Pass Coverage Game Plan Question

[jkat]

Originally Posted by yabanci

At least I feel better about defending the help file. Despite its inadequacies, I still believe it's by far the most reliable source of information about this game.

The help file was right and the solevision/game logs were wrong. That'll teach me not to believe everything I see with my own two eyes.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by jkat

The help file was right and the solevision/game logs were wrong. That'll teach me not to believe everything I see with my own two eyes.

great work on getting all of this cleared up.

Really looking forward to the day we see this kind of game log:

New England Patriots at 09:53

1-10-NE 25 (9:53) 39-L.Maroney left tackle to NE 32 for 7 yards (99-I.Olshansky, 42-C.Hart).

2-3-NE 32 (9:19) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short right to 83-W.Welker to NE 43 for 11 yards (23-Q.Jammer).

1-10-NE 43 (8:37) 39-L.Maroney left end to NE 45 for 2 yards (54-S.Cooper, 20-M.McCree).

2-8-NE 45 (7:57) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 81-R.Moss to SD 45 for 10 yards (29-D.Florence).

1-10-SD 45 (7:18) NE 68-O'Callaghan eligible. PENALTY on NE-74-B.Yates, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at SD 45 - No Play.

1-15- (7:09) 39-L.Maroney right tackle to 50 for no gain (97-R.Bingham, 56-S.Merriman).

2-15- (6:29) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 83-W.Welker to SD 35 for 15 yards (20-M.McCree, 29-D.Florence).

1-10-SD 35 (5:43) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 81-R.Moss pushed ob at SD 29 for 6 yards (29-D.Florence).

2-4-SD 29 (5:19) 39-L.Maroney left guard to SD 24 for 5 yards (51-T.Dobbins, 74-J.Cesaire).

1-10-SD 24 (4:39) 39-L.Maroney left guard to SD 23 for 1 yard (76-J.Williams, 42-C.Hart).

2-9-SD 23 (3:59) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass deep right to 81-R.Moss for 23 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

3-S.Gostkowski extra point is GOOD, Center-66-L.Paxton, Holder-6-C.Hanson.

SD 0 NE 14 Plays: 10 Possession: 5:58

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow, I almost fell out of my chair when Jim piped in to clear things up! I like it. Jim, even these little nuggets when people get confused and are barking up the wrong tree make the game better. Keep it up.

Jkat, you need to stay on this board. Your analysis of FOF and the Moss catch in post 46 is one of the most insightful posts I have ever read here. I also am slowly joining the group that really think you are also Jim. So keep it up. You very concisely pointed out to people who consistently find fault with too many passes being caught in double coverage in FOF that it really is nothing more than tight single coverage. That was incredibly insightful.

[Solecismic]

I'd like to pipe in more often. Just have to find the right balance so that everyone doesn't get sick of me. I don't know who jkat is. I don't think it would be cool for me to hide behind a second account. The Jim G. account, not hidden, I'm using for non-FOF posting.

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).

I was thinking about what I said last night about the cosmetic portion, and realized the engine doesn't always say who is being double-covered, so the first error I found was irrelevant to the perception bug people were seeing.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).

This would only affect when the corners are put on top/bottom WR, and not strong/weak side, right?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'd like to pipe in more often. Just have to find the right balance so that everyone doesn't get sick of me.

Nope. Not gonna happen, unless you start a thread about a muslim congressman who was incorrectly described as wanting to get sworn in on the Koran.

[QuikSand]

Now that i'm pretty confused about most everything, this thread seems like a good place to ask a timely question.

I have just used a top pick to take a CB, nominally listed as a LCB, but my scout says he can move effortlessly to RCB. My team already has a high quality (and pretty young) player at LCB to whom we are pretty committed, and who lacks experience at RCB, so switching him wouldn't make much sense.

If, for the foreseeable future, my likeliest plan will be to slot the rookie as my "second CB" -- that essentially puts him into the second/right role in the current depth chart screens, regardless of whether I'm setting up based on left/right or top/second... at least that's what I think it will tell me.

So... with that backdrop, is there any reason why I should not (or should) move the rookie over to play at the RCB position, rather than LCB? Is this even relevant if I'm using the "top/second" setting for my gameplan -- does LCB/RCB even have meaning in that setup?

[cuervo72]

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

[jdavidbakr]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

As I understand it (which really is meaningless) it's going to consider the adjusted route running for each receiver (since the RB's receiving bars are adjusted for his position, his route running would probably be lower when he plays WR) rather than considering SE vs. FF.

[ddrrbb]

In a historical league, I have a receiver rated 49/49. He has 100 RR, but 20s and 40s in everything else except 58 in Adjust to Ball (productive nonetheless). My other WR is Michael Irvin with 82 RR, and 80/80 overall.

So, if I move Irvin around from FL to SE so my opponent doesn't know where he will be the next game (to counter the strong/weak coverage), he would be double covered very rarely since his RR is the lower of the WRs (which is a built in counter for Top/Second WR)?

Is this correct? The game already makes him unstoppable, but this maybe more so. Which is good and bad (since my opponent can do the same to me. I just happen to have a great receiver ATM).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by jdavidbakr

As I understand it (which really is meaningless) it's going to consider the adjusted route running for each receiver (since the RB's receiving bars are adjusted for his position, his route running would probably be lower when he plays WR) rather than considering SE vs. FF.

This could be - but how is there any way to know what that number is? If you are specifically looking to double the natural WR (w/o attempting to go strong/weak), how can you make a concrete comparison between the two? Granted this probably won't happen often, but I am curious.

[QuikSand]

Maybe you should do some testing.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by ddrrbb

In a historical league, I have a receiver rated 49/49. He has 100 RR, but 20s and 40s in everything else except 58 in Adjust to Ball (productive nonetheless). My other WR is Michael Irvin with 82 RR, and 80/80 overall.

So, if I move Irvin around from FL to SE so my opponent doesn't know where he will be the next game (to counter the strong/weak coverage), he would be double covered very rarely since his RR is the lower of the WRs (which is a built in counter for Top/Second WR)?

Is this correct? The game already makes him unstoppable, but this maybe more so. Which is good and bad (since my opponent can do the same to me. I just happen to have a great receiver ATM).

I have faced this situation before. The top rated guy couldn't go deep or run after the catch. Both WRs had high endurance, so I just doubled the 2nd receiver more often and left the top receiver in single coverage most of the time.

He caught a lot of balls but didn't really hurt us.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

To set the record straight, I did find an engine bug related to double-coverage today. The procedure for choosing the better receiver route-running rating on each play was looking at the wrong players (embarrassingly enough, linebackers, who don't run particularly good routes).

Any chance we could find out if this was fixed in the recent patch?

[Fritz]

I see you little man.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well now here's one I'm curious about.

Team F has a slotted SE with a RR of 98.
Team F has a slotted FF with a RR of 42/60.

Normally, the SE would be considered the "top WR". Except that he's not a SE - he's a RB. Is the game looking at his RR as a RB, a % of his RR based on experience at SE, or ?

[cuervo72]

Hehehehe.