User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Position Talk > WR Club > WR1 slot too favored in sim?
Page:
 
WizardofWar
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Paul W Davey
Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks

If you fill in a custom input it overrides the general input for that position.
If you fill in all custom inputs the general input may as well not exist, for all intensive purposes it does not.

The QB checkdown uses vision to factor in: WR depth, WR openness, WR match up/coverage, WR route distance/completion, the QB's tactics for release, and pressure on the QB. Given this he's still prone to making mistakes and will sometimes target the "wrong" receiver in his calculation.


@Daddy - I am totally with you there. I use the general WR slots to tell the sim what the depth chart order is for the WRs in one single list - for use in the QB checkdown. The WR slots override it for who lines up where.

@ Wizard - thanks for looking into it WizardofWar ... but as you can see this is not the problem I am having. My WRs line up where I want them ... it is just that I can't get the ball to my WR1 Speedster enough and the SIM throws to my backup WR2 / WR4 a fair bit more. This has to be more of an issue of CB coverage though.

Sorry to take the attention away from your original issue. In your team, is the OC now manually moving your Receivers into all sorts of different positions each game to try to get everyone a touch of the ball?








Wow...to think that the ball actually goes to WR2 and WR4 BLOWS MY MIND....I dont think the ball has gone to WR4 once this entire season. OC runs lots of 5WR plays too (as there is no 4 WR set yet)......the most amazing thing about this game is you never know.
 
Paul W Davey
offline
Link
 
For your delectation ... although please do take precautions and wear a suitable head guard and have a medically trained professional on hand to pick up those pieces of your mind ...

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=622593&pbp_id=7320062 - WR4 (although I suspect this complete lack of marking isn't likely to happen at your level)

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=622593&pbp_id=7323117 - WR2

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=622593&pbp_id=7318646 - WR2


How about this ...

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=622593&pbp_id=7319230 - WR 4

When the QB checked down his receivers, WR4 must have been the most open, and sufficiently so for the QB to unload. Shame really because if he had waited a moment longer to check, he could have passed over the top to WR1 or 2 for a possible TD.



Edited by Paul W Davey on Jul 6, 2009 05:10:08
Edited by Paul W Davey on Jul 6, 2009 05:09:02
 
WizardofWar
offline
Link
 
good stuff paul..I defer to your enlightened state. Also, I opened up the old box of "horrors" and took out my grade school helmet, mouth guard and straight jacket that THEY made me wear on the short bus (you know...T H E M).....and thanks for that as I destroyed all three pieces after seeing WR4 get looks.

Seriously, lets take a look at your QB "dump settings". To me, it looks like the one DE in those plays was putting considerable pressure on the QB. It may be possible that QB dump settings are set to 'often' or some such setting (cannot recall now). And you are correct, another second on some of those plays had WR1 wide open.

Maybe dump "sometimes" or "never" would be worth an experimental look.

 
Paul W Davey
offline
Link
 
Ahh GLB ... the great 'equal' play ground in the etherweb ... anyway ...

We do use 'dump off often', but only against stronger opposition and not on that particular game. I think the QB is a wuss (sorry Rob - our DC is the agent and hopefully isn't reading this), as I reckon he had moment longer before he HAD to unload. Also, his vision (which is 60) must be limiting the play as it is precisely the kind of scenario in which you would hope a good QB could 'lead' his Receiver downfield. The 'wuss' status is confirmed when the QB went down as soon as he turned and saw the LDE coming.

The plays I posted were all WR2/4 passes to this one same receiver. He is our lowest level and is the WR2 backup and WR4 starter. However, he has our highest 'catching'.

How about your scenario ... how is it working out?
 
WizardofWar
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Paul W Davey
Ahh GLB ... the great 'equal' play ground in the etherweb ... anyway ...

How about your scenario ... how is it working out?


I have adopted the 'less is more' style lately. translation: since I threw in the towel as O/C, I MUST keep most opinions/suggestions to myself or suffer the assult of "oh..before you wanted nothing to do with O/C...and NOW you are tossing around all this stuff..(more appropriately known as Armchair O/C'ing!"

But to your question....results were as expected and I NEVER said anything our O/C. Basically, he slotted me at WR1 and the normal WR1 got placed at WR3.......results: WR1 and WR3 combined for most, if not all, catches...both had excellent games and WR2 just ran around the field like a dog chasing butterflies.

 
GoPackGo226
offline
Link
 
Ultimately I think it comes down to matchups and depth of the team. For instance, the number 1 WR, will probably be countered by the number 1 CB. If those two are the same level and your number 2 or number 3 WRs outlevel their number 2 or 3 CBs on a consistant basis, then the favortism in the matchups leads to them getting better numbers.
 
Mob-6
offline
Link
 
From my experience the #1 guy seems to get a large percentage of targets IF he is a top WR. If you put a scrub there he won't make it. Great WRs will be targeted in any slot. That being said, if you can put your best WR in the #1 slot, he will catch a ton of balls.
 
nas4a
offline
Link
 
I think the number of plays has a lot to do with it, and honestly, I haven't figured that one out. I've got a great WR who a few seasons ago got a ton of plays, and produced. Last season, I was the #1 back-up at all the WR spots, and I barely saw the field. I was the 5th ranked WR on our team in terms of plays, and roughly upper middle in production. This season, I signed with a team who could play me in the #1 WR spot, and I'm STILL low in the number of plays compared to the other guys, and my prodction is WAY down. I have games with 0 catches at the #1 WR spot, and my guy isn't a badly built WR.

My owner has no idea why my guy is seeing so many fewer plays, or why it's opposite of my previous team. My stamina is fine...higher than the other WR's actually. Very strange.
 
GoPackGo226
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by nas4a
I think the number of plays has a lot to do with it, and honestly, I haven't figured that one out. I've got a great WR who a few seasons ago got a ton of plays, and produced. Last season, I was the #1 back-up at all the WR spots, and I barely saw the field. I was the 5th ranked WR on our team in terms of plays, and roughly upper middle in production. This season, I signed with a team who could play me in the #1 WR spot, and I'm STILL low in the number of plays compared to the other guys, and my prodction is WAY down. I have games with 0 catches at the #1 WR spot, and my guy isn't a badly built WR.

My owner has no idea why my guy is seeing so many fewer plays, or why it's opposite of my previous team. My stamina is fine...higher than the other WR's actually. Very strange.


A lot of owners do the depth charts in a way that is detremental to a number 1 reciever. For instance if a team has 5 recievers, they will list the number 1 in the number 1 slot, with no, 2,3,4 and 5 backing him up. In the 2nd slot, the number 2 guy takes the lead, but numbers 3, 4, and 5 are backing him up. With the 3rd slot, numbers 4 and 5 back him up. This means that your 2nd and 3rd recievers are getting plays at the 1 slot, yet, number 1 is backing up nowhere.

My idea would be to boost stamina to the point in which you need fewer breathers in the first place.
 
Paul W Davey
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by GoPackGo226
Originally posted by nas4a

I think the number of plays has a lot to do with it, and honestly, I haven't figured that one out. I've got a great WR who a few seasons ago got a ton of plays, and produced. Last season, I was the #1 back-up at all the WR spots, and I barely saw the field. I was the 5th ranked WR on our team in terms of plays, and roughly upper middle in production. This season, I signed with a team who could play me in the #1 WR spot, and I'm STILL low in the number of plays compared to the other guys, and my prodction is WAY down. I have games with 0 catches at the #1 WR spot, and my guy isn't a badly built WR.

My owner has no idea why my guy is seeing so many fewer plays, or why it's opposite of my previous team. My stamina is fine...higher than the other WR's actually. Very strange.


A lot of owners do the depth charts in a way that is detremental to a number 1 reciever. For instance if a team has 5 recievers, they will list the number 1 in the number 1 slot, with no, 2,3,4 and 5 backing him up. In the 2nd slot, the number 2 guy takes the lead, but numbers 3, 4, and 5 are backing him up. With the 3rd slot, numbers 4 and 5 back him up. This means that your 2nd and 3rd recievers are getting plays at the 1 slot, yet, number 1 is backing up nowhere.

My idea would be to boost stamina to the point in which you need fewer breathers in the first place.



Or ... as per GoPack's previous post ... since the problem is that you are being covered by the number 1 CB every team has ... spend your points on getting speed/agility or jumping/catching to the point where you can get the ball thrown your way.

Or ... just ask to play WR3 for a bit.
 
WizardofWar
offline
Link
 
Another amazing breakthru:

For final game of season, O/C slotted my guy at WR1 and the normal WR1 guy at WR3...

The WR3 guy put up approx 400 yards in one of the most evenly matched games ever.

My guy in WR1 had a respectable game 5 catch/43 yards..no 'knocked loose' and only 1 or 2 deflections.....

WR3 (who is normally WR1) 13 catches...378 yards...BLEW the doors off in this one.

WR2....nothing as usual.

WR5...few passes there

 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.