Third Down Catching

[MrBigglesworth]

What exactly in terms of gameplay does this stat mean? Does a bad rating mean he is more likely drop the ball on third down? Does it mean that he won't stretch the ball out for that extra yard to pick up the first down?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What exactly in terms of gameplay does this stat mean? Does a bad rating mean he is more likely drop the ball on third down? Does it mean that he won't stretch the ball out for that extra yard to pick up the first down?

My unproven thoughts for Third Down Catching/Running is the ability to pick up that extra yard when needed - for Catching, the smarts to extend a 3-yard out pattern a bit longer on third and four.

Doesn't mean that's what it is, tho.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Celeval

My unproven thoughts for Third Down Catching/Running is the ability to pick up that extra yard when needed - for Catching, the smarts to extend a 3-yard out pattern a bit longer on third and four.

Doesn't mean that's what it is, tho.

What he said

[QuikSand]

Back in another game entirely (Front Page Sports Baseball, to be precise), there were a series of situational rating for each player, that supposedly acted as something of a "magnifier" in those situations. FOr instance, a given player might have had certain ratings for basic things like Control Hitting and Power Hitting, but he'd have a modifier for "Close and Late." In that game, the "Close and Late" adjustment was used in those situations (however, that was determined) -- if his C&L rating amounted to a +10% adjustment, then that guy's Control Hitting rating of 70 would become, in that situation, a 77. (In that particular game, the reverse applied as well -- the same player would only have en effective rating of 63 in non-C&L situations... but that's not an essential part of this concept)

It strikes me that these situational ratings might work the same way in FOF. Perhaps on third down, those ratings act as either an add-on or a multiplier to everything the players invlved are doing with the ball -- perhaps it affects everything in those circumstances, with good 3rd-down ratings making the pass more likely to be on target, the reciver more likely to catch it, the play more likely to resuklt in YAC, the ball carrier more likely to capitalize on a run block, and so forth.


That is not a learned perspective based on any evidence... just another guess as to how such a rating might work from a programming perspective.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Back in another game entirely (Front Page Sports Baseball, to be precise), there were a series of situational rating for each player, that supposedly acted as something of a "magnifier" in those situations. FOr instance, a given player might have had certain ratings for basic things like Control Hitting and Power Hitting, but he'd have a modifier for "Close and Late." In that game, the "Close and Late" adjustment was used in those situations (however, that was determined) -- if his C&L rating amounted to a +10% adjustment, then that guy's Control Hitting rating of 70 would become, in that situation, a 77. (In that particular game, the reverse applied as well -- the same player would only have en effective rating of 63 in non-C&L situations... but that's not an essential part of this concept)

It strikes me that these situational ratings might work the same way in FOF. Perhaps on third down, those ratings act as either an add-on or a multiplier to everything the players invlved are doing with the ball -- perhaps it affects everything in those circumstances, with good 3rd-down ratings making the pass more likely to be on target, the reciver more likely to catch it, the play more likely to resuklt in YAC, the ball carrier more likely to capitalize on a run block, and so forth.


That is not a learned perspective based on any evidence... just another guess as to how such a rating might work from a programming perspective.

You know what, you might be on to something here. I have a QB who has performed above his head consistently. The thing is, he has a terrible 3rd Down Rating. So in theory, he would get a great multiplier in non-third down situations. I will need to look into this.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

QS,

I have always thought it worked some way close to have you laid it out. It certainly wouldn't make any sense that the 3rd down rating would be the only one used, so it must be some sort of ajustment factor. The real decision comes with a very good starter whose 3rd down rating is low and you have an average back up with a high 3rd down rating. Who plays on 3rd down. Experiment, I guess. However, since you can't really control whose in the line up on 3rd down (unless you are doing the offensive playcalling - not available in MP) it really works out only to be something to consider with all ratings when signing guys. Once again, you have a situational rating that you have no real impact on using in a strategic way.

[MIJB#19]

suggestion to test this:
How about editing all the third down ratings to 0 and 9 and check the league wide third down offense and defense stats?

[Kozure]

Someone could just begin a new game then save before the regular season begins. Then, pick two teams. One with good quarterback and receivers that are poor at third down passing/catching/running.

Then find a team that excels in those areas. Run the same season over and over again looking at how often they convert third downs. The team with bad third down rating might be much worse than the team with good third down ratings.

of course, coach's ratings may have some influence in some way, but it might clue you in on how much difference the ratings work.

I always try to find players that are good in third down conversions. I find it helps out a lot and my teams usually excel on third downs.