Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by mandyross

it's an observable and documented trait.
Speaking of observable and documented things, I wonder if we have a bunch of replays showing that OTs with First Step drop back close to the QB. We do? Oh my goodness!


You miss the point by quite a long way. For something to be statistically relevant, it would have to be shown that this is proportionally more prevalent than in the test group.

It is quite possible for "self-evident" things to be more misleading than correct - something which we have seen several times before in GLBland. I'm not asking that people don't contemplate interesting theories in these forums, rather that they think a little before voluminously pronouncing them as fact.

I'm being quite unbiased and indifferent to you in here. I think you should at least acknowledge that!

Originally posted by mandyross
You miss the point by quite a long way. For something to be statistically relevant, it would have to be shown that this is proportionally more prevalent than in the test group. It is quite possible for "self-evident" things to be more misleading than correct - something which we have seen several times before in GLBland. I'm not asking that people don't contemplate interesting theories in these forums, rather that they think a little before voluminously pronouncing them as fact. I'm being quite unbiased and indifferent to you in here. I think you should at least acknowledge that!
Jesus Christ.

Being a build forum hostess doesn't make you a build expert any more than a restaurant hostess is an expert on cooking. You're wasting everyone's time and derailing the thread because you're bitter towards me about making you look bad, but get over it. There is no statistical inquiry necessary to note that First Step (and as noted, high speed to a lesser degree) causes OTs to drop back close to the QB. That is a fact. This absurd rhetorical gymnastics where you try to question that without actually saying anything meaningful is pointless. Throwing around big words in a transparent attempt to seem more intelligent is also rather embarrassing. If you have a real reason to think that First Step doesn't hurt OTs then say so in plain English, otherwise stop posting in this thread.

Come now, let's behave and stay on topic, please.

You can also find replays where the OT steps back close to the QB, and then moves forward to make contact with the DE.

Nobody has denied that an OT with first step drops back faster. It's just that it has not led to those OTs giving up more sacks than OTs without it.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
You can also find replays where the OT steps back close to the QB, and then moves forward to make contact with the DE.

Nobody has denied that an OT with first step drops back faster. It's just that it has not led to those OTs giving up more sacks than OTs without it.

That would be the question. I assume so only because when my OTs give up sacks this is what seems to be happening

Originally posted by bug03
Originally posted by Rage Kinard

You can also find replays where the OT steps back close to the QB, and then moves forward to make contact with the DE.

Nobody has denied that an OT with first step drops back faster. It's just that it has not led to those OTs giving up more sacks than OTs without it.

That would be the question. I assume so only because when my OTs give up sacks this is what seems to be happening

Finally some sensible conversation. Also, if the OT drops back faster, does he drop back necessarily further on a consistent basis? The reaction time to move forward and make contact with the DE, with the current blocking mechanics, could depend on vision also, which I'd say is another factor to throw in the mix.

I know of two WL LOTs with first step who gave up 5 sacks between them last season; which, while not being enough info to come to a definitive conclusion, shows that FS does not autobreak a build as some have suggested.

jd - very poor showing in this thread. Is it any wonder people get driven away from the main forums when faced with this kind of mindless abuse? Also relax about your past grievances! It's not likely we will change each other's opinion about that issue*.





*unless you've done a basic math course between then and now, or I write a Tautology-style step-by-step thesis.

Originally posted by mandyross
I know of two WL LOTs with first step who gave up 5 sacks between them last season; which, while not being enough info to come to a definitive conclusion, shows that FS does not autobreak a build as some have suggested.
No one has suggested that, though. You're disrupting this thread to pursue a grudge against me, all while acting like you're some kind of high-minded intellectual using big words when you're nothing of the sort. When people think about what agents know this sim and have opinions worth heeding, no one ever thinks of you. Ever. I get why you want to pretend like you're relevant because you're hostess of a big build forum, but stop trying to achieve relevance by arguing with people who are and start posting things that actually have some value.

Originally posted by
jd - very poor showing in this thread. Is it any wonder people get driven away from the main forums when faced with this kind of mindless abuse? Also relax about your past grievances! It's not likely we will change each other's opinion about that issue*. *unless you've done a basic math course between then and now, or I write a Tautology-style step-by-step thesis.
This is what I'm talking about. You and Darkstrand embarrassed yourself by saying things that were horrendously wrong by any statistical measure, but to protect your own fragile ego you've rewritten reality so that in your mind you and Darkstrand were proven victorious instead of having many people including myself (pretty sure that tautology said you guys were wrong too) explain why you were wrong. Everything since then has been you acting out your subconscious bitterness towards me.

Again, this isn't complicated so if you want to convince anyone that you're in any way intelligent then you might want to act like you grasp this. First Step, and to a lesser degree high speed, cause OTs to drop back quickly to a point that is only a couple of yards from the quarterback's drop point. That's an observable, documented phenomenon, which is why you arguing over that or bringing up statistical data makes you look like a clown trying to pretend like he's smart. As noted, dropping back close to the QB doesn't necessarily mean that you'll give up a sack since you might possibly hold that block indefinitely, but having less space between the block and the QB does mean less space to reengage if he block is broken as well as possibly causing the QB to move in the opposite direction.

Now stop ruining threads, randymoss. Either post something actually insightful or don't post, but definitely don't post just to pointlessly quibble over something I've said because you're incredibly bitter towards me.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
You can also find replays where the OT steps back close to the QB, and then moves forward to make contact with the DE. Nobody has denied that an OT with first step drops back faster. It's just that it has not led to those OTs giving up more sacks than OTs without it.
Think about it logically. If you're hoping to avoid a sack, would you rather have an OT engage their assignment farther from the QB or closer? This isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by mandyross
Is it any wonder people get driven away from the main forums when faced with this kind of mindless abuse?

This pretty much sums it up for me. I'm not interested in responding to the personal attacks, people can interpret that how they like.

Originally posted by mandyross
This pretty much sums it up for me. I'm not interested in responding to the personal attacks, people can interpret that how they like.
And yet you're the one who repeatedly insulted me in this thread, referring to "self-delusion," etc. I want to discuss First Step. If you have something legitimate to say on that subject then feel free, otherwise stop trolling the thread.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Think about it logically. If you're hoping to avoid a sack, would you rather have an OT engage their assignment farther from the QB or closer? This isn't rocket science.


Are we talking IRL or GLB?


The thing is if offensive player is engaged with defensive player, the defensive player can basically be on top of the QB and not get a sack in GLB.

You also have to look at - it takes x ticks for DE to get to OT, then it taxes y ticks for DE to break block, then it takes z ticks for DE to get to the QB.

If x = 3, y = 3, z = 5 it is no different than if x = 6, y = 3, z = 2. In both cases it would be 11 ticks.

Originally posted by jdbolick
If you have something legitimate to say on that subject then feel free

As it was lost in the sea of jibes, I repeat: A lot of what you say about FS has not been proven yet, be careful as to what you present as "fact" based on your intuition. It would let GLB threads flow a lot more smoothly, and more discoveries would be made.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
You also have to look at - it takes x ticks for DE to get to OT, then it taxes y ticks for DE to break block, then it takes z ticks for DE to get to the QB. If x = 3, y = 3, z = 5 it is no different than if x = 6, y = 3, z = 2. In both cases it would be 11 ticks.
In this sim, OL reengage repeatedly unless they've been reverse pancaked. By dropping back close to the QB, the defender is actually close enough for a tackle attempt immediately after breaking the block, so you don't need a reverse pancake for a sack in that instance. Also, the QB is affected by the proximity of defenders. If it views the LT's block as a threat then the QB will often move to the right, sometimes right into a defender coming from that direction. And even if he doesn't move, it can cause a bad throw if hurry pressure is registered or simply not give time to throw if the defender is too close at the time of the broken block.

Again, this is just beyond obvious. You would rather have the OL engage their block farther away from the quarterback. You can argue whether or not you think First Step's advantages on runs and screens are worth more than its liability in pass protection, but there's no question that it is a liability in pass protection for OTs.

Originally posted by mandyross
As it was lost in the sea of jibes, I repeat: A lot of what you say about FS has not been proven yet, be careful as to what you present as "fact" based on your intuition. It would let GLB threads flow a lot more smoothly, and more discoveries would be made.
Stop trolling the thread and go away. You haven't made a single post in this thread that in any way contributed to the discussion. All you've done has been to insult me and challenge my statements without actually providing anything at all to legitimately question their validity. It is a fact that First Step causes the OT to block closer to the QB than without it. That is proven and documented, so shut up and go away.

Originally posted by mandyross
Finally some sensible conversation. Also, if the OT drops back faster, does he drop back necessarily further on a consistent basis? The reaction time to move forward and make contact with the DE, with the current blocking mechanics, could depend on vision also, which I'd say is another factor to throw in the mix.

FS does not autobreak a build as some have suggested.


It appears to me as though LOTs in particular do indeed consistently drop back further and faster when they have high speed and First Step...perhaps not 100% of the time (though likely this) but certainly most of the time.

But your point about Vision being a critical 4th element in the speed-agility-first step equation for successful blocking when dropping back is something I also think should be proved out. I have always thought that might well be the missing element.

the question is whether or not you can get all of those elements high enough while still having enough strength and blocking to perform your basic tasks.

And while it does anecdotally seem to be the case that LOTs with high FS and Speed give up most of their sacks when dropping back deep and allowing the DE to bullrush him back and/or cut inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are giving up MORE sacks than they otherwise would...though it is an open question.

My current position is that First Step for LOT is something of a mixed bag, with some pretty compelling advantages in the running and screen passing game and a pretty substantial question mark in drop-back protection to offset those advantages.