Are WE Causing the INTs?

[nxt]

My theory is that the INTs are caused by the motivation. When you start seeing your QB throw INTs or errant passes, or RB/WR FUM the ball too much, check their motivation level, and I'll bet you that their motivation is low or grey'd out. This is where as a HUM, you can sit or sub the player that you see is having motivation issues. However, the problem is that the CPU will not sub or sit the player if their player's motivation level is low, thus he continues to make INTs or FUMs. Therefore, we see the snow ball effect of bad throw, after bad throw, or fumble after fumble.

[DocHolliday]

Thats completely and utterly wack if that is going to be considered a fix

[dubplate]

The easiest fix to the solution would be for the programmers to do their job.

[mdgoalie37]

In the demo and for a couple of play now games I used the 'Ask Corso' feature to pick my defenses and I noticed alot of single coverage, often with no deep help and other things I normally wouldn't do with my defense - I usually do the package matchup and pretty much always have at least one safety deep.

When starting my franchise I started to pick the plays myself, as usual, though I usually try to pattern my calls after the real philosophy of the team - such as I blitz more with Rutgers but with Penn State I play pretty vanilla and let my team speed and talent (Conor is a beast #40) make the plays. I really can't complain much about the picks I see, 0-4 per game, now with knockdowns at 0 and INTs at 30. Most of the dynasty games I have played so far my team was the favorite, so winning the turnover battle would be expected. I'll see what happens when the schedules get tougher.

[Village Idiot]

Quote: Originally Posted by theaub

Yeah...I really shouldn't have to completely screw over my pass D to prevent interceptions.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: I'm having more success stopping the pass than before.

Quote: Originally Posted by Undefeated

my sack numbers are up dramatically, the CPU's completion % is down (I'm actually seeing drops), and I'm getting way more 3-and-outs as well as more stops on 3rd down more generally.

Quote: Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Thats completely and utterly wack if that is going to be considered a fix

Worse than the alternative? If you say so.

[rednarb357]

Quote: Originally Posted by Undefeated

One thing I've picked up regarding stopping the CPU's passing game is that max zones, cover twos, and three and four man rushes in general don't work. Also, it doesn't seem to matter if I drop seven or eight into coverage; without a rush, the CPU will complete the pass. So what I've done is started calling a lot more plays without deep help. In the past I used to always try to match DB's with WR (nickel against 3WR, dime against 4WR, etc.), but now I've done exactly the reverse. I run the 4-3 almost exclusively, and bring out the nickel against 4WR sets. Also, as I said, I've stopped worrying about having the safeties back. In fact, I generally look for the plays that don't have deep coverage. Moreover, I'm even calling 5-10 plays per game where I know I don't have enough defenders playing the pass. Surprise surprise, my INT numbers have fallen off considerably, my sack numbers are up dramatically, the CPU's completion % is down (I'm actually seeing drops), and I'm getting way more 3-and-outs as well as more stops on 3rd down more generally. I'm wondering now if we haven't all spent way too much time going out of our way to stop the pass, calling zone blitzes and 'pass defenses' in general all game long, that that's the reason we've all seen so many INTs. I just finished playing a game on default Heisman, and I had one pick that was totally legit. In fact, like I mentioned in another thread, for the first time I was actually hoping to get an INT based on some of my play calls; e.g. after calling man blitzes on most every play, throwing in a zone blitz feels that much more like it's designed to get an interception. When I didn't get one, the completion the CPU threw actually felt pretty good, like I was one-upped, strategically. I'm not ready to call this 'confirmed', but I think it's worth considering. The game I just played was my best yet - again, without a single slider tweak, on Heisman. My hopes have never been higher.

I've been doing this too, mainly sticking with 4-3 and Nickel and I've had 1 pick in about 3 games...I usually stop the computer on 3 and out if I do stop them...keeps the games competitive.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Undefeated

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: I'm having more success stopping the pass than before.

You did say you were able to lower cpu INTs this way. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense that you would have more success stopping the pass by using formations designed to stop the run and having LBs cover WRs.

[arichzona]

Quote: Originally Posted by dubplate

The easiest fix to the solution would be for the programmers to do their job.

AMEN!!!!

Who tests these games and says that 4-6 picks per game is the norm?