Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by merenoise

Are my stats in anyway incorrect?

You lied about me, not necessarily your stats. It doesn't change that the proposed VA, which I take it you support only because I oppose, would lead to a very low percentage without the DCs even having to try to stop long passes. Just play everyone in the box. One on one is good enough to stop anything deep.

Oh, and the stats are based on the double coverage that almost anyone gets deep, except here where people still cover people one on one more often than in real life.

And you know who suggested the 3rd Down Stopper VA (because 3rd and long was, in fact, too easy to convert)? I did.





Show me plays in WL where WRs are covered 1 on 1 on 3rd down and 20+ and not routinely making catches. This should be illuminating. Unless you are making it up of course.

At the Pro and WL level there simply aren't teams leaving WRs open for the amount of time necessary to make a 3rd down and 20 a high percentage play. If they are blitzing pressure gets there within 5-10 ticks and if they are playing deep coverage everyone is doubled which is exactly in line with what the OP suggests (making 3rd and 20 a 25% proposition) . So basically your offensive bias is once again rearing its ugly head. Unless stats only matter when they support your argument?

Originally posted by merenoise
Show me plays in WL where WRs are covered 1 on 1 on 3rd down and 20+ and not routinely making catches. This should be illuminating. Unless you are making it up of course.

Key fact: This VA would not be limited to 3rd Down. As I said, 3rd Down Stopper was my idea, because I could see that 3rd and long was being converted too often. Can you show that 3rd and very long is being converted more often in GLB than in real life now? Even if you could, this VA wouldn't apply because it's not limited to 3rd Down.

Originally posted by merenoise
At the Pro and WL level there simply aren't teams leaving WRs open for the amount of time necessary to make a 3rd down and 20 a high percentage play. If they are blitzing pressure gets there within 5-10 ticks and if they are playing deep coverage everyone is doubled which is exactly in line with what the OP suggests (making 3rd and 20 a 25% proposition) . So basically your offensive bias is once again rearing its ugly head. Unless stats only matter when they support your argument?

What about 1st and 2nd down, where the VA would still be in effect? I see lots of stacked boxes, no matter what level of league I look at. Pull your damn safeties back if you're giving up too many long passes. Make the VA "...when in double or better coverage on the receiver" and I'd support it. According to you, that would cover all the 3rd and long situations anyway so you should find that acceptable. Just don't let people get away with single coverage.

Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by merenoise

Show me plays in WL where WRs are covered 1 on 1 on 3rd down and 20+ and not routinely making catches. This should be illuminating. Unless you are making it up of course.

Key fact: This VA would not be limited to 3rd Down. As I said, 3rd Down Stopper was my idea, because I could see that 3rd and long was being converted too often. Can you show that 3rd and very long is being converted more often in GLB than in real life now? Even if you could, this VA wouldn't apply because it's not limited to 3rd Down.

Originally posted by merenoise

At the Pro and WL level there simply aren't teams leaving WRs open for the amount of time necessary to make a 3rd down and 20 a high percentage play. If they are blitzing pressure gets there within 5-10 ticks and if they are playing deep coverage everyone is doubled which is exactly in line with what the OP suggests (making 3rd and 20 a 25% proposition) . So basically your offensive bias is once again rearing its ugly head. Unless stats only matter when they support your argument?

What about 1st and 2nd down, where the VA would still be in effect? I see lots of stacked boxes, no matter what level of league I look at. Pull your damn safeties back if you're giving up too many long passes. Make the VA "...when in double or better coverage on the receiver" and I'd support it. According to you, that would cover all the 3rd and long situations anyway so you should find that acceptable. Just don't let people get away with single coverage.

This is what happens when you single cover in Pro and up:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1957344&pbp_id=4410216

This happens routinely on 3rd and Long even against double coverage:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1957344&pbp_id=4412381

I'm an OC and see that long passes are too easy to complete, this isn't some crybaby whine from a DC. You can't see the forest for the trees because you coordinate in a crap league and have a serious bias towards the offense.

In a good sim, this VA wouldn't be necessary... however, when 20+ yard passes are on the money every single time, you need to give a little help.

And the whole reason I suggested this was because I saw way too many passes being completed down the field (and I use safeties deep on a regular basis)... so double coverage was doing very little. Realistically, passes 20+ yards downfield should probably be completed 1 out of 5 times... 2 on a good day. From what I've seen in this sim, it's probably happening 2 or 3 times out of 5... on a bad day.

I will try to look at some long passes before saying yea or nay to this.
My 1 thing is...has Deep Zone been actually fixed to stick with the deepest receiver? Because that was the main reason people rarely put Safeties into Deep Zone before.

Would prefer if they got rid of all VA's, not add more.

Originally posted by vinman
Would prefer if they got rid of all VA's, not add more.

I would prefer they fix all the VA's so that they are equally useful. Right now, I would guess that 1/3 are deemed insufficient or outright broken.

Originally posted by merenoise
Since Ken1 is all about making up stats I thought I'd head this one off at the pass. According to the Washington Post the NFL's top 36 passers last season had a 28% completion rating on passes on 3rd and 8 or more:

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&type=&rank=047&year=

569 completions on 2008 attempts which lines up pretty nicely with gndzylak's suggestion that 75% chance to PD. If anything that is too little since the percentage goes way down once you take it to 15+ yards much less 20+ yards.


75% boost to PD's =/= 28% completion rating

Originally posted by gndzylak
In a good sim, this VA wouldn't be necessary... however, when 20+ yard passes are on the money every single time, you need to give a little help.

And the whole reason I suggested this was because I saw way too many passes being completed down the field (and I use safeties deep on a regular basis)... so double coverage was doing very little. Realistically, passes 20+ yards downfield should probably be completed 1 out of 5 times... 2 on a good day. From what I've seen in this sim, it's probably happening 2 or 3 times out of 5... on a bad day.

If I said anything like that, Mr. Noise would accuse me of making up stats. I don't think you're making up stats; it's your best estimate. But your estimate is, I'm reasonably certain, wrong.

WL teams are averaging a little over 7 yards per pass attempt, which is realistic http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2011&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS . If they could complete 2.5 in 5 of 20 yard passes they'd be getting 10 yards per pass attempt, and a VA solution (still not one as powerful as this: 3%/level on every down with no conditions? ) would be reasonable to call for.

With interceptions down this season, it might be reasonable to make long passes riskier with a +2%/level bonus to interception chance on passes over 20 yards when another defender is within one yard (Double Coverage Pick could be the name, or not...), making long passes riskier, as they may not be as risky in GLB as in real life.

Edits: Getting link to actually link correctly.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Originally posted by merenoise

Since Ken1 is all about making up stats I thought I'd head this one off at the pass. According to the Washington Post the NFL's top 36 passers last season had a 28% completion rating on passes on 3rd and 8 or more:

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&type=&rank=047&year=

569 completions on 2008 attempts which lines up pretty nicely with gndzylak's suggestion that 75% chance to PD. If anything that is too little since the percentage goes way down once you take it to 15+ yards much less 20+ yards.


75% boost to PD's =/= 28% completion rating

not to mention the defender still needs to be in the same area to make the shot of the PD anyway. 75% is a large amount of stacking VAs, not just 1.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
75% boost to PD's =/= 28% completion rating

Precisely why the VA would in no way be OP. Deflections are not automatic incompletes, in fact passes are often caught after the PD.

Originally posted by merenoise
Precisely why the VA would in no way be OP. Deflections are not automatic incompletes, in fact passes are often caught after the PD.

It's still a bad VA suggestion, too situational, and any DC who isn't brain-dead will have a 3man d-line and everyone else in double coverage. It's not a necessary VA in any way, shape or form, as defending 3rd and long is easy enough as it is. Defense doesn't need a boost in this department at all.

From watching teams I coordinate on and teams I have dots on I see no need to boost this right now. on 3rd and 10+ most teams I'm associated with are allowing ~20% conversion rate right now, how about you scout a few teams, show m examples of teams allowing high conversion %'s on 3rd and 10+... never mind deeper passes. The sim needs no changing in this aspect, and the more I look for evidence that might support you, the more I'm realizing how useless this VA would be.

I wouldn't take it on any defensive dot I have currently, nor would I suggest it for any defender on a team I DC for. It's a bad suggestion. And 3rd down conversions are already balanced enough.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
It's still a bad VA suggestion, too situational, and any DC who isn't brain-dead will have a 3man d-line and everyone else in double coverage. It's not a necessary VA in any way, shape or form, as defending 3rd and long is easy enough as it is. Defense doesn't need a boost in this department at all.

From watching teams I coordinate on and teams I have dots on I see no need to boost this right now. on 3rd and 10+ most teams I'm associated with are allowing ~20% conversion rate right now

Watch out. You approximated something, so he'll accuse you of making up stats. Actually he won't, but that's because he only does that sort of thing to me.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
how about you scout a few teams, show m examples of teams allowing high conversion %'s on 3rd and 10+... never mind deeper passes. The sim needs no changing in this aspect, and the more I look for evidence that might support you, the more I'm realizing how useless this VA would be.

More like superfluous, perhaps?

I actually think there's room for a defensive VA, as the interception rate in WL seems to be too low, so long passes, while not overly effective, aren't risky enough. A bonus to interception chances when in double (or more) coverage on a long pass might make for a good VA. It's exactly the type of thing that one would expect Mr. Noise to support, too...more stats, and if he really thinks something to defend long passes is needed.... But he wouldn't support that, because it came from me, and his psycho obsession with me continues.