Defensive game plan for stopping third down running silliness.

[Ben E Lou]

For those still struggling when playing against this sort of silliness...

Outer Banks: Single-Back formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-8-ASH25 (2Q: 08:01) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 14 yards. Tackled by DE Kendrick Battle, assisted by CB Horace Flynn. Key block delivered by Seth Robert.

Outer Banks: I formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-3-ASH04 (2Q: 06:44) Hugh McClain ran outside the right tackle for 3 yards. Tackled by DT Lamar Buckley. Key block delivered by John Dexter.

Outer Banks: Goal-Line formation with three tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.
3-6-ASH06 (2Q: 05:14) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 6 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! Key block delivered by Seth Robert. Outer Banks 13, Asheville 7


...this might help:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%2...oolishness.fdp

[Hammer]

Most people never throw deep on 3rd 1-5. Obviously if they do, make adjustments. But it makes sense to me to roll exlusively with 1 deep if your going against the sneaky running types. Granted it takes a bit of working into the gameplan, but it tends to work a treat.

From my experience aggressive run and 1 deep tends to stuff the run pretty good. Where as beating the short pass with any given defense is pretty much a lottery. If there running even 40%, provided they are not going deep, to me it makes sense to go after the run extremely aggressively on 3rd down. Even when you do its suprising how many short passes get batted down.

As you get into the 3rd 6-7 range play close attention to the long passing percentages. Provided its not too high a 2 deep BnR defense would seem to be the right choice.

Gets a bit tricky on 3rd and 8+ By and large a nickel, 3 deep, normal pass would be what I would go with. But it depends very much on the team.

I always try to know what defense I'm running in a given situation. Know how many deep I will have at least. Maybe I'm just a control freak lol.

[aston217]

Hm, 50-45-5 with 25% 3-deep zone? I'm probably missing something, that seems risky if anyone catches on to you doing it. Passing the crap out of that 3rd-and-10 situation could result in nice conversions, and big plays. On the other hand, go 0/0/0/100, and you may give up some big runs, but it still won't be a guaranteed or even high percentage conversion.

To counter an especially threatening RB, wouldn't such heavy compensation just play into their hands? I'd rather give up 8, 9, 14 yard runs than risk 20-yard passes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by aston217

Hm, 50-45-5 with 25% 3-deep zone? I'm probably missing something, that seems risky if anyone catches on to you doing it. Passing the crap out of that 3rd-and-10 situation could result in nice conversions, and big plays. On the other hand, go 0/0/0/100, and you may give up some big runs, but it still won't be a guaranteed or even high percentage conversion.

This is for use against the people that like to run 50-100% on 3rd and long. Going 0-0-0-100 there is the wrong move.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is for use against the people that like to run 50-100% on 3rd and long. Going 0-0-0-100 there is the wrong move.

Ohhh... that explains the aggressive pass on second down. They'd be the same teams that pass 80-100% of the time in first and second down, right?

Not necessarily, I imagine, but I've played one of those guys twice a year for ages -now in two leagues. Your gameplan would work like a charm, but I refuse to give in. I'm afraid that if I use something similar then next time he'll go with the opposite game plan (run 80-100% on first and second, then pass on third). He already did once.

I refuse to turn our rivalry into a game of chicken. And since I win most of the time, well...

[Solecismic]

I took a look at this issue a while back (no, I'm not planning anything in the near future) and it's without a doubt the biggest challenge in designing an engine - how to balance the "playing chicken" silliness against allowing the defensive game plan to have an effect on the outcome of the game.

If I were to wave a magic wand and get a wish, I would wish for a two-hour dedicated interview with a top NFL defensive coordinator to discuss exactly this issue.

But yes, I realize "silliness" is the appropriate way to describe this issue, and it's something I can control in the engine - the question is exactly how much to control - probably a little overboard in the game-plan controls it department right now.

[gstelmack]

Honestly, part of the way to fix it is to redo gameplanning, especially regarding formations and defensive personnel. It's all keyed off what you expect the offense to do, with no ability to cue off what the offense may actually be doing.

Right now the offense can come out in a strong I with two tightends while the defense is in a 4-deep dime zone coverage just because the defense is in "extremely expect them to pass". There is very little ability to match a defensive personnel package to the offensive one in FOF. This is how we end up with things like "4-deep zone aggressively expecting the run".

[Solecismic]

Yes, that's a big piece of how the pros do it - they match personnel. If it ever gets made, there's a whole new game-planning module designed for a future FOF.

The tougher piece is what to do when, for example, you start seeing a lot of draw plays out of a 113 (14 these days) package. In real football, you see a couple, and the coordinator starts telling the middle linebacker to stay home a little longer.

How do you model that in a computer game without exposing more flaws?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes, that's a big piece of how the pros do it - they match personnel. If it ever gets made, there's a whole new game-planning module designed for a future FOF.

The tougher piece is what to do when, for example, you start seeing a lot of draw plays out of a 113 (14 these days) package. In real football, you see a couple, and the coordinator starts telling the middle linebacker to stay home a little longer.

How do you model that in a computer game without exposing more flaws?

Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans. The team posted above is one of the more extreme examples. Over the last 2+ seasons, they have called plays as follows...

• 0% runs on 2nd and 1
• 0% runs on 2nd and 2
• 4.9% runs on 2nd and 3
• 18.4% runs on 2nd and 4-5
• 84.5% runs on 3rd and 8-10
• 96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
• 87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

And those unexpected plays are more successful than the passes/runs that the defenses are expecting, in some cases by wide margins. Even those 3rd and 8-10 runs are averaging 7.34 yards per carry, and converting the first down 40.0% of the time. 3rd and 8-10 passes only convert the first down 28.2% of the time league-wide. It's...yeah...silly.


If you were to ever patch the current game again, I'd just limit what people are able to do there. Give us enough room to be creative, but no one thinking rationally about it would have a problem if you limited all 1st and 2nd down plays to something like a 30-70% run range (maybe 10-60 on 1st/2nd and very long). On 3rd and, say, 4 or less, maybe 20-80%, and then maybe 0-30% on 3rd and long. It would create more realism in game plans, and pretty much eliminate the game of chicken that Firefly refers to.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If it ever gets made, there's a whole new game-planning module designed for a future FOF.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans. The team posted above is one of the more extreme examples. Over the last 2+ seasons, they have called plays as follows...

• 0% runs on 2nd and 1
• 0% runs on 2nd and 2
• 4.9% runs on 2nd and 3
• 18.4% runs on 2nd and 4-5
• 84.5% runs on 3rd and 8-10
• 96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
• 87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

And those unexpected plays are more successful than the passes/runs that the defenses are expecting, in some cases by wide margins. Even those 3rd and 8-10 runs are averaging 7.34 yards per carry, and converting the first down 40.0% of the time. 3rd and 8-10 passes only convert the first down 28.2% of the time league-wide. It's...yeah...silly.


If you were to ever patch the current game again, I'd just limit what people are able to do there. Give us enough room to be creative, but no one thinking rationally about it would have a problem if you limited all 1st and 2nd down plays to something like a 30-70% run range (maybe 10-60 on 1st/2nd and very long). On 3rd and, say, 4 or less, maybe 20-80%, and then maybe 0-30% on 3rd and long. It would create more realism in game plans, and pretty much eliminate the game of chicken that Firefly refers to.

I'd prefer limiting the gains on those plays than putting caps on what you can set in your gameplan

[MRL17]

Seems like the "familiarity" messages ought to be kicking in when an offense is doing something 80-100% of the time in some situation.

[aston217]

I had thought something like that -- being able to automatically adjust for clear gameplan signs as a game went on -- would be a good idea, but to what extent? To the point that it doesn't really matter what kind of skewed gameplan you throw out there, the game self-corrects to the middle? If that's the case, what's the point of gameplanning?

I think the chicken games are silly but not *that* unrealistic -- just the results. But having those calls to make puts you in the coach's chair. Generally speaking the best idea is to just do what you do. There's little sense in throwing a disastrous feint all year just to spring a trap for one game. On the other hand, there should be times when you think, "I can really catch a team off guard if I do this."

I'd prefer limiting the gains on those plays than putting caps on what you can set in your gameplan

I don't like the idea of actual caps -- who is to say you can't bust a big run on 3rd-and-long? -- but I think this one is on the right track. Reduce the overall effectiveness of such plays in given down-and-distance situations. Or maybe even just overall.

There's nothing too wrong with giving the coach the ability to run the ball 100% of the time on third down if he so chooses. It's just that those dime pass aggressives aren't prevent defenses, but the game treats them as such or maybe even worse.

[Solecismic]

That's exactly what the engine does right now. Familiarity is a scale - you don't see the message until you're fairly far down that road. But the threshold could be higher in these specific instances.

For those of you who were around for earlier versions of the game, there were harder limits on game plans for precisely this reason at one time. I felt the consensus at the time was that those limits were too artificial.

There's a right way to handle this, and I think wholesale changes to how game planning is done is better than trying to patch it. I can't promise if or when, or even that it will be done if there's another version of the game, but it's on my radar.

[stevew]

Not that these are common situations...

96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

But isn't that the basic NFL play a pretty high % of the time? The run shouldn't be super effective to the point of garnering a first down. But unless it's a late game situation, running in order to get a better punt seems to be a play.

[MIJB#19]

I'm honestly surprised this is even an issue. People should be able to game plan the way they feel their team can cope best with situations. Even then, the supposeldy offender has struggling teams that are quite simply not racking up bowl wins after another. To me it's equally silly to run on 'passing downs' as to throw a lot on 'running downs'.

The usage of 0% or 100% should be reflected by that happening and shouldn't be an automatic punishment. During the game the defense should get familiar with it and alter the expectations based on the number of plays that have been ran in the game and the initial expectations should be based on the number of times the opponent has ran that game plan earlier in the season.

Let the 'defensive coordinator' decide what the expectations should be, don't put that number crunching on the 'gm'.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There's a right way to handle this, and I think wholesale changes to how game planning is done is better than trying to patch it. I can't promise if or when, or even that it will be done if there's another version of the game, but it's on my radar.

I personally would prefer an option that makes people aware of this stuff as opposed to putting a limit on it. Gameplan Analyzer does that for me, I'm not sure why people don't use it more.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by stevew

Not that these are common situations...

96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

But isn't that the basic NFL play a pretty high % of the time? The run shouldn't be super effective to the point of garnering a first down. But unless it's a late game situation, running in order to get a better punt seems to be a play.

FWIW, that's my reasoning behind doing it (yes, I'm the offending team in Ben's post above).

For a pass on third-and-long, most of the potential outcomes are bad: (1) complete pass for first down; (2) complete pass for a non-first down; (3) incomplete pass; (4) interception; (5) sack; (6) sack and fumble; or (7) penalty. For a run on third-and-long, you have most of the same outcomes (substitute run for first down for complete pass for first down, rinse and repeat), however, you avoid the "sack and fumble" and "interception" outcomes which can be game changing plays.

When I run on third-down, it's to mitigate a potential bad outcome rather than to try and get a first down. This is why I've always said that, even if teams go aggressive run on third-down, I will probably still run on third-and-long because it's the most conservative play.

I'd rather save my passes for situations where a complete pass is the most likely outcome, then have to throw into a pass aggressive defense where the aforementioned negative outcomes are substantially more likely to occur. Conversely, if I had a stud QB, then I'd be more likely to pass on third-and-long because there'd be a less likely chance that the aforementioned negative outcomes occur.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans.

I think I've mentioned this before, but for a GM sim I think you'd be okay with something like a run/pass slider and an aggressive/passive slider. Maybe some base personnel bits: are you a 4-3 vs 3-4 defense, do you like to run a standard offense or a single-back offense, 2 TEs vs no TEs? It just tilts the standard offense / defense a bit.

But that doesn't support the "I want to call all my own plays crowd", who can still break the engine just by making the calls, so I'm not sure here.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'd rather save my passes for situations where a complete pass is the most likely outcome, then have to throw into a pass aggressive defense where the aforementioned negative outcomes are substantially more likely to occur.

...which points out the flaw in the system as it is. That logic is fine for 3rd and 20, but when the game incents that behavior on 3rd and 8-10, it's a problem. (And it doesn't help that it works much better than it should.)

As far as the "don't limit" thinking, the problem here is the one I mentioned here years ago: we're not calling the games one play at a time. It would be an entirely different thing if we were. However, there's a "computer abstraction" element at work here that causes a meta-game that has nothing to do football strategy to develop. That is what would be basically eliminated by limiting entries--which, Jim, is very different from what you're referring to from years back where you were allowed to enter anything but the game would punish you for entering values it deemed unacceptable. A front-end limitation would work much better. My primary concern about a revamp is that I can't help but suspect that any other wholesale change that addresses this issue would take reasonable control out of the hands of the user.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...which points out the flaw in the system as it is. That logic is fine for 3rd and 20, but when the game incents that behavior on 3rd and 8-10, it's a problem. (And it doesn't help that it works much better than it should.)

I'll agree with that there is a flaw in that running on third-and-long should not work as well as it does, however, I don't agree that the analysis substantially changes between 3rd-and-20 and 3rd-and-8 through 10.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think I've mentioned this before, but for a GM sim I think you'd be okay with something like a run/pass slider and an aggressive/passive slider. Maybe some base personnel bits: are you a 4-3 vs 3-4 defense, do you like to run a standard offense or a single-back offense, 2 TEs vs no TEs? It just tilts the standard offense / defense a bit.

But that doesn't support the "I want to call all my own plays crowd", who can still break the engine just by making the calls, so I'm not sure here.

I've highlighted the key phrase above. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but FOF moved past being just a GM sim maybe a decade ago--8 1/2 years ago at the very least. (FOF2K4, released Fall 2003, wasn't a GM sim by any means.) Yeah, I know the name still indicates that, but soooooooooooooooo many coaching and scouting elements have been introduced and embraced over the years that moving back to a "GM Sim" would likely turn off a fair-number of long-time users. ("How dare you release a version that takes features AWAY from us????!!!") Heck, just look at this very thread: I mention the idea of limiting the options in a way that would have zero impact on probably 85-95% of game plan boxes as they're currently used by the community as a whole, and it's met with resistance all around. A move to sliders, or likely anything else that people perceive as limiting control, would very likely catch far more backlash.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'll agree with that there is a flaw in that running on third-and-long should not work as well as it does, however, I don't agree that the analysis substantially changes between 3rd-and-20 and 3rd-and-8 through 10.

Sure it does. Is there ANY NFL team in the last, oh, 30 years, that has run the ball ~85% of the time on 3rd and 8-10? Of course not. Why? Because the possible ill effects of passing aren't as bad in the NFL as you perceive them to be in FOF.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Sure it does. Is there ANY NFL team in the last, oh, 30 years, that has run the ball ~85% of the time on 3rd and 8-10? Of course not. Why? Because the possible ill effects of passing aren't as bad in the NFL as you perceive them to be in FOF.

Well, we all know NFL logic takes you only so far in FOF. Running on third down is a way to minimize risk in a system where we can't call our own plays.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Well, we all know NFL logic takes you only so far in FOF. Running on third down is a way to minimize risk in a system where we can't call our own plays.

Well sure. I'm talking about the ideal here. I think pretty much everyone's ideal is a game where--as often as possible--"football logic" is also the strategy most likely to win games. The closer you get to that ideal, the less issues you have between "playing it like a computer game" vs. "playing it like a football sim," because the two approaches lead to the same decisions the vast majority of the time.

[RedKingGold]

See? We can agree on stuff!

[RedKingGold]

BTW, easily the best part of this thread is Jim's posts and have the hope that, maybe, somewhere down the road, we might possibly get a new version of FOF.

[Dutch]

Another NFL-logic part that's missing is that NFL teams generally can't just switch from a Power Run Attack to a High Flying Air McNair Circus Act overnight....there should be some controls set at the beginning of the season where the team philosophy is established.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the current GP'ing optoins would only be available during pre-season but once the regular season starts, you get some slider options to tweak....but that's it. Set yourself up as a team that throws deep 95% of the time on 3-5....with only the ability to adjust 10 or 20 % in either direction with a slider....my Defensive GP is going to more easily adjust to that trend.

As for Defensive GP'ing...it could be left completely as it is. We could adjust our defenses to better defend against outlier %'s that an owner has committed himself too (for the most part). In the current setup, if an owner is tweaking his exploits from game to game....if I follow suit, I'm asking for trouble...I'm almost forced to not adjust at all, which is broken, of course.

[sidthelid]

My view on running on anything between 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 7 is this. I would think that the game is set to have an average run of say 4 ypc before dice etc are added to the play. So if I have an above average running game and with it being 3rd down the defense is more likely to be in pass, then there is an excellent chance that 4 yard run is likely to be 5 or 6 or higher giving me a good chance of a 1st down. Running is also normally a safer option on 3rd down as Redkingold said.

I would also suggest people don't use MP/LP much on 3rd down until its 3rd and 6 to 7 or more. So perhaps putting nine in the box on third down could mean that the 3rd down running play has a higher percentage of being stuffed, meaning running on third becomes a lot more risky play.

You could also maybe build in the ability for the defense to audible (something like madden does). So for instance on 3^rd down plays the defensive GM has the option to match up formations. This could be achieved by letting the defensive GM put in a percentage for how often he wants to match the offense's formation on 3rd down plays. This would help stop 3rd down plays where we see the offense in a 2TE set and the defense is in dime.


As for sliders that is just way to basic and a backward step in my view.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sidthelid

As for sliders that is just way to basic and a backward step in my view.

Do you mean the mere adding of them as I suggested or do you mean replacing the GP'ing feature wth them? If it's the later, I totally agree. The suggestion I just made wasn't intended to replace gameplanning.

[Nemesis]

When I mention that I don't want limits, I mean that I don't want limits on what we can call. If someone wants to do 85% running on 3rd down, so be it. Effectiveness however is something that I'm ok with changing.

As per the example here:
3-6-ASH06
Outer Banks: Goal-Line formation with three tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.

If the offense comes out in GoalLine, there's no way a logical thinking defense will come out in nickel personnel.

[sidthelid]

What i am suggesting is to add a box for defense to 3rd down plays. In that box you can as the Defensive Cordinator enter a number between 1 and 100. If you put 100 you will always match up formation with the offense, if you put in 50 then you have a 50% chance of matching up the to the offensive formation and so on. This would be an addition to what we already have.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

When I mention that I don't want limits, I mean that I don't want limits on what we can call. If someone wants to do 85% running on 3rd down, so be it. Effectiveness however is something that I'm ok with changing.

As per the example here:
3-6-ASH06
Outer Banks: Goal-Line formation with three tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.

If the offense comes out in GoalLine, there's no way a logical thinking defense will come out in nickel personnel.

But it's incredibly easy to just avoid the obvious run formations. Plenty of the plays in question are of this type:

Outer Banks: Single-Back formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-8-ASH25 (2Q: 08:01) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 14 yards. Tackled by DE Kendrick Battle, assisted by CB Horace Flynn. Key block delivered by Seth Robert.

Merely having the defense adjust more for offensive formations won't do it. Having played Fonzie a ton of times, who for a very long time has used roughly 50% running on pretty much all third down situations (except he throws a lot on 3rd and very short,) I can assure you that formations alone don't cause these plays to be more successful. On the play above, the only hint that OBX was going to run the ball is the fact that they've pretty much always run it in that situation for 2 seasons. There's nothing specific to that formation/situation that hints at it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Well sure. I'm talking about the ideal here. I think pretty much everyone's ideal is a game where--as often as possible--"football logic" is also the strategy most likely to win games. The closer you get to that ideal, the less issues you have between "playing it like a computer game" vs. "playing it like a football sim," because the two approaches lead to the same decisions the vast majority of the time.

That's a good philosophy. I know it upsets people, but you have to immerse yourselves in the concept that it's a football game. Games are all about imagination.

I can only help by providing as football-like an imaginary world as possible. Put yourself in the front office (and the coach's office).

When I watch my son play games, I'm disappointed that so many popular games out there control his experience so thoroughly - they're a lot like passively watching television. I refuse to get him video games (others do - he lives for anything Mario). To me, the best toys teach him to use his imagination.

[Solecismic]

Ben, here's the problem I'm always trying to solve.

The data here is from a recent season, but not the last three seasons. I think it still applies today.

I looked at 4,304 third-down plays, 24% of which were running plays.

On 3rd-and-10, teams passed 87% of the time. They converted the first down 33% of the time.

On those 13% runs, they converted the first down 25% of the time.

So, let's say you have a system where the defense's expectations control, to a certain extent, the result of the play. What you can't do, and FOF doesn't, is simply plug in the average gain and move it up or down based on defensive expectations. Because you'd be running more than you'd pass.

The reason these 3rd-and-10 runs are so successful is because the defense is always expecting the pass. So every once in a while you throw a blocker at the one decent run-defense linebacker left on the field, and you let your running back take a shot at it. Possibly your goal is solely field position - every five yards counts.

So, in FOF, the 3rd-and-10 run might not work as well, but let's move down to 3rd-and-4. Teams are still only running 13% of the time, but now the real-NFL success percentage is 51% on run plays, and 50% for pass plays.

This is very, very hard to model properly. When I look at play results, I'm long past simple averages these days. It's all about context. And that's very difficult, and why I spend most of time focusing solely on first-and-ten plays.

The engine does need an overhaul, though. I know far more than is reflected in this version.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by stevew

Not that these are common situations...

96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

But isn't that the basic NFL play a pretty high % of the time? The run shouldn't be super effective to the point of garnering a first down. But unless it's a late game situation, running in order to get a better punt seems to be a play.

The percentage does go up on 3rd and 11-18 - to about 16%. And 26% on 3rd and 19 or more. Obviously for field position - teams were 2-for-92 converting 3rd-and-13 or more with a run (the success of passes was 16%).

But expectations are crucial in the NFL. The other factor (and this is not modeled as immediately in FOF) is that switching things up, play-to-play, makes a huge difference.

Defensive players are little like pillows with "memory" foam; they stick a little bit with what they just saw (I need to remember this analogy for possible future instruction manuals). The most illustrative numbers - and I don't have this spreadsheet at hand, but I did do a Football Frontier blogpost on it a while back - are looking at 2nd-and-10s.

Following an incomplete pass, 2nd-and-10 is a remarkably effective running down - and you see teams doing this a lot. But after a failed running play, 2nd-and-10 is not a frequent running down. The average runs are similar in distance gained, but maintaining a similar average, when you know that NFL coaches see this and are more prepared to see a run after an incomplete pass, tells me this goes a little beyond a coordinator simply calling a defensive play.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The reason these 3rd-and-10 runs are so successful is because the defense is always expecting the pass. So every once in a while you throw a blocker at the one decent run-defense linebacker left on the field, and you let your running back take a shot at it. Possibly your goal is solely field position - every five yards counts.

Added to the effect (at least or me) is that I don't blitz AT ALL on 3rd down and long, ever. Add that to the 0/0/0/100 3rd and 10 defensive call, is a recipe for disaster vs the run.

[aston217]

Can't express how happy I am that Jim is posting in this thread and taking part in some very good discussion.

[TheFoosballWizard]

Originally Posted by aston217

Can't express how happy I am that Jim is posting in this thread and taking part in some very good discussion.

+1 to that.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've highlighted the key phrase above. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but FOF moved past being just a GM sim maybe a decade ago--8 1/2 years ago at the very least. (FOF2K4, released Fall 2003, wasn't a GM sim by any means.) Yeah, I know the name still indicates that, but soooooooooooooooo many coaching and scouting elements have been introduced and embraced over the years that moving back to a "GM Sim" would likely turn off a fair-number of long-time users. ("How dare you release a version that takes features AWAY from us????!!!") Heck, just look at this very thread: I mention the idea of limiting the options in a way that would have zero impact on probably 85-95% of game plan boxes as they're currently used by the community as a whole, and it's met with resistance all around. A move to sliders, or likely anything else that people perceive as limiting control, would very likely catch far more backlash.

There's a HUGE difference between moving towards a "I want to implement such and such system (3-4, pass heavy 4 WR base) that my coach calls the plays with no imput from myself" and "you can't go higher than 80% on X situation in your GP"

I'd be all for the system/coach model with no actual GPing done by myself. If we are using the current GP then yes, I want full range of what i can do (i.e. Jim should limit the effectiveness)

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Another NFL-logic part that's missing is that NFL teams generally can't just switch from a Power Run Attack to a High Flying Air McNair Circus Act overnight....there should be some controls set at the beginning of the season where the team philosophy is established.

This is exactly the thing I've felt is missing from training camp. But it isn't impossible to switch philosophies mid-flight, but it is difficult and NFL teams fear doing it. Simply entering in a precamp gameplan then making it so the more you move away from that gameplan the more of an effectiveness (cohesion maybe) penalty you'd take.

Also, as for RKG's 3rd down running, I have no problem with it. It is his opponents responsibility to look at his tendencies and gameplan accordingly, which solves the issue. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

[Autumn]

As someone who's been burned by 3rd down running in MP, I can say that the "issue" is that it's just too effective. A team that runs consistently on 3rd and 9, even against pass defense, should not be as successful as they are. As I think Jim has said above, the success numbers are too high. Any of us who have faced this have had to tinker with our defensive gameplan to counter it, yes. But generally it should not be possible to convert third and 8 with a run 80% or 90% of the time, which is what I've seen, even against non-aggressive pass D. Running on that down should be a big gamble, and probably one that it's safe for the defense to ignore unless they're facing Eric Dickerson.

[Ben E Lou]

Why it's an issue plays into my response to Chubby's last post. It's an issue because a significant number of people don't have the time/interest to pay attention at the level that Kozure is mentioning. Sure, if everyone ran Gameplan Analyzer before every game and acted on what they saw, it's a non-issue. In a perfect MP environment, no one gets away with anything "sneaky" week in and week out. But this is just the latest in a long line of stuff that people--myself included--have gotten away with primarily because lots of people aren't going to "scout" the opposition at that level, if at all. Ramping up passing in the red zone worked wonderfully prior to 6.3, when it was patched away, and you could see that people were doing that from within the game! There was no need to use a third-party utility to see that some teams were doing this big-time. If you just ramped up the pass defense in the red zone, you could shut it down easily, but that took looking in the game to see that people were doing it. As one who used to pass in the red zone a fair bit more than normal, I can assure you that the vast majority of my opponents in every league simply never noticed it.


...and that gets to Chubby's comment..

There's a HUGE difference between moving towards a "I want to implement such and such system (3-4, pass heavy 4 WR base) that my coach calls the plays with no imput from myself" and "you can't go higher than 80% on X situation in your GP"

I'd be all for the system/coach model with no actual GPing done by myself. If we are using the current GP then yes, I want full range of what i can do (i.e. Jim should limit the effectiveness)

Here's the problem with not having limits: it adds yet another advantage to people like you and me, simply because a significant portion of the rest of the community (and pretty much 100% of the people who just want to sim football and not test the engine) assume that something like that wouldn't work because it doesn't work in real football. So the advantages of playing out on the margins end up only being available to those who enjoy testing the margins out. Most people never think to try the unintuitive nothing-to-do-with-football stuff that works (or has worked in the past) in this game such as using only 1 minute for special teams and formations in TC, or running 85-90% of the time on 3rd and 8, or ramping up passing in the red zone, or throwing the bomb on 2nd and 1 nearly every time, or overlaying pictures of bars before and after interviews, or using adjustments on every play, etc. etc. etc.

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!")

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Autumn

As someone who's been burned by 3rd down running in MP, I can say that the "issue" is that it's just too effective. A team that runs consistently on 3rd and 9, even against pass defense, should not be as successful as they are. As I think Jim has said above, the success numbers are too high. Any of us who have faced this have had to tinker with our defensive gameplan to counter it, yes. But generally it should not be possible to convert third and 8 with a run 80% or 90% of the time, which is what I've seen, even against non-aggressive pass D. Running on that down should be a big gamble, and probably one that it's safe for the defense to ignore unless they're facing Eric Dickerson.

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

It comes down to is how much do we want Jim to protect us from ourselves. I like the sandbox approach and the more he nerfs the game the less of a sandbox I get to play with. I wish the game was more like this. If a team is poorly prepared for a teams tendencies, a defense should be exploited. None of this, "hey, I have it set to play the run only 11 percent of the time but he is running it and gouging my defense every time. Waahh!! Waahh!!," bullcrap.

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Why it's an issue plays into my response to Chubby's last post. It's an issue because a significant number of people don't have the time/interest to pay attention at the level that Kozure is mentioning. Sure, if everyone ran Gameplan Analyzer before every game and acted on what they saw, it's a non-issue. In a perfect MP environment, no one gets away with anything "sneaky" week in and week out. But this is just the latest in a long line of stuff that people--myself included--have gotten away with primarily because lots of people aren't going to "scout" the opposition at that level, if at all. Ramping up passing in the red zone worked wonderfully prior to 6.3, when it was patched away, and you could see that people were doing that from within the game! There was no need to use a third-party utility to see that some teams were doing this big-time. If you just ramped up the pass defense in the red zone, you could shut it down easily, but that took looking in the game to see that people were doing it. As one who used to pass in the red zone a fair bit more than normal, I can assure you that the vast majority of my opponents in every league simply never noticed it.

As I said in my last post, it comes down to how much we want Jim to save us from ourselves.

[MRL17]

Originally Posted by Kozure

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

It comes down to is how much do we want Jim to protect us from ourselves. I like the sandbox approach and the more he nerfs the game the less of a sandbox I get to play with. I wish the game was more like this. If a team is poorly prepared for a teams tendencies, a defense should be exploited. None of this, "hey, I have it set to play the run only 11 percent of the time but he is running it and gouging my defense every time. Waahh!! Waahh!!," bullcrap.

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

I disagree.

We got into this game because it's a football simulator, and while we all enjoy being rewarded with wins in the game for working the engine and paying attention, when it comes down to it, if things are happening in the game that aren't happening in real football then it's not a good simulation.

I'm all for fixing the issue and making the game as "real football intuitive" as possible.

[Kozure]

For the record, I'm probably playing devils advocate in this. It really doesn't matter if it gets fixed, though a limit on how much or little you can do something isnt the anwser.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by MRL17

I disagree.

We got into this game because it's a football simulator, and while we all enjoy being rewarded with wins in the game for working the engine and paying attention, when it comes down to it, if things are happening in the game that aren't happening in real football then it's not a good simulation.

I'm all for fixing the issue and making the game as "real football intuitive" as possible.

Bah!! As a programmer you should know a sim cannot perfectly recreate real life. That's what I thought half of playing front office football was - adapting to its imperfections and moving on.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Kozure

As I said in my last post, it comes down to how much we want Jim to save us from ourselves.

It's a fair question, and one that I landed on the exact opposite side of for some time. However, having seen the divide that can develop when things aren't documented and doing the unexpected yields greater rewards than it should, I'm now perfectly fine with some in-game limits. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but it's silly that someone can go 1-1-98 on 2nd and short all season long (I've done that before) and just TORCH defenses nearly every time that situation comes up.

[MRL17]

I'm not saying that every little thing should be fixed. I have lots of little gripes about the game (why can't I make my stud FB into a RB higher than 40 rated?!?) but now we're getting into territory where we don't resemble real football at all.

To be optimal now, everyone should be going after big play receivers far and away over everything else and running it 100% on third downs for maximum conversion rate. To me that's not football anymore, so we need some intervention.