Week 9 Discussion

[dberner30]

Soundly? I guess when you only average a couple wins a year, and win is a "sound" win. . .

just like the hog rancher to minimize the loss. You got owned.....big time...

like i said before we have lost our games to the top teams in the league and by a narrow margin. At some point the schedule has to lighten up and give us a softer group of opponents.

[Cringer]

No, it completely torqued the coverage schemes for the secondary. My coverages were based upon the FOF2k4 system where you could just sit in one coverage scheme the entire game. All it looked at was that one coverage skill in determining how effective your pass defense was.

In FOF2k7, it looks at not only the primary defense, but part of the other skills as well. So to calculate your defense in say 3-Deep, it might be 80% of your zone defense and 20% of your man-to-man defense, etc. If you look at my top secondary players, they all in the top 10 in the league in terms of zone defense. They might not have any other coverage skill, but they were very good at zone. The result is we've been burned big time.

That is the biggest factor for my team. Yes, our OL desertions hurt us, but if we could keep teams from scoring, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. Compare this defense to the other defenses we've had in Hartford and this one sucks hind tit.

The other issue that I have, is that you have to be very careful in how much time you spend in aggressive defenses. In FOF2k4, I would chart opposing offensive tendencies. I would then go with a highly aggressive run defense and a more passive pass defense. The idea was to get the offense in a passing situation and then sit back and blitz the hell out of them. It was largely effective.

Under FOF2k7, there is some sort of range where you can be aggressive to a point, but if you cross that line, you get burned constantly. Also, no one that I know of is completely comfortable with defensive play calling under 2k7. Now, many people were put off by 2k4 defensive play calling, but even the guys who had it down there are stumped now. Heck, check your results by having Coach Rex do the game plan and doing it yourself. Why does he always have pass agg. in third and long turned way down? Yet, try and turn it up in third and long situations and you get your ass eaten up.

I took essentially the same defensive gameplan from 2k4 to 2k7 in this league and the results are completely different. If I let Coach Rex handle things, I do ok, if I touch it, and set it comparably, it breaks.

The sad thing is, is that it has really soured me on the FOF franchise. Yes, 2k7 has some great features, but I feel I have substantially less control over things than I did before. Sure, I can change more things, but I am absolutely screwed if I go outside of X range. I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to test for X range to optimize my game plan.

Interesting.

Different experience here for sure. I haven't changed much in how I do things, so I guess the strategy difference plays a part there. I never focused on just zone, sounds like I use the aggresive pass/run differently then you, and I am sure there are other differences. What you say about the aggresive thing makes sense to me, where it doesn't sound like you get why there was a change from '04 to '07 (or maybe you do, but you just don't like the change is what you are saying). Being overly aggresive with something can work, and work well sometimes, for a while. But if a team can figure that out, there are ways to play off of that. Also being overly aggresive means you WILL get burned eventually, or often if the talent matchup is way off.

Example(kind of)....Bengals defensive style worked well for them against Baltimore, 6 turnovers. Not as well against Cleveland. Still got some turnovers, but gave up 50+ points too.

[Matt]

You definitely had a shot.

Clean slate starting next season! (well, clean-ish at 8-8 for the series) Good luck in the off-season. Hopefully you can pick up some key pieces!

honestly, I might be a few away. My team is old, and could very easily end up losing some key guys. I've got to get some of these older guys replaced, but have traded away the middle of my draft next year. Not sure what the plan is. This was my year to do it, and my team blew it. My once strong secondary all dropped 10+ points after TC, and scared me enough to bring in some help. We're doomed!!!!!!!!!!@@@!!11

[Warhammer]

I don't have a problem with expecting an aggressive defense, but there were already factors in FOF2k4 which could mitigate this. Finesse runs were supposed to work well against aggressive run defenses. Obviously an aggressive run defense would be burned by the pass and vice versa. Also, short passing tended to do better against an aggressive pass defense, but that was anecdotal evidence, I never had hard numbers.

I liked that method better because you could game plan either way. If you knew what your opponent's tendencies were, you would boost up the appropriate aggressive defense. So if I was going up against a running team and they ran 80% of the time. I would set my defense with a 90% run, and 80% run aggressive defense. That would put me in an aggressive run defense 72% of the time.

The opposing team could easily have checked my game planning and adjusted, if they passed the ball more, I would be screwed. If they ran some finesse running plays, I would be screwed.

I don't like the fact that at 35% you're fine, but if that increases by 1 to 36%, you are completely hosed. If I put the time and effort in to find out what my opponents offense is doing, and I am willing to risk a lot (i.e. I am in an aggressive defense most of the time) I should be rewarded.

Now, that said, the same thing should happen on offense as well. I think that there are some underlying tables that are off. The deep pass still works too well for my liking. I think the base chance of success is too high. There is a reason why NFL teams don't play the numbers with deep passes and just keep chucking them downfield in favorable situations. In FOF, you have every reason to do it. Yet, I don't think it happens.

I think part of the problem is that there are some limits with the game engine. Some of these have come to light in FOF2k7 that we were not aware of before. There are some artificial limits in the engine that Jim used as a cludge to keep stats sane. There are limits, and the problem is that the limits benefit those players that are able and willing to test the engine to find the sweet spot. This was evident in the super game plans that people had under FOF2k7.a-d. This game plan was also able to be used under 2k4, to even more ludicrous proportions.

To make matters worse, Jim has his let the player figure it out philosophy regarding his games. This makes things even worse when it comes to multiplayer because people don't want to share their secrets. I think things are so isoteric when it comes to the defense now, it isn't even funny. Plus, add in the increased scout error, you don't know whether your defense got burned by a better game plan, sucky players, or you tried blitzing too much, etc. I don't have a problem with some things, but without greater feedback, I don't know why things aren't working.

[dberner30]

and i want identities of those causing penalties...that will let me rule the league...(OR at least cut the offenders)...i have too many penalties at key moments and it isnt right...

[r00k]

I don't have a problem with expecting an aggressive defense, but there were already factors in FOF2k4 which could mitigate this. Finesse runs were supposed to work well against aggressive run defenses. Obviously an aggressive run defense would be burned by the pass and vice versa. Also, short passing tended to do better against an aggressive pass defense, but that was anecdotal evidence, I never had hard numbers.

I liked that method better because you could game plan either way. If you knew what your opponent's tendencies were, you would boost up the appropriate aggressive defense. So if I was going up against a running team and they ran 80% of the time. I would set my defense with a 90% run, and 80% run aggressive defense. That would put me in an aggressive run defense 72% of the time.

The opposing team could easily have checked my game planning and adjusted, if they passed the ball more, I would be screwed. If they ran some finesse running plays, I would be screwed.

I don't like the fact that at 35% you're fine, but if that increases by 1 to 36%, you are completely hosed. If I put the time and effort in to find out what my opponents offense is doing, and I am willing to risk a lot (i.e. I am in an aggressive defense most of the time) I should be rewarded.

Now, that said, the same thing should happen on offense as well. I think that there are some underlying tables that are off. The deep pass still works too well for my liking. I think the base chance of success is too high. There is a reason why NFL teams don't play the numbers with deep passes and just keep chucking them downfield in favorable situations. In FOF, you have every reason to do it. Yet, I don't think it happens.

I think part of the problem is that there are some limits with the game engine. Some of these have come to light in FOF2k7 that we were not aware of before. There are some artificial limits in the engine that Jim used as a cludge to keep stats sane. There are limits, and the problem is that the limits benefit those players that are able and willing to test the engine to find the sweet spot. This was evident in the super game plans that people had under FOF2k7.a-d. This game plan was also able to be used under 2k4, to even more ludicrous proportions.

To make matters worse, Jim has his let the player figure it out philosophy regarding his games. This makes things even worse when it comes to multiplayer because people don't want to share their secrets. I think things are so isoteric when it comes to the defense now, it isn't even funny. Plus, add in the increased scout error, you don't know whether your defense got burned by a better game plan, sucky players, or you tried blitzing too much, etc. I don't have a problem with some things, but without greater feedback, I don't know why things aren't working.

Warhammer, after two games, the Saints, touted to be a great team again this year, are asking alot of the same questions that you are ... & they also want some feedback on a quick fix. They are finding that the answers to their problems are hard to come by, and what worked last year is not this year.

As a Saints fan, I am hugely frustrated beyond imagination ... and as a FoF fanatic, I am not at the point that you are. The point I am feebly trying to make is that it seems to be easy to get frustrated whether it is in the real NFL or in a fantasy league .... so maybe the game is more real life than we want to give it credit.

[r00k]

and i want identities of those causing penalties...that will let me rule the league...(OR at least cut the offenders)...i have too many penalties at key moments and it isnt right...

Indeed, this would be a great add to the game and something that is very obvious in the real world but not in FOF.

[Cringer]

I don't have a problem with expecting an aggressive defense, but there were already factors in FOF2k4 which could mitigate this. Finesse runs were supposed to work well against aggressive run defenses. Obviously an aggressive run defense would be burned by the pass and vice versa. Also, short passing tended to do better against an aggressive pass defense, but that was anecdotal evidence, I never had hard numbers.

I liked that method better because you could game plan either way. If you knew what your opponent's tendencies were, you would boost up the appropriate aggressive defense. So if I was going up against a running team and they ran 80% of the time. I would set my defense with a 90% run, and 80% run aggressive defense. That would put me in an aggressive run defense 72% of the time.

The opposing team could easily have checked my game planning and adjusted, if they passed the ball more, I would be screwed. If they ran some finesse running plays, I would be screwed.

I don't like the fact that at 35% you're fine, but if that increases by 1 to 36%, you are completely hosed. If I put the time and effort in to find out what my opponents offense is doing, and I am willing to risk a lot (i.e. I am in an aggressive defense most of the time) I should be rewarded.

Now, that said, the same thing should happen on offense as well. I think that there are some underlying tables that are off. The deep pass still works too well for my liking. I think the base chance of success is too high. There is a reason why NFL teams don't play the numbers with deep passes and just keep chucking them downfield in favorable situations. In FOF, you have every reason to do it. Yet, I don't think it happens.

I think part of the problem is that there are some limits with the game engine. Some of these have come to light in FOF2k7 that we were not aware of before. There are some artificial limits in the engine that Jim used as a cludge to keep stats sane. There are limits, and the problem is that the limits benefit those players that are able and willing to test the engine to find the sweet spot. This was evident in the super game plans that people had under FOF2k7.a-d. This game plan was also able to be used under 2k4, to even more ludicrous proportions.

To make matters worse, Jim has his let the player figure it out philosophy regarding his games. This makes things even worse when it comes to multiplayer because people don't want to share their secrets. I think things are so isoteric when it comes to the defense now, it isn't even funny. Plus, add in the increased scout error, you don't know whether your defense got burned by a better game plan, sucky players, or you tried blitzing too much, etc. I don't have a problem with some things, but without greater feedback, I don't know why things aren't working.

Well, I agree as most would I think, there are problems with the game. As for what got us started on this, I guess the aggresive part is a mystery. If you say it gets wacko above the 35% mark, I will believe you. I just looked at a random gameplan I have and I don't have anything go over that. I have probably done it, but not enough that I notice that cutoff line. I started backing off of the aggresive D in 2004 because I wouldn't have success with it with this team of players in that version. If others did, then good to know it was possible to actually run completely different schemes and both be successful atleast.

[Hell Atlantic]

my team played well. Cardinals didn't. i accept the win.

Heroes are getting the rep for beating the teams that others can't. Seals in 2009. strong Cardinals team in 2010. we're a momemtum killer. at least we do something right.

[Warhammer]

That 35 number was just one that I threw out there. I'm not sure if that is the limit or not. Plus, you need to remember what the aggressive defense is for, which ever way you go, the players immediate expect that sort of play (I forget how the help file defines it exactly). If that is the case, why doesn't Coach Rex recommend a pass aggressive defense in 3rd and long? I don't get it.

[Warhammer]

Warhammer, after two games, the Saints, touted to be a great team again this year, are asking alot of the same questions that you are ... & they also want some feedback on a quick fix. They are finding that the answers to their problems are hard to come by, and what worked last year is not this year.

As a Saints fan, I am hugely frustrated beyond imagination ... and as a FoF fanatic, I am not at the point that you are. The point I am feebly trying to make is that it seems to be easy to get frustrated whether it is in the real NFL or in a fantasy league .... so maybe the game is more real life than we want to give it credit.

I understand why we're having issues. The primary culprit is our secondary. I get that. If my secondary was more geared to FOF2k7, we'd be a lot better.

To give a football analogy, its 3rd and 15. We've expected pass all the way the 3 previous times we've been in this situation and we've stopped them cold. The offense runs the same play, but since we're expecting pass all the way, its going to be completed. Whereas, if we made our CBs read the play before dropping into coverage, it'd be incomplete.

That is why I am upset. If I gameplan perfectly, I get burned because I tell my players in X situation they will do THIS. Expect THIS. But since I tell them that, they perform worse?

Another example, Bellicheck is signaled by his video guy that the Jets are going to be calling a run to the right. He relays that to his defense, but mysteriously, even though the perfect defense is called, the Jets go for 20 yards simply because the Pats were selling out against a play they knew was coming for the 4th time of the day (or whatever the cutoff is).

[JesterBlaze]

Disclaimer: Not trying to argue here.

If that is the case, why doesn't Coach Rex recommend a pass aggressive defense in 3rd and long? I don't get it.

It could be because the A.I. figures that going pass aggressive in 3rd and long opens up to much room for a run play to succeed. My thoughts on 3rd and long (in general as I'd never like to do the same thing too often and become predictable) is that the defense should hold the offense without benefit of anything out of the ordinary. It's 3rd and short where I need something special to happen in my favor.

That is why I am upset. If I gameplan perfectly, I get burned because I tell my players in X situation they will do THIS. Expect THIS. But since I tell them that, they perform worse?

Another example, Bellicheck is signaled by his video guy that the Jets are going to be calling a run to the right. He relays that to his defense, but mysteriously, even though the perfect defense is called, the Jets go for 20 yards simply because the Pats were selling out against a play they knew was coming for the 4th time of the day (or whatever the cutoff is).

What makes you think the offense's success is due to the defense's play call and not something else?

[r00k]

I understand why we're having issues. The primary culprit is our secondary. I get that. If my secondary was more geared to FOF2k7, we'd be a lot better.

Warhammer , your secondary's talent isn't what it was last year either ... probably a significant factor contributing to your displeasures.

[Warhammer]

Warhammer , your secondary's talent isn't what it was last year either ... probably a significant factor contributing to your displeasures.

Crap, lost what I had typed. Basically, I agree, my secondary has lost a step, but they are still above average defenders in what they are good at. Our top 5 secondary guys are still in place. The problem is that they were all picked to be great in zone defense, that and that alone. The result is that my safeties are terrible in any other sort of coverage, and my CBs are only marginally better.

Another thing, Jim G has said if there is ever an FOF7, the secondary stuff is going to get a huge upgrade. That tells me that the stuff he did in 2k7 he's not thrilled with how it is working.

Again, I'm not bitching about how the team is playing. I knew we were going to have a drop off this year, if nothing else from the schedule, and the fact that there are so many good teams in the AC. We haven't played extremely poorly until this last game.

[Warhammer]

Disclaimer: Not trying to argue here.

It could be because the A.I. figures that going pass aggressive in 3rd and long opens up to much room for a run play to succeed. My thoughts on 3rd and long (in general as I'd never like to do the same thing too often and become predictable) is that the defense should hold the offense without benefit of anything out of the ordinary. It's 3rd and short where I need something special to happen in my favor.

The problem is that isn't what is indicated and what an aggressive defense does. An aggressive defense is not a blitz defense or anything else. It is a defense where you are only looking for a pass or run.

My take, and this is not backed up in any way shape or form, is that Jim got ticked and wanted to make people not have an extreme defense or offense. This is the reason why he tweaked the coverage system. He got sick of people getting players that were good at one type of coverage cheap and having them perform well.

He admitted that for SP, the game will "peak" at your gameplan. I don't know how this effects things, but he already has something in there to check things, and that reinforces my belief that things that are outside of a range are punished.

What makes you think the offense's success is due to the defense's play call and not something else?

My example was a poor one, but, if someone can't stop you from doing something, you do it until they stop. Look at the truly great defenses. The Bears '85 defense was going to send everything and the kitchen sink until you stopped them. The great Eagles defenses of the 90s were the same way.

The way you stop extreme plans is not by forcing everyone to play within a range, but you have some form of diminishing returns. Maybe your deep passes should only have a base chance of completion of 15%, or something. You don't sit there and have some algorithm that goes through the game plan and says, "oh, they run deep passes 60% of the time, I'll nail them on that."

Heck, I should be able to, if I choose, get the best offensive line and best running back tandem and be able to run a run first offense. That should be possible, difficult, but possible. If I have the best coverage players in the league, such that I can go single coverage on everyone, and sell out towards the run, I should be able to do so. If I don't have the best players, it shouldn't work, but it should if I do.