FOF8 Gameplan Libary (Offense/Defense)

[Hammer]

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

[Ushikawa]

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

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

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

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

[SweenDawg72]

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

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

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

[garion333]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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

It certainly helps that Quik had an all world QB throwing to the guy. Still 0 rings though, sorry Quik. I guess riding that chemistry wave only takes you so far.

[QuikSand]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hammer]

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

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

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

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

Nice post though, thought provoking.

[Ben E Lou]

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

[garion333]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by garion333

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

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

[Ushikawa]

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

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

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

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

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

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