Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > FOF8/TCY Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-22-2019, 10:04 AM   #1
Ushikawa
Mascot
 
Join Date: May 2015
Sincere Smashmouth

So I understand everyone plays the game diferently but I like trying to run systems that are well-aligned with my OC and ever since 8 rolled out have only ran Solid or better fits. Have a Smashmouth now in one league (was previously Erh-Perk but switched when we blew up that roster 3 seasons ago) and Spread in the other.

A couple years back we only ran Best fits for our Smashmouth and found that there were no pass plays in the 113 formation for example- so that isn't really a viable option. So now we have moderated our stance a bit and are allowing for Solid fits as well.

I ran through all of backfield alignment, QB depth and pass protectors and am pretty sure we didn't miss anything--- once you learn the patterns it isn't that hard or time-consuming really. Manually input all 200 plays. Thought I would share a few notes:

- no plays in the 4 wide or empty backfield formations, you can get a Solid in the 104 for runs and PA passes and on QB runs in others but seemed silly to incude them

- in the 113 the R , Y and A can't be the primary target for Pass plays even for Solid and the routes are pretty limited for even the X and Z for Best fits. The secondary target doesn't seem to affect the Fit at all but the number of pass protectors is a huge limiting factor with the Smashmouth demanding 7 in pass pro for Passes and 6 for PA to keep my Solid or better threshhold.

- The route limitations carried over into the 122 and 212 which is extremely dissapointing as we couldn't even get a lot of true Pass Plays there with the Best fit designation however there were lots of options for Solid fits

- Obviously the power formations with just 1 WR have lots of options but it isn't a great fit for our roster and I am always worried about familiars with too many plays in these formations even without repeating plays.

Should be fun to see how it works out. Depending on how things go I could see a few things happening:
- we may end up valuing the blockign bars in RBs and TEs way more than their receiving bars which could be a interesting way to invest resources
- we will likely be wearing out oponent's base personnel and hopefully get significant snaps against backups
- we should get great data on how often a secondary target gets the action as the grand majority of our plays target X and Z but I tried to not have them as secondary receivers for the most part
- somewhat related, big concerns about overtargetting both X and Z
- given the route limitations I may have to break my rule of not using PA on 3rd and long or Hurry Up but will at least at first try not to

I will update this post later this season (it is MP so be patient) but on O we have a stud QB, 2 Stud WRs in development, 1 stud RB (but with low blitz pickup), 1 very good TE and a blocking FB, 3 stud OL 1 roadgrader at RG and 1 average RT. Perhaps importantly, this is a rebuilt roster so cohesion is quite low.

Continental Football League (not totally updated)

Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2019, 10:29 AM   #2
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Interesting angle... I wish there were more of this sort of brainstorming going on here. My semi-baseless intuition is that you'll end up overrun by "familiars" but if you manage to vary things up enough within the good-fit formations, it seems like a very interesting way to build a team.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2019, 01:28 PM   #3
Ushikawa
Mascot
 
Join Date: May 2015
I think a lot of people do these sorts of things but don't share too much. Whenever I find the time over the next couple weeks I plan on revealing a lot of what I do for GPing as well as for gamelogging and analysis I have boatloads of data and processes that seem to work pretty well.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2019, 01:44 PM   #4
Sharkn20
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
I will be happy to know how this goes
Sharkn20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2019, 01:40 PM   #5
Dawgfan19
H.S. Freshman Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
One little detail I have noticed regarding smashmouth is assigning the FB and/or TE for pass block protection will improve the "best fit". I don't recall the specifics, but you can at least improve a play which was fair or poor to, at minimum, good.

That opens up other formation possibilities to deal with the familiar problem.

Last edited by Dawgfan19 : 05-24-2019 at 01:42 PM.
Dawgfan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 12:38 PM   #6
Ushikawa
Mascot
 
Join Date: May 2015
I ended up building a similar roster in SP and running a few sims just with the same GP for all games.

Results were encouraging: Top in YPC and YPA each time, running wasn't great from a YPC perspective but then again that isn't really a great measure IMO. All of this of course with a huge grain of salt as I reckon AI defenses in 2018/9 of the game are not all that great, actually never have played SP in 8.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 02:47 PM   #7
Ushikawa
Mascot
 
Join Date: May 2015
Checking back in, things went very well other than a few games at RG we were totally healthy at the key spots so that certainly helped.

RUNNING
We ran for nearly 3000 yards (572 attempts) with the lead back getting 2300 himself.

We had just 2-3 games I would call duds, 2-3 average games and prolly 5-6 where were so dominant the game wasn't ever going to be close.

There was a siginifcant dropoff around week 13 (right around 370 touches for those familiar with that theory) but it could be a lot of things really and 2 of those games had the terrible backup RG in.

That is wonderful of course and if your goal is to go 10-6 then I highly recommend building a running team.

We actually ended up in the CC. We grabbed the bye towards the end of the season.

PASSING
Passing we attempted more than 20% fewer attempts than even an average team and as you might guess were skewed toward deeper throws and were top 3 in PYC and YPA:
We threw Short like 50% less than average but were top 5 in ypa
Intermediate we threw a lot and were above average
Deep we were pretty average with all.

Pass Pro and Sack P were also top 5 along with 3rd conversions. But we did throw nearly a pick a game (1st year FA QB though).

Overall I saw enough to not want to change much. Maybe switch out some runs and intermediate passes for Short stuff but there was a whole lot to like. Of course our bars are also pretty dang good so perhaps anything will work but like I said this is just the way I like to play the game I don't really know if it is "better" or not.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2019, 06:19 AM   #8
user name
n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
any findings on the target issues you described in OP for X, Z ?
user name is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 09:41 AM   #9
Ushikawa
Mascot
 
Join Date: May 2015
I didn't track primary secondary but both X and Z ended up with 100-120 targets and Y was close to that.

A a d R had 40 or so.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.