Anatomy of a Rushing Play Topic

saad1000
Posts: 146 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
Posted by norbert on 12/29/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I'll add some additional information about the offensive team ratings and defensive team ratings for rushing.  Whether these are what they should be or not is a different story, but I think it would help you look at your running game.  You can look at these in light of the "team average" ratings I've mentioned above.

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness

Just an aside, I've never understood some of these ratings.  Like why is Technique separate from Blocking? Isn't Blocking really Blocking Technique?  Isn't Tackling really Tackling Technique? Wouldn't you combine those with Speed, Strength and Athleticism to tell how well a player blocks or tackles?  This is where I'm thinking once I start digging into some of these engine checks that it might make more sense to overhaul some of the logic rather than just try to tweak it.

Thanks, that helps a lot!

12/29/2011 6:56 PM
norbert
Posts: 1245 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11
Prospect
Posted by mal247 on 12/29/2011 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Norbert, 

What do you mean by "Factor in team ratings"? Overall team rating? Why would that be taken into consideration since not all of your players are on the field?

If it is an average of all the players on the field, then I would imagine things like strength and blocking to actually be important for the WR's on the field, since that would lower your overall team rating?
When I say team rating, I am talking about anytime it factors in more than one player's ratings.  In the case of the running play, when it factors in the player ratings for the players on the field and based on their amount of influence for the location of the play, it is factoring in those ratings I have listed.  So no, I didn't mean to imply it factors in the entire team's ratings, but rather team ratings (all players involved) versus an individual's ratings.
12/29/2011 6:58 PM
topoftheworl
Posts: 547 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 8 272
Prospect
Posted by norbert on 12/29/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I'll add some additional information about the offensive team ratings and defensive team ratings for rushing.  Whether these are what they should be or not is a different story, but I think it would help you look at your running game.  You can look at these in light of the "team average" ratings I've mentioned above.

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness

Just an aside, I've never understood some of these ratings.  Like why is Technique separate from Blocking? Isn't Blocking really Blocking Technique?  Isn't Tackling really Tackling Technique? Wouldn't you combine those with Speed, Strength and Athleticism to tell how well a player blocks or tackles?  This is where I'm thinking once I start digging into some of these engine checks that it might make more sense to overhaul some of the logic rather than just try to tweak it.
+1 to the final paragraph.
12/29/2011 7:02 PM
bobjoejim
Posts: 34 (0)
All Star
32 13
Prospect
Earlier you specifically mentioned FB, TE, and OL when discussing blocking influence. You did not mention WR. Do wide receivers factor into the blocking formulas in any meaningful way? Like on outside runs, in particular? I'm trying to figure out whether there's much or even any value to having a WR with high blocking and "tight end-ish type ratings" on a team that runs a lot. Would converting a TE to WR make sense? Or are you just going to end up with a bad WR and no blocking upside?
12/29/2011 7:19 PM
mrfortune3
Posts: 801 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1175 120 5
Prospect
Posted by bhouska on 12/29/2011 6:21:00 PM (view original):
I appreciate the info, Norbert, but now I'd like to know from all the people asking for this info what they are deriving from it?  Are you gonna change your gameplans because of it?  Your lineup?  Your recruiting style?  Your recruiting targets?  Your practice plan?

I honestly want to know, I've seen lots of people asking for this info, how is it gonna help???

it actually does help slightly. you can glean enough from it to shore up a game plan to where maybe you had one setting and couldn't figure out why it didn't work.
there isn't a ton of things you can do to tweak things to get it fully working but the knowledge of how it roughly works helps(especially since i have my WR's run a lot during games lately to spring my offense at times)
12/29/2011 7:23 PM
bhazlewood
Posts: 3240 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 215 12
All Star
Posted by norbert on 12/29/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I'll add some additional information about the offensive team ratings and defensive team ratings for rushing.  Whether these are what they should be or not is a different story, but I think it would help you look at your running game.  You can look at these in light of the "team average" ratings I've mentioned above.

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness

Just an aside, I've never understood some of these ratings.  Like why is Technique separate from Blocking? Isn't Blocking really Blocking Technique?  Isn't Tackling really Tackling Technique? Wouldn't you combine those with Speed, Strength and Athleticism to tell how well a player blocks or tackles?  This is where I'm thinking once I start digging into some of these engine checks that it might make more sense to overhaul some of the logic rather than just try to tweak it.
Looks like an overhaul of the GUESS report ratings are in order.
12/29/2011 8:14 PM
harriswb3
Posts: 2811 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 210
Veteran
I love it.  Give the good Mr Hazlewood more work to do!!  
12/29/2011 8:50 PM
harriswb3
Posts: 2811 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 210
Veteran
Posted by mrfortune3 on 12/29/2011 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bhouska on 12/29/2011 6:21:00 PM (view original):
I appreciate the info, Norbert, but now I'd like to know from all the people asking for this info what they are deriving from it?  Are you gonna change your gameplans because of it?  Your lineup?  Your recruiting style?  Your recruiting targets?  Your practice plan?

I honestly want to know, I've seen lots of people asking for this info, how is it gonna help???

it actually does help slightly. you can glean enough from it to shore up a game plan to where maybe you had one setting and couldn't figure out why it didn't work.
there isn't a ton of things you can do to tweak things to get it fully working but the knowledge of how it roughly works helps(especially since i have my WR's run a lot during games lately to spring my offense at times)
bhouska, I'm with mrfortune3 on this one.  Norbert has actually given a lot of information (much of which I will have to chew on a bit) and since one of my teams runs the WB exclusively and almost always RUNS exclusively (as you have seen this year in Heisman pre-season ) I think I can use a lot of this to help improve my running game.  Specifically, hearing this information about the overall team rating factors, and the discussion about the FB is really great.  I think it also starts to help us understand the importance (or not) of WR blocking.  

Example:  3 seasons ago I recruited a solid TE and converted him to WR for my WB team.  My theory was that I really wanted that extra BLK from the WR position.  However, I was just plain guessing as to whether or not it was important.  I did not do a scientific study, but I felt that my running game was just a hair better when that guy was in the game vs one of my regular "speed" WRs.  Now, I think I have confirmation that my theory was basically correct, and now I have a decision to make for future WRs.  Do I go with speed and hands for those times when I need to throw?  Or do I go with the high BLK guys or maybe even convert more TEs?  I'm not sure I know the answer yet, but it does give us all something to think about and that knowledge will add another dimension to the challenge of this game.
12/29/2011 8:57 PM
harriswb3
Posts: 2811 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 210
Veteran
NORBERT:  Thanks much for your time and thoughtful input here.  We all appreciate your presence and your continued support.
12/29/2011 8:58 PM
katzphang88
Posts: 1601 (0)
Hall of Famer
102 467 2 3
Prospect
Posted by norbert on 12/29/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I'll add some additional information about the offensive team ratings and defensive team ratings for rushing.  Whether these are what they should be or not is a different story, but I think it would help you look at your running game.  You can look at these in light of the "team average" ratings I've mentioned above.

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness

Just an aside, I've never understood some of these ratings.  Like why is Technique separate from Blocking? Isn't Blocking really Blocking Technique?  Isn't Tackling really Tackling Technique? Wouldn't you combine those with Speed, Strength and Athleticism to tell how well a player blocks or tackles?  This is where I'm thinking once I start digging into some of these engine checks that it might make more sense to overhaul some of the logic rather than just try to tweak it.
I really agree with your statements about the ratings. In the real world, is a coach going to break out players ability to be "elusive"?  With fewer main ratings, or more definite descriptors of a passing team OL vs running team OL we can prepare our teams to be able to run our specific game plan.

The other consideration to keep in the back of everyone's mind is: Do we want the main portion of the NEW GD to be items we can control (recruiting, game planning, depth charts, practice and formation settings) or a very sophisicated game engine. My choice would be to really make the game engine straightforward with expected variables determining the outcomes and more ability to modify my game play to be against the other coaches rather than the game engine.
12/29/2011 9:02 PM
katzphang88
Posts: 1601 (0)
Hall of Famer
102 467 2 3
Prospect
Oh, and Norbert - Thanks VERY much for making the coaches a part of this evolution!
12/29/2011 9:03 PM
harriswb3
Posts: 2811 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 210
Veteran
Can we also get the "team ratings" factors for PASSING?  I feel like a kid at Christmas..... LOL

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness
12/29/2011 9:15 PM
yatzr
Posts: 590 (0)
All Star
1 36
Pro
The locations down the field basically represent 0 or less yards (a stuff), 1 to 5 yards, 6 to 15 yards and 15 or more yards.  So if it was determined the runner was tackled in zone 3 down the field, we would then determine how many yards he got from 6 to 15 yards and that is based on the results of that initial check to see if he was tackled.  When we get into the 15 or more yards, additional checks are used to determine tackle chances incrementally down the field. ?
I've always suspected this was the case since I started generating these kinds of statistics
http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=428806&page=5
Now I know, so thank you :)

So since you've been looking at it, here's a question for you.  Why are there more 5 yard runs than 4 yard runs?  I realize that's not the case with the stats I just linked, but at some point, things changed and now there are consistently more 5 yard runs than 4 yard runs.  It kinda seems like maybe the locations are actually <1, 1-5, 5-15, >15 where the two middle locations overlap at the 5 yard mark.

And if you're feeling really generous, I think the thing that everyone would like to know is if our guy gets tackled in the 1-5 yard range, what determines if it's a 1 yard gain vs a 5 yard gain?

12/29/2011 9:19 PM
govolswoo
Posts: 536 (0)
Veteran
24
Prospect
does a blovckers speed have any impact on his zone of influence?
i.e. does a faster OL have a better chance to block wide? or down field?
does a very slow OL become a liability on wide rushes?
12/29/2011 9:44 PM
mrfortune3
Posts: 801 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1175 120 5
Prospect
Posted by norbert on 12/29/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I'll add some additional information about the offensive team ratings and defensive team ratings for rushing.  Whether these are what they should be or not is a different story, but I think it would help you look at your running game.  You can look at these in light of the "team average" ratings I've mentioned above.

Offensive - Primary: Speed, Game Instinct, Blocking, Strength - Secondary: Technique
Defensive - Primary: Technique, Tackle - Secondary: Speed, Game Instinct, Strength, Elusiveness

Just an aside, I've never understood some of these ratings.  Like why is Technique separate from Blocking? Isn't Blocking really Blocking Technique?  Isn't Tackling really Tackling Technique? Wouldn't you combine those with Speed, Strength and Athleticism to tell how well a player blocks or tackles?  This is where I'm thinking once I start digging into some of these engine checks that it might make more sense to overhaul some of the logic rather than just try to tweak it.
well that is partially true but it's kinda like when they break down draft prospects.
a OL always knows how to block, the technique part comes into the footwork, how they set up blocks vs bull rush guys, speed rush ends, & etc.
so it being two separate ratings could be considered accurate. though it should probably be labeled as mechanics for the QB.
12/29/2011 9:55 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Anatomy of a Rushing Play Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.