[QuikSand]

A generic comment -- not really related to the gameplan being tested here, but to the nature of this sort of testing.


Even when I have run TEN SEASONS of the exact same gameplan, with the exact same players, against the exact same opposition -- there still exists wild variation. If you are not yet swayed by people like me arguing about things like "sample size" -- maybe you will start to see what the hell I'm talking about with some of the stats here.

--The Rex team had a record that varied from 9-7 to 14-2, running precisely the same season and the exact same setup, with no injuries to anyone. PLEASE think about this.

--On the Rex team, the exact same QB with the exact same opposition and surrounding cast -- he posted a season-long passer rating that varied from 79 up to 111. Read that again. SEVENTY NINE. ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN.

--Even a global, teamwide stat can very wildly. Look at that Rex team's Yards per carry allowed per rush. It varies from a very impressive 3.54 to a very unimpressive 4.44 -- over an entire season. Again, same exact players, same exact gameplans.

And so forth and so on... the example just from this tiny data set are staggeringly wide.



Next time you try to talk about how much you are "learning" from your players because of the stats they put up in the last few games... or from the stats that they put up on the preseason... or that sort of thing. Please keep this sort of things in mind. This is a complex system. There are a lot of variables involved. Even holding LOTS of them constant, and running WAY more trials... I'm still seeing MASSIVE variation in results.

When your backup running back posts 21 carries for 148 yards and 2 TD in his limited share of four preseason games, I still believe that the proper and reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these stats is: absolutely nothing. If you want to believe that you're really learning something there, then go on doing so. Butt if there were a technical glitch, and the preseason had to be re-run, be prepared to see the exact same guy, in the exact same trivial sample size, post something like 26 carries for 38 yards and a lot of resulting punts. Or any number of results in between.



Indeed... the biggest question this raises is whether we can even learn anything from a sample of 160 games? If I were really serious about this, maybe I'd expand the testing samples to more like 30 seasons (easy enough to do with this Excel tool, incidentally).

Just something to chew on. I realize I'm most likely tilting at windmills here, but it's a pretty important part of dealing with numbers.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Butt if there were a technical glitch, and the preseason had to be re-run, be prepared to see the exact same guy, in the exact same trivial sample size, post something like 26 carries for 38 yards and a lot of resulting punts.

It's nice to know now and then that I'm not the only one...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I realize I'm most likely tilting at windmills here, but it's a pretty important part of dealing with numbers.

Probably. Some people who read this will still make definitive declarations about players/teams after a handful of games.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

A generic comment -- not really related to the gameplan being tested here, but to the nature of this sort of testing.


Even when I have run TEN SEASONS of the exact same gameplan, with the exact same players, against the exact same opposition -- there still exists wild variation. If you are not yet swayed by people like me arguing about things like "sample size" -- maybe you will start to see what the hell I'm talking about with some of the stats here.

Indeed... the biggest question this raises is whether we can even learn anything from a sample of 160 games? If I were really serious about this, maybe I'd expand the testing samples to more like 30 seasons (easy enough to do with this Excel tool, incidentally).

Just something to chew on. I realize I'm most likely tilting at windmills here, but it's a pretty important part of dealing with numbers.

This kind of thing scares me and encourages me. To realize that the results are this wildly varying would suggest that it's very difficult for me to take responsibility for my team's losses. I can be encouraged in knowing that it could have been a random occurrence of a poor performance. Of course, what is somewhat scary is that the something similar could be said about my team's wins as well as a random occurrence of a good performance.

Quik's point about bailing out of MP because of the gameplanning vagaries perfectly aligns with what I've been thinking. I bought 2k7 to keep up with MP and the baffling nature of the gameplanning has already moved me to drop one league and I will likely be dropping others as well.

[gstelmack]

You're just adding more fuel to the "does the gameplan REALLY matter?" question with that point on the stats.

One thing you might want to add to your output is not just the averages, but also the standard deviations. That would help paint a picture of how much variance there is.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Quik's point about bailing out of MP because of the gameplanning vagaries perfectly aligns with what I've been thinking. I bought 2k7 to keep up with MP and the baffling nature of the gameplanning has already moved me to drop one league and I will likely be dropping others as well.

I just gave up on gameplanning and focus on the roster building (which is the fun part for me anyway). I hit recommend, then correct the egregious errors (like an over-dependence on zone defenses that tend to suck). I just wish I had that single "Recommend" button rather than having to hit a dozen or so...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

One thing you might want to add to your output is not just the averages, but also the standard deviations. That would help paint a picture of how much variance there is.

Fair request... but I can't imagine that the sort of folks I have in mind will be swayed by the inclusion of a technical term that may not be familiar at all. *shurg* I'm certainly open to including something like that in a future version, or having someone else do so.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I just gave up on gameplanning and focus on the roster building (which is the fun part for me anyway). I hit recommend, then correct the egregious errors (like an over-dependence on zone defenses that tend to suck). I just wish I had that single "Recommend" button rather than having to hit a dozen or so...

I have never delved into gameplanning, but thought that checking the AI sets game plan every week was the same as clicking 'recommend' on every screen? If it's not, I need to do more clicking!

[tarcone]

I run a 4-1-6 in one league. Im in the process of evaluating it now. The league is in the early stages of the season.
Im running it in a MP league. I dont play single player.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I have never delved into gameplanning, but thought that checking the AI sets game plan every week was the same as clicking 'recommend' on every screen? If it's not, I need to do more clicking!

That is correct. But I need to make a couple of tweaks, so I can't leave that on (else the AI would override). I want to click "Recommend" once then make several changes in a couple of screens, but instead I have to step through each screen, click "Recommend", and then on some of them make some changes.

[Icy]

Apart from the common feeling that gameplanning is way overrated (sadly, as then, why bother about it?), the thing that pisses me off the most as a 3-4 lover is that the WLB is just like a DE, so why to use a 3-4 if it's exactly the same than running a 4-3 but putting a WLB in the DE position?

Even worse is knowing that running a nickel defense with the 3-4, you are just running the same 3-4 (or modified 4-3) with a CB in the WLB/DE position that is not suited for him, instead of adding that extra CB to cover an extra WR as it should.

[JMO]

So if I was running this defense and knowing the problems with the 34 in this game should I

1 Put a quick pass rushing DE at WLB

2 draft a safety/lb do it all guy/stud and play him at nickel back. Would nickel back become one of the places were u need an excellent player in this D?

I play a 34 in MP and I am thinking of changing back because of the nickel back thing..

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JMO

So if I was running this defense and knowing the problems with the 34 in this game should I

1 Put a quick pass rushing DE at WLB

2 draft a safety/lb do it all guy/stud and play him at nickel back. Would nickel back become one of the places were u need an excellent player in this D?

I play a 34 in MP and I am thinking of changing back because of the nickel back thing..

1. I think in the 3-4 a pass rusher type of LB is essential for the WLB slot. Since that position is essentially a pass rushe, I don't worry about things like coverage from that guy -- my WLB on this team is rated something like 80 in RunD, 80 in Pass Ruch tehcnique, and has very marginal ratings past that. I wouldn't pay top dollar for a do-it-all WLB in any 3-4 setup.

2. I don't believe you can slot a LB in the nickel back slot (though you can into the dime back slot) -- so here I think it comes down to finding proper players for your various DB roles. I can't offer you much insight into exactly what is expected of a nickelback as opposed to a true cornerback -- that's not information that we really have from the game documentation, I'm afraid.

I think that Jim has stated something to the effect of "a DB blitz doesn't depend on the skill of the DB as a blitzer - it's just a function fo whether it's picked up." I assume that is accurate, so I don't worry whether my DBs have a great blitzing skill (like trying to pick up low-weight LBs with pass rushing skill and converting them to play safety).

But generally speaking - in this defense, the nickel back is a full time player, and the WILB is never used. So, I'm not sure if he has to be a stud, but he has to be a guy you take seriously.

3. I don't know that there's a monstrous problem with the 3-4 defense -- after all, my nickel back **is** actually putting up 7 or so sacks -- it's not like he is blitzing all the time and accomplishing nothing at all by doing so. I don't like that I lose control, it seems... but it's not like it's the biggest problem that exists in the game implementation. I don't think it's a deal breaker.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I run a 4-1-6 in one league. Im in the process of evaluating it now. The league is in the early stages of the season.
Im running it in a MP league. I dont play single player.

I might be interested in testing your gameplan with this team. Any reservations about making the gameplan itself public?

Drop me a PM if you're game. This SP team is pretty well suited to a test on that sort of extreme gameplan, I think.

[Daimyo]

The game implies that in the 3-4 the WLB is basically a DL and in the 3-4 nickel defense, the WILB is replaced by a the NB. From what we've actually seen in practice with NB sack numbers in the 3-4 nickel, can we assume there is a bug where the NB is actually in the role of WLB and part of the DL and the WLB is in the role of the WILB?

[Ben E Lou]

Working on a short passing offense posting using the QuikTest Template right now.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The game implies that in the 3-4 the WLB is basically a DL and in the 3-4 nickel defense, the WILB is replaced by a the NB. From what we've actually seen in practice with NB sack numbers in the 3-4 nickel, can we assume there is a bug where the NB is actually in the role of WLB and part of the DL and the WLB is in the role of the WILB?

Not a ridiculous theory, actually. I don't really know how to check this, though. Next time I have the data open, I will eyeball the number of tackles for each player -- presumably the nickel back should have tackles in line with a CB more than a LB... but if this theory is correct, maybe they would be more or less revered (again, on a team that runs a nickel set essentially all the time). WIll post when I can, likely tomorrow.

[jkat]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not a ridiculous theory, actually. I don't really know how to check this, though. Next time I have the data open, I will eyeball the number of tackles for each player -- presumably the nickel back should have tackles in line with a CB more than a LB... but if this theory is correct, maybe they would be more or less revered (again, on a team that runs a nickel set essentially all the time). WIll post when I can, likely tomorrow.

NB
The NB is the fourth rusher. This is easy to see definitively by running only nickel with no blitzing whatsoever and looking at "passes caught against" for a season. The player should have stats resembling a lineman, though deviation from the defensive playbook at the end of games will leave him slightly higher (likely from use of the dime package). Generally around 10-13 caught instead of 3-8 for a lineman but certainly nowhere near the 40 odd passes caught against the other players, including the WLB.

As for the effectiveness of the NB as a rusher there isn't much evidence of any stats mattering, at least towards the passing game (ignoring endurance and any "possibly injury causing?" effect of punishing hitter). I assumed the rushing game would utilize run defense and play diagnosis but didn't pay much attention to tackles when I had tested it. Testing changes of the NB using a wide range, from 80+ rating corners to below 5, showed virtually no difference. As long as the 80+ corner, or any other good enough to start, isn't slotted in a starting position when testing lower rated players.

Over small samples especially, around 10 seasons, some players would, however, seem to perform significantly better than others. After not being able to find any striking correlation trying to see a difference for pass rush abilities (using linebackers converted to safeties) I had nothing that showed me why there was as much of a difference as two or three sacks per year between certain players over even large samples. Unfortunately, out of inattention, I had neglected the positional experience which seems, now, like it may have been the factor I couldn't place at the time.

The success itself, from the NB, seems to be coverage sacks as different defenses would lead to significantly different stats for the NB, from 10+ for very good defenses to below 4 for somewhat porous defenses with additional returns/losses (though quickly diminishing) for very high or low grade defenses.

(In addition I had tested to see if there could be a misnaming issue, where the NB logs stats for the WLB and vice versa, or if certain stats of the WLB were used in place of the NBs and couldn't find even near-negligble correlations)

WLB
The WLB blitzes based on the WILB percentage. Having the WILB blitz every down from the nickel package will result in the WLB doing so, again viewable as a very low "passes caught against" statistic.

In addition, the WLB is in the WILB spot, or "somewhere" very close to it, if you look at the stats he puts up. He will be virtually ineffective blitzing a high percentage with pass rush stats similar to the SILB rather than the SLB who is capable, as an OLB, of putting up great stats at even percentages (total outside and inside blitzing) approaching 100. I can't say whether this occurs as a result of being in the WILB position or "blitzing straight forward," meaning the default blitz direction all non-OLBs usually use, from using the WILB overall percentage instead of the outside/inside direction blitz percentages.

The WLB becomes a non-factor, even with use of the WILB percentage to have him blitz often in nickel, plus this would force the WILB to blitz often from other formations in typical gameplans.

To have an effective rushing linebacker in the nickel (of the 3-4) you have to use the SLB position and a high blitz percentage which will result in bringing 5 men a high proportion of the time. Mainly because the SLB vastly outperforms the ILBs in rushing out of the various formations in the 3-4 playbook. You'd throw your rush linebacker at SLB in the nickel and have your high blitz percentages coincide with high nickel personnel use.

Vs the 4-3
Generally, with a decent-good defense, the NB will usually outperform the worst lineman in a 4-3 of the same overall talent level. However, whether the lineman in a 3-4 compare to their 4-3 counterparts is a seperate issue. I certainly haven't seen a detriment to using the 3-4 especially since the nickel corner can be an absolute bum and a pass rush only linebacker is cheap (though not necessarily easy to acquire), although you need another coverage player or a solid WILB, instead of a run defense specialist, for use in the nickel package.

Other
Keep in mind that you don't want your nickel corner showing up in other formations if he is a huge liability in coverage. You can keep him out of the main 3-4 depth chart easily enough but if he upgrades from the nickel slot in cases of injury or if your coach plugs a better rated player into the injured starting corner slot in the nickel package would need to be assessed.


With two ILBs that are good against the run and in coverage (or a WLB that meets that criteria and can take the WILB 3-4 and WLB Nickel slots) and a good SLB with average pass rush you can put together a very effective defense for little investment (relative to the premium on DL in the 4-3). While being able to use your line for any purpose whether run defense, additional pass rush, or to fill with cheap scrubs.

You'll also want a pass rush specialist (or two to use at the ends in dime) to take the 3-4 WLB role who can additionally play at an end slot in the nickel, instead of your worst rushing lineman. If that is the NT you can just slide an end in and then place the WLB in the end slot, without a successful offense to force them to pass this is also a good way to get it run down your throat all game which you might want to avoid. While cheap, and in single player easy to find, those 20-40 rated OLB pass rush specialist can be quite sought after, even if not as much as DEs meeting that criteria.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not a ridiculous theory, actually.

I threw this theory out a couple of months ago, but decided it wasn't worth arguing with some guy over, so I dropped it. I'm virtually certain this is the case, and it's in the bug thread.

[JMO]

Really interesting stuff jkat! Anything that helps with the 34. So basically any guy will do at nickel as far as pass rush goes? I can probably put my spare runstuffing S there.

Interesting about the wlb in the 34 also..ill have to start tinkering with my nickel D again..

[Daimyo]

So summarizing that very thorough and interesting post by jkat it sounds like for a 3-4 nickel defense you want something like the following:

SLB: The best pass rusher among your three best LBs
SILB: One of your three best LB
WLB: One of your three best LB

NCB: CB with most position experience (aside from the two CB starters)


Logic being that NCB ratings don't matter because they're playing defensive line (maybe their run defense matters?) so only position experience will have any affect. SLB is the only LB who should be blitzing so his pass skill is important in addition to coverage, run defense, and diagnosis. The SILB and WLB need to be good at coverage, run defense, and diagnosis but pass rush is mostly irrelevant.

[QuikSand]

Fascinating, indeed.


Maybe the "position experience" is essentially translating to the guy (CB or S) having some indirect experience at the WLB position? (If he's essentially being mistaken for the WLB here) I know that some of my safeties get rated at something like 10-30 (I have the decile numeric patch applied - I don't recall the colors) experience rating at OLB positions. Maybe getting a bona fide WLB who is low enough weight to make a position switch to safety, and then be slotted back at WLB would be the ideal way to go here?


Damn... why whole motivation to this was to get people thinking more, and more publicly, about gameplan testing. Should have known that instead we'd end up talking more about the various bugs and required workarounds needed just to get the game to do what you want.

In any event -- many thanks to the thread contributors. I'll see if there's much I can do with this team to get it a better fit for the defense I'm actually trying to run here. *shurg*

[Daimyo]

The position experience is what I'm less clear on. I assumed that jkat was referring to the CB position experience (LCB or RCB I don't know!) since even though the player was functioning in the WLB role he was still a CB to the game.... but I guess it could be WLB experience.

In my very limited testing today, so far, I am also seeing the NCB acting in the WLB role in the nickel defense. He seems to be nearly as capable at rushing the passer too.

[jkat]

The 3-4 Nickel Package isn't really the problem with the 3-4 playbook. The Dime has more serious issues. Essentially the same problem, only instead of being a successful rusher the NB becomes completely negligible. To illustrate the default blitz package this is a season's worth of "pass caught against" statistics with the 4-3 next to it for comparison. Keep in mind it is only one season of each, 3-4 and 4-3, and is just to illustrate what player is joining the rush. Other inferences shouldn't be made from such a small sample. All players were the kept the same in both the 3-4 and 4-3 dime formations. First season of a preference draft. Used the CPU set up basic gameplan and playcalling while I defaulted all gameplan adjustments to "Same" and set personnel to always use the dime and never blitz.

3-4/4-3 (no blitzing)
DE- 3/8
DE- 10/9
DT- 2/2

SLB- 50/46
MLB- 37/6

NB- 7/41
DB- 29/51

LCB- 41/46
RCB- 43/33
FS- 31/21
SS- 34/21

This shows the fourth rusher to be the NB in the 3-4 as opposed to the MLB in the 4-3.

As for the effectiveness of the NB, the MLB in the 4-3 put up 4.0 sacks and a handful of hurries while the NB in the 3-4 put up no pass rush statistics whatsoever. I've seen this to be a common occurence with the 3-4 dime package, in that for all intents and purposes the NB is nearly useless (likely still has an impact against the run). 500+ rushes for maybe a sack or hurry is not a good thing to have in your defense.

There is also the question of what happens in coverage, with all the 3-4's issues even if the receiver the NB was covering completely disappeared from the offense I wouldn't be very shocked.

If I have a chance some point this weekend I'll try getting a legitimate sample size of the following information but here is the information from the two seasons shown above.

The 3-4 put up a
46.9 Comp Pct, 8.71 YPC, 4.08 YPA, 50.4 QBR, 88.7 PDPct
12.9PPG, 16-0
4.2 SPct, 18.6 PRPct
(with a 5.63 Yards Per Carry)

The 4-3 put up a
52.7 Comp Pct, 8.53 YPC, 4.49 YPA, 55.1 QBR, 77.3 PBPct
15.0PPG, 14-2
3.8 SPct, 13.1 PRPct
(5.41 Yards Per Carry)

Again, this is to small a sample to show trends between the 3-4 and 4-3 dime packages but does show both can be successful, regardless of the issues that plague the 3-4. If I get a chance to put together a decent sample size I'll post that information when I have it.

[Daimyo]

Just to back up jkat's numbers the table below gives some more evidence that the NCB is not behaving as you would expect. Its pretty obvious in the 3-4 nickel that the NCB is behaving as a defensive linemen getting a sack, hurry, or block 7.5% of the time and only having 3.8% of passes thrown at him. In the dime its not really clear what he's doing as he doesn't participate in the pass rush anymore yet still gets almost no passes thrown at him...

	Nickel			Dime
Pos	PR%	Tk%	Pass%	PR%	Tk%	Pass%
LDE	5.5	10.5	1.6	7.6	9.6	0.6
RDE	4.1	8.0	2.2	11.0	10.1	0.9
NT	2.7	10.0	0.8	4.9	8.4	1.4
SILB	0	21.9	12.7	0	20.3	15.9
SLB	0	14.0	10.8	0	15.9	13.0
WLB/DCB	0	16.9	12.2	0	13.3	11.0
NCB	7.5	9.8	3.8	0	11.3	4.6
LCB	0	9.8	14.6	0	10.4	14.7
RCB	0	9.4	16.8	0	7.0	12.7
SS	0	16.0	10.8	0	17.7	14.1
FS	0	11.4	13.6	0	12.9	11.2

PR% = Percent of pass plays where the player scored a sack, hurry, or block
Tk% = Percent of total tackles the player scored a tackle or assist (not the same as the ingame stat)
Pass% = Percent of passes thrown at the player (passes caught + defended / total passes caught + defended)

Nickel column was generated by a gameplan using the 3-4 defense with zero blitzing and 100% nickel. The Dime column was generated by a gameplan using the 3-4 defense with zero blitzing and 100% dime.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, given all the evidence that the game calculates the aggregate play result first and then assigns credit/blame to individual players, who knows if any of this *really* matters or not. *shurg*

[jkat]

YPR	Comp Pct	YPC	YPA	QBR	PDPct	PPG	W-L	Spct	PRPct
3-4 Dime
5.69	47.6	8.45	4.02	44.9	86.2	12.8	14	3.3	16.8
5.23	48.9	8.25	4.04	47	83.3	11.1	14	3.2	16.4
5.42	52.2	8.39	4.38	57.8	67.8	14.8	12	3.4	16.5
5.55	49.8	8.32	4.12	53.5	81.4	13.1	13	5	15.4
5.76	51.3	8.19	4.2	55.4	76.3	14.8	13	4.3	14.2
5.59	50.5	8.85	4.47	56	78	14.4	15	5.8	16.3
5.17	47.6	8.6	4.1	50.3	80.3	12.6	15	3.5	18.2
5.72	52.4	8.74	4.58	55.9	80.3	18.6	10	4.2	13.3
5.54	49.6	8.54	4.24	50.5	81.5	13	14	4.7	15.9
5.55	46.3	8.52	3.94	44.7	88.7	12.2	14	3.2	17.7
YPR	Comp Pct	YPC	YPA	QBR	PDPct	PPG	W-L	Spct	PRPct
5.52	49.62	8.49	4.21	51.60	80.38	13.74	13.40	4.06	16.07
5.55	49.82	8.85	4.41	53.02	78.96	14.96	13.05	4.56	16.32
4-3 Dime
5.51	48.1	8.74	4.21	43.7	92	13.3	12	4.6	12.9
5.53	53.1	8.39	4.46	57	72.5	10.8	14	3.9	15.7
5.4	52.8	9.1	4.81	65.1	66.1	17.1	13	5.9	15.8
5.13	46.7	8.08	3.78	43.1	88	12.6	15	3.2	18.3
5.6	50.9	9.3	4.73	58.9	71.9	17.6	11.5	4.4	18.2
5.3	49.2	9.39	4.62	53.6	82.6	13.4	14	5.5	16.6
5.79	54.8	8.27	4.53	61.1	67.3	17	14	4.7	14.3
5.57	44.1	9.42	4.16	42.7	90.9	13.6	14	4.5	17.7
6.21	46.8	9.07	4.25	47.5	84.9	16.1	13	4.5	18.6
5.5	51.7	8.71	4.5	57.5	73.4	18.1	10	4.4	15.1

In the 3-4 the NB managed absolutely no pass rush statistics but did get 7 interceptions over the 10 seasons. I have no idea what he is doing exactly but certainly isn't being a detriment as the 3-4 did slightly, though perhaps not significantly, outperform the 4-3 in pass coverage. The 4-3 had a higher sack percentage (and pass rush percentage), attributable to the MLB who posted 43.5 sacks, 27 blocks, and 103 hurries over the 10 seasons (no QB knockdowns or interceptions).

At a glance the 3-4 seemed significantly more consistent in certain categories, without some of the extreme highs or lows of the 4-3. Largely apparent in the PD Pct. where the 4-3 had 5 results between 66.1 and 73.4 and 3 results between 88 and 92 compared to the 3-4 having 9 results between 76.3 and 88.7. Whether it is an anomaly or representing more consistent results by the 3-4 would need more testing.

This was done with only dime personnel, same players in each formation, and no blitzing whatsoever. Also, it was only 10 seasons of each dime formation so while it may be a serviceable sample it isn't large by any means.

Edit (to put the average results into a slightly different format):
The 3-4 managed
49.62 Comp Pct, 8.49 YPC, 4.21 YPA, 51.6 QBR, 80.38 PDPct
13.74PPG, 13.4-2.6
4.06 SPct, 16.07 PRPct
(5.52 Yards Per Carry)

The 4-3 managed
49.82 Comp Pct, 8.85 YPC, 4.41 YPA, 53.02 QBR, 78.96 PBPct
14.96PPG, 13.05-2.95 (actually 13-2.9-.1)
4.56 SPct, 16.32 PRPct
(5.55 Yards Per Carry)

[QuikSand]

Well, I just did one quick test season...using the same team as above, and moving my WLB Ward (he of the apparent 82 rating in PR Technique) to play strong safety. He made the switch, and quickly went to looking like a really lousy, undeveloped safety (11/41 overall) -- but one with a "100" in position experience at WLB. My hope, of course, was that by "remembering" his old WLB skills he might put up suitable numbers for a full-time pass rusher, even when slotted as our nickelback.

Alas... no such luck. 443 run plays, 620 pass plays (very nearly full time duty, per usual) with a totally miserable 2 sacks, 1 block, and 2 hurries for an 0.8 PR%. **Clearly* that didn't work. Hard to say what might happen if I played him long enough at SS to get him more experince there -- but I'm at least guessing form this that the game is not "internally" treating him like a WLB (i.e. reading his position experience there to see if he can play to a reasonable level of skill), but rather just confusing assignments (if that makes any sense).

I now don't have a lot more enthusiasm for this -- this seems like a pretty pointless exercise, trying to debug the game from the outside. Best course of action is probably just to hope that its inclusion on the "bug list" will attract sufficient attention if there's some future update.

[jkat]

I don't think there is anything more going on than what seems apparent, simply the NB being one of the four rushers in the Nickel and something else (edit) going on in the dime.

It's something to keep in mind when using the 3-4 playbook, that the premium rushing linebacker/open end position isn't going to be worth the cost of Shawn Merriman/Jason Taylor type players as they can't be used in a way to justify their cost of acquistion in other packages.

This same issue existed in 2004 and was, I believe, fairly well known so I wouldn't hold out much hope of a quick fix either.


As with looking at the Dime package above, the issue really seems to be if the 3-4 Nickel is capable of success equivalent to the 4-3 Nickel. That test, however, would be more susceptible to error as the positions don't match. One of the 3-4 linebackers would have to play a lineman slot in the 4-3 which could affect the results in that manner instead of the way to be tested.

The 3-4 Dime probably shouldn't of been addressed here, anyway, as the playbook and questions being addressed involved prevalent use of the nickel package, not the dime.

[Surtt]

Maybe the game has a typo and it is the WILB that is rushing every down and not the WLB.
This might carry over if the nickel back is subbed for the WILB.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Maybe the game has a typo and it is the WILB that is rushing every down and not the WLB.
This might carry over if the nickel back is subbed for the WILB.

It's quite clear that this is not just a typo from the documentation -- just look at the physical spacing on the miscellaneous settings screen, it's perfectly clear that it's the WLB who disappears from the blitz options. This is a matter of the game just not implementing things as it claims to.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by jkat

This same issue existed in 2004 and was, I believe, fairly well known so I wouldn't hold out much hope of a quick fix either.

I'm not sure about that, though.

Yes -- in FOF 2004, when a linebacker was pulled out for an extra DB in the nickel or dime defense, that DB was rather clumsily assigned the blitz % for that LB position. Many would agree that was poorly handled.

But I am very confident that the notion of the WLB being hard-wired as a pass rusher in all situations (and outside of the blitzing scheme period) is new to FOF 2007... and the fact that this is one of the slots being criss-crossed here makes this even more serious an issue. It's nut just a slot that you might want to blitz 5% of the time is getting sent 25% -- it's that you have a 210 lb DB essentially playing defensive end on every play. That's...ummm...a pretty big problem if you use a scheme that puts you in this situation fairly often.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by jkat

NB
As for the effectiveness of the NB as a rusher there isn't much evidence of any stats [meant "rating" there? -QS] mattering, at least towards the passing game (ignoring endurance and any "possibly injury causing?" effect of punishing hitter). I assumed the rushing game would utilize run defense and play diagnosis but didn't pay much attention to tackles when I had tested it. Testing changes of the NB using a wide range, from 80+ rating corners to below 5, showed virtually no difference. As long as the 80+ corner, or any other good enough to start, isn't slotted in a starting position when testing lower rated players.

Over small samples especially, around 10 seasons, some players would, however, seem to perform significantly better than others. After not being able to find any striking correlation trying to see a difference for pass rush abilities (using linebackers converted to safeties) I had nothing that showed me why there was as much of a difference as two or three sacks per year between certain players over even large samples. Unfortunately, out of inattention, I had neglected the positional experience which seems, now, like it may have been the factor I couldn't place at the time.

This is the issue that, for purposes of "working on" this defense, I'm most concerned. The guy I deliberately put into the NB slot in the tests I did above is a CB with a very solid run defense rating. Here are his stat lines for the ten tested seasons:

Defense                 Pos   Tack  Asst  Sack  Hurr  Ints  Defn  PDPct  
37 P. Woods             CB    60    29    7.0   11    1     2     81.1    
37 P. Woods             CB    63    28    10.5  13    0     0     78.7    
37 P. Woods             CB    61    27    5.0   8     2     1     82.0    
37 P. Woods             CB    70    25    8.5   7     0     1     79.1    
37 P. Woods             CB    53    22    8.0   4     1     1     80.7    
37 P. Woods             CB    57    27    8.0   10    0     1     80.5    
37 P. Woods             CB    54    17    11.5  12    1     1     80.3    
37 P. Woods             CB    55    19    6.0   8     2     1     81.4    
37 P. Woods             CB    65    25    5.5   10    0     2     79.7    
37 P. Woods             CB    56    32    8.0   10    2     1     80.8    

For one quick test, I took the exact same team, and subbed in my worst CB, a fairly undeveloped 2nd year guy who looks like he is busting. He has a 23/49 rating in Run D and is rated 30/47 overall at the *end* of the season.

Here's his stat line for the first test season:

Defense                 Pos   Tack  Asst  Sack  Hurr  Ints  Defn  PDPct  
25 C. Radford           CB    18    6     1.0   6     1     1     83.0    

Without running ten trials, even... this is clearly a monstrous dropoff. He did play over 900 plays, including 610 pass plays -- so it's not like he was getting subbed out. He was just *clearly* not the tackler that Woods was, and I have to think that with extended testing would prove to be far less effective as a pass rusher as well.

I don't have any conclusion to reach here -- maybe this is about experience, maybe it's about aggregate ratings, maybe this guy Woods (and maybe other veteran players) have some non-trivial unseen ratings in things like PR Technique and the like. But I am not inclined to think that this defense can suddenly thrive on playing a complete no-talent at the nickelback slot. It does beg the question of whether a run-stopper DB with absolutely no skill in coverage at all might do a perfectly adequate job in this role, and presumably that guy would play for essentially minimum wage.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It does beg the question of whether a run-stopper DB with absolutely no skill in coverage at all might do a perfectly adequate job in this role, and presumably that guy would play for essentially minimum wage.

If so (and at this point it's hard to argue against that theory) well that sucks.

How 'bout grabbing via trade some other no-'count CB who is a run-stopper and sticking him there?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If so (and at this point it's hard to argue against that theory) well that sucks.

How 'bout grabbing via trade some other no-'count CB who is a run-stopper and sticking him there?

Okay... 3rd year guy, part-timer for his first two years, fully developed and 100 in both CB slots. Good run D (96), nothing else to see there. Seems like a solid candidate.

Defense                 Pos   Tack  Asst  Sack  Hurr  Ints  Defn  PDPct  
23 B. Gimmarro          CB    65    15    2.5   1     1     2     81.3    

Without doing lots of trials... it sure looks like this guy did okay in obtaining tackles (a visible rating) but brought no skills worth much in the pass rush.

Quick theory... I had been playing this defense for the last few years, and this guy Woods probably did, in fact, log some substantial time in previous years as the nickelback. Maybe in that time, he actually developed a sizable, or even maxed-out, experience rating at WLB (or even WILB, I guess) while playing in that role, even though it's not visible?

[jkat]

I repeated the test I did with the dime formation using nickel but it would probably be more misleading than anything. Beyond the move of a linebacker into the front four the coverage also went from 3 LBs and 4 DBs to 2LBs and 5 DBs. Not surprisingly the 3-4 did a small amount better against the run and the 4-3 did a small amount better against the pass.

Regardless, I did get somewhat useful stats comparing the NB as a rusher against the WLB (from the DE spot in 4-3) over ten seasons.

NB - 9.6 sacks, 6.6 blocks, 24.3 hurries, 0.0 QB Knd, and .7 INTs.
WB- 8.7 sacks, 6.0 blocks, 22.1 hurries, 4.0 QB Knd, and .2 INTs

So there certainly isn't a problem with getting decent results from the NB, plus the .7 INTs per season supports the NB rushing and there being no strange mixup. The WLB was a "C" experience 96 PRT, 59 PRS, and 96 Play Diagnosis. The NB was 57/57, "A/A" experience, 100 Play Diagnosis (86 INT).

The above corner, Blair, also had 81 endurance.

Mustain a 21/21 rated C/B experience with 36 Play Diag and 34 endurance managed seasons of:
10.5 sacks, 5 blocks, 18 hurries
11.5 sacks, 4 blocks, 30 hurries
9.5 sacks, 6 blocks, 21 hurries

Jaax 17/47 H/H exp, 0 Play Diag, 12 endurance:
6.5 sacks, 2 blocks, 21 hurries
7.5 sacks, 5 blocks, 14 hurries, and a QB Knd

Harmon 48/49 B/A exp, 45 Play Diag, 79 endurance:
9.5, 5, 18, 1
8.0, 2, 23

Mustain21/21 and Harmon48/49 end up close to Blair57/57 (the NB at the top) while Jaax17/47, with terrible positional experience, ended up performing fairly worse.

There are certainly differences which may or may not be a factor of positional experience. Keep in mind the way that some players overperform or underperform their rating, as it could be a case of players over/underperforming the "typical" pass rush of a corner.

edit: To clarify, the "86 INT" rating listed above is Interceptions and not intelligence.

[QuikSand]

Given the apparent improvement in many of the areas that plagued the 3-4 defense, and this particular gameplan, with the 6.1 path -- I re-ran my 10/10 trial test. Here are the results for a pretty vanilla team:



The MinWage setup seemed to post stats at least in the same ballpark as the simple Rex defense for week 1. It's disappointing, a bit, not to see some improvement against the pass (which is what I really would have hoped for here) but at least it isn't atrocious.

[QuikSand]

Just a quick follow up on the fixes apparent from the 6.1 patch -- looking over the season from my WLB (the guy who is supposed to be rushing the passer all the time) it looks like the WLB is indeed putting up very impressive pass rush numbers in this system.

The guy I have in that slot has apparent ratings of 85 PRT, 64 PRStr, and 53/53 overall, and here are his stat lines for the ten seasons (recall, this is with no injures, and lots of nickel defense, meaning my starters play virtually all the time):

Defense                 Pos   Tack  Asst  Sack  Hurr  Ints  Defn  PDPct  
96 R. Ward              OLB   62    23    18.0  17    1     0     80.3    
96 R. Ward              OLB   69    22    18.0  23    0     1     79.4    
96 R. Ward              OLB   65    20    16.5  21    1     1     80.2    
96 R. Ward              OLB   57    18    14.0  16    1     2     80.7    
96 R. Ward              OLB   43    21    9.0   28    0     3     80.4    
96 R. Ward              OLB   62    28    10.5  20    1     1     79.5    
96 R. Ward              OLB   63    23    15.5  17    0     1     79.8    
96 R. Ward              OLB   63    23    15.5  17    0     1     79.8    
96 R. Ward              OLB   66    29    10.5  27    0     1     78.0    
96 R. Ward              OLB   72    17    17.0  31    0     0     79.7    

And the nickel back is getting stats much more in keeping with a cover man than a pass rusher, too. All good signs pointing toward this defense at least doing what we ask of it... regardless of whether it actually improves your team.

[wade moore]

Good news, thanks for following up. I may take a stab with this basic setup again... I tried right afterwards and it just didn't quite fit with the personnel I was trying to use it with.

[stevew]

Wow, you must be older school than I am. I thought the Minwage was going to be a 4/2/5, cause thats what I remember minimum wage as.