All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > When is talent going to matter again?
6/21/2013 12:31 PM
When is talent going to matter again?

This is my current game against Johns Hopkins in Bava.  I've provided the attribute differentials for easy comparison.  The numbers are directly from the game and roster.  How is Johns Hopkins running game remotely comparable to Rensselaer Tech?  How much of a talent disparity must you have before you're allowed to blow a team out?


 Johns Hopkins Run Results                              
 Player  Pos  Rush  Yds  Avg  TD  20+  Lg  St              
 John Alexander  RB  13  61  5  -    -    11  2              
 Michael Haney  RB  3  6  2  -    -    2  -                
                               
       A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 AVERAGE OL      28  13  46  49  42  34  31  16  16  28  22  28  
 AVERAGE DL      38  26  55  68  55  71  19  60  24  41  34  45  
 Differential      (10)  (14)  (8)  (19)  (13)  (37)  12  (43)  (8)  (13)  (13)  (17)  
                               
 AVERAGE RB      32  28  46  42  38  31  25  10  30  30  30  29  
 AVERAGE LB      54  37  57  70  57  57  10  60  22  47  51  38  
 Differential      (22)  (10)  (11)  (28)  (19)  (25)  15  (50)  8  (17)  (22)  (9)  
                               
 Rensselaer Tech Run Results                            
 Player  Pos  Rush  Yds  Avg  TD  20+  Lg  St              
 Philip Robles  RB  15  87  6  -    -    18  2              
 John Brown  RB  4  10  3  -    -    3  -                
                               
       A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 AVERAGE OL      42  21  56  68  55  69  58  14  22  35  40  40  
 AVERAGE DL      29  17  44  45  41  48  12  40  13  31  23  32  
 Differential      13  5  11  23  14  21  47  (26)  9  4  18  8  
                               
 AVERAGE RB      42  53  58  68  57  63  41  6  41  34  64  42  
 AVERAGE LB      34  26  43  42  36  39  10  43  19  27  39  34  
 Differential      8  26  15  26  21  24  30  (37)  22  6  25  8  
                               
                               
 Johns Hopkins Offense                              
 Name  Year  Pos  A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 John Gonzalez  So.  RB  36  10  52  50  41  22  8  9  27  26  12  13  306
 Ryan Helms  So.  RB  12  15  47  36  36  24  17  18  13  33  30  30  311
 John Alexander  Sr.  RB  45  40  52  52  37  42  42  13  49  34  35  37  478
 Michael Haney  Sr.  RB  33  45  31  31  38  37  33  1  31  25  41  36  382
 AVERAGE      32  28  46  42  38  31  25  10  30  30  30  29  
                               
 Michael Crowley  Fr.  OL  8  15  49  50  28  22  25  16  10  17  22  33  295
 Aaron Cruz  Fr.  OL  39  18  44  57  53  45  40  20  19  41  29  9  414
 Robert Mitchell  Fr.  OL  44  26  41  52  36  38  29  16  30  22  33  24  391
 Jose Sutton  Fr.  OL  19  9  51  34  39  27  27  14  11  27  14  23  295
 Douglas Collins  So.  OL  16  15  52  43  48  22  17  22  13  27  15  27  317
 Christopher Wheeler  So.  OL  26  2  45  62  31  16  27  15  1  20  9  21  275
 Matthew Austin  Sr.  OL  29  14  49  42  45  52  41  18  22  32  17  42  403
 Edward Vasquez  Sr.  OL  43  1  39  54  55  53  43  8  20  35  33  43  427
 AVERAGE      28  13  46  49  42  34  31  16  16  28  22  28  
                               
 Rensselaer Tech Defense                              
 Name  Year  Pos  A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 Charles Anderson  Fr.  DL  41  13  57  57  59  63  20  50  32  43  36  33  504
 Henry Moore  Fr.  DL  28  21  42  58  34  59  28  48  10  46  33  45  452
 Paul Gray  So.  DL  38  24  56  45  65  81  34  55  23  28  38  43  530
 Bradley Nunez  So.  DL  30  44  56  54  48  75  18  53  23  35  24  42  502
 Christopher Martin  Jr.  DL  34  14  54  90  55  80  8  67  22  59  38  54  575
 George Powers  Jr.  DL  46  29  64  91  62  71  1  71  27  30  26  51  569
 James Lockett  Sr.  DL  49  39  54  84  60  71  22  73  30  45  44  47  618
 AVERAGE      38  26  55  68  55  71  19  60  24  41  34  45  
                               
 Michael Harrison  Fr.  LB  42  24  54  59  56  52  6  55  9  38  54  35  484
 Francis Soto  Fr.  LB  53  35  52  63  57  49  13  47  9  41  58  17  494
 William Cook  So.  LB  47  34  55  71  38  52  5  69  23  48  42  51  535
 Paul Moore  So.  LB  55  31  53  59  69  66  26  64  28  52  42  44  589
 Michael Cook  Jr.  LB  74  52  72  100  56  62  15  60  37  53  46  37  664
 Joseph Hernandez  Jr.  LB  51  37  57  67  62  55  1  53  12  46  62  37  540
 Timothy Salazar  Sr.  LB  53  47  55  72  58  60  1  72  34  48  53  46  599
 AVERAGE      54  37  57  70  57  57  10  60  22  47  51  38  
                               
 Rensselaer Tech Offense                              
 Name  Year  Pos  A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 David Jackson  Fr.  RB  19  47  49  59  68  56  27  1  35  23  56  35  475
 Christopher Wilkins  Fr.*  RB  47  55  60  56  44  58  41  3  25  27  63  46  525
 Gerald Torres  So.*  RB  47  50  63  76  58  62  41  3  46  40  68  31  585
 John Brown  Jr.  RB  59  55  63  87  54  76  43  15  45  38  55  47  637
 Philip Robles  Sr.  RB  37  56  54  60  62  63  51  6  55  40  76  51  611
 AVERAGE      42  53  58  68  57  63  41  6  41  34  64  42  
                               
 Michael Diaz  Fr.  OL  39  30  47  63  39  60  43  25  21  29  35  35  466
 Pedro Fowler  Fr.  OL  42  17  43  59  50  51  63  8  23  22  30  33  441
 Earl Hudson  Fr.  OL  45  13  67  69  62  68  44  14  17  13  23  25  460
 Theodore Anderson  So.  OL  32  23  51  84  45  71  66  26  15  42  50  38  543
 Jason Sanchez  So.  OL  35  14  55  65  53  71  65  12  20  43  50  41  524
 Willie Armstrong  Jr.  OL  37  14  53  68  61  81  59  16  20  51  53  49  562
 Matthew Thomas  Jr.  OL  57  27  75  86  56  69  69  1  28  39  50  44  601
 Jose Harris  Sr.  OL  50  24  50  52  64  69  60  21  20  41  42  44  537
 Charles Orr  Sr.  OL  43  28  60  69  63  83  56  1  34  37  31  47  552
 AVERAGE      42  21  56  68  55  69  58  14  22  35  40  40  
                               
 Johns Hopkins Defense                              
 Name  Year  Pos  A  SPD  D  WE  ST  STR  BLK  TKL  H  GI  E  T  TOT
 Robert Larsen  Fr.  DL  20  18  26  53  40  33  14  22  10  29  18  20  303
 Samuel Smith  Fr.  DL  27  23  47  54  44  18  24  28  3  29  11  14  322
 Robert Cotton  Jr.*  DL  35  14  59  42  44  61  9  42  18  26  20  36  406
 James Smith  Jr.  DL  32  21  58  42  40  60  7  32  22  44  29  36  423
 Corey Oakes  Sr.  DL  26  25  50  39  50  55  15  49  10  22  27  35  403
 John Smith  Sr.  DL  31  4  29  67  25  63  12  59  16  40  33  33  412
 Andrew Waters  Sr.  DL  34  11  41  19  43  48  1  45  9  27  20  47  345
 AVERAGE      29  17  44  45  41  48  12  40  13  31  23  32  
                               
 Charles Finley  Fr.  LB  32  14  44  42  21  36  28  38  4  41  37  33  370
 Gerald Hayden  Fr.  LB  25  14  44  48  28  26  -    20  18  20  24  13  280
 Stephen Poe  So.  LB  34  43  47  11  37  42  20  35  38  24  40  40  411
 Matthew John  Jr.*  LB  33  30  39  31  41  40  12  53  14  20  55  27  395
 Robert Woods  Jr.  LB  33  37  38  63  57  44  10  63  19  28  34  35  461
 Curtis Gutierrez  Sr.  LB  37  21  44  43  32  44  1  44  15  30  41  51  403
 Harold Waters  Sr.  LB  44  25  43  53  37  42  1  45  25  27  42  37  421
 AVERAGE      34  26  43  42  36  39  10  43  19  27  39  34  


6/21/2013 2:22 PM
As teams in DIII and DII beta leagues start to separate from each other after having human coaches and good recruiting we will be able to see if the talent differences really matter. From what I have seen, talent doesn't matter enough yet. As I have been harping on, this goes back to Norbert's idea of spreading the match-up differences into a range of "buckets" from which the result is calculated, not giving the absolute advantage to the highest rating.

It all doesn't mean much, as Oriole has not been on the chat for awhile. He obviously doesn't care to interact with the community (which worries me that he is again another programmer that wants to do it his way after one month on the job and not listen to coaches who have spent years playing) or has bagged it and WIS hasn't told us he is gone, or he can't for the life of himself - figure out the mess that 3.0 has evolved into.
6/21/2013 2:24 PM
None of the above numbers tell us what kind of defense was on the field against what kind of offense, was the defense playing pass when the offense was running the ball, etc. Is it possible that game planning is making a much larger difference in the outcome of plays over the past few days and causing problems with some coaches? I'm not saying that I know that's the problem, just asking if it's a possibility...
6/21/2013 3:45 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
None of the above numbers tell us what kind of defense was on the field against what kind of offense, was the defense playing pass when the offense was running the ball, etc. Is it possible that game planning is making a much larger difference in the outcome of plays over the past few days and causing problems with some coaches? I'm not saying that I know that's the problem, just asking if it's a possibility...
Don't make excuses for this crap, it's beneath you.  Do you really think scheme should matter when one team is 110% stronger across the line?  Only whiny, loser coaches even attempt that argument.  Unfortunately, jconte listened to all the crappy coaches who couldn't win but still wanted an NC and we got 2.0.  AFAIK, nothing has changed in the last few days and this has been a pattern since season 1.  


6/21/2013 4:39 PM
I think at least to some degree this game should mirror reality.  As much as I don't care for the Crimson Tide or Nick Saban, there's a reason Bama has won three NC's recently.  According to Rivals,  Alabama has had the #1 recruiting class in the nation 5 of the last 6 seasons. The team with the superior talent should win most of the time, especially if that talent has been recruited for a specific scheme.  
6/21/2013 6:03 PM
slid64er...The truth is I do believe scheme should matter. I feel like it should be somewhere around 65%-70% talent and 30%-35% scheme.  And I also think your "whiny, loser coaches" argument is backwards. I think the ones that DON'T want scheme to matter are the coaches that aren't real football people. They have learned how to recruit in GD but when it comes to knowing when to blitz, flood a zone, etc. they don't have a clue, so they scream "Talent is the only thing that should matter!!!"
6/21/2013 6:36 PM (edited)
Except this game doesn't give you the option of flooding a zone, doubling a WR, bump-and-run...and only minor input on how much (but not really when) to blitz.

You have the illusion of control, which may be worse than having no control at all.

The trouble with both the "Talent Should Rule" and the "Game Plan to Win!: arguments are that somewhere you have to decide where talent should overcome scheme. Nearly everyone agrees that in evenly-matched teams, the better game plan should prevail.  Whatever the "better game plan is".  And everyone agrees that there's a point where a team's talent differential is such that no amount of game planning can overcome it.  The trick - and I certainly don't have the answer - is deciding what that point is, and where and how much the "Talent vs Scheme" balance of power shifts.  And there's no consensus here at all.  

6/21/2013 8:20 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 6/21/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):
Except this game doesn't give you the option of flooding a zone, doubling a WR, bump-and-run...and only minor input on how much (but not really when) to blitz.

You have the illusion of control, which may be worse than having no control at all.

The trouble with both the "Talent Should Rule" and the "Game Plan to Win!: arguments are that somewhere you have to decide where talent should overcome scheme. Nearly everyone agrees that in evenly-matched teams, the better game plan should prevail.  Whatever the "better game plan is".  And everyone agrees that there's a point where a team's talent differential is such that no amount of game planning can overcome it.  The trick - and I certainly don't have the answer - is deciding what that point is, and where and how much the "Talent vs Scheme" balance of power shifts.  And there's no consensus here at all.  

This is the real base decision this game needs to make. Biggest problem is that most coaches who argue seem to take the underdog side. I can understand how even teams can be decided by game planning or player match-ups in the right place. I can understand a game plan set by an underdog could decrease the margin of victory for the superior team, but even at deen's numbers that is a 3-1 advantage to the superior team. What I have yet to see, and what needs to occur is that if I have the superior team and I play the right offense against my opponent, with better player ratings, the game should be a runaway from the first play on. I should be able to gameplan to have my superior OL push around any teams mediocre DL, have my talented RB run through inferior LB's and have my better WR top the other teams DB consistently if their difference is  >10%. What is still happening is that lower rated DL, DB, QB etc, can still put up consistently better numbers on higher rated teams without any logical progression noted in the detailed PBP. If my OL is 15% or more across the board, does it matter what scheme you use? If my DL is 15% better across the board, shouldn't I be able to shut down your run of pass with any logical formation?
6/21/2013 8:24 PM
So we will ask the question: At what percentage advantage, should one player's ratings ALWAYS (100%, never loses) produce a result for the superior player? (remember player ratings may be modified by fatigue, IQ, tech, athl, zodiac sign, shoe size and whether his GF is mad at him or not)







Votes: 19
(Last vote received: 6/28/2013 12:14 PM)
6/21/2013 8:46 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 6:03:00 PM (view original):
slid64er...The truth is I do believe scheme should matter. I feel like it should be somewhere around 65%-70% talent and 30%-35% scheme.  And I also think your "whiny, loser coaches" argument is backwards. I think the ones that DON'T want scheme to matter are the coaches that aren't real football people. They have learned how to recruit in GD but when it comes to knowing when to blitz, flood a zone, etc. they don't have a clue, so they scream "Talent is the only thing that should matter!!!"
How much better should I have been to completely overwhelm the other team?  Is that standard even attainable with the current recruit generation?

I was running from an I formation against a 4-3 that was playing about a 50/50 run/pass split.  How should I have schemed to run the ball better? 

How do you flood a zone?  Please share this with me and the rest of the ignorant masses.

My whiny loser coaches argument is spot on.  If you can't recruit, you shouldn't win.  Just like in real life.  You don't see WAC teams winning NCs no matter how good you believe their scheme to be.  Scheme doesn't win unless you're relatively equal talent wise.  If you can't get your team to that level, too bad so sad you lose.  

6/21/2013 11:32 PM
And again, it begs the question, what constitutes "better talent" ?    The use of percents can be confusing, especially with ratings based on a 1-100 scale.  If I say a guy that is 10 % better should always win, that might mean 10 rating points to one person, and 10% better to another (example a STR of 44 is 10% better than a STR of 40).  Surely you don't thing 4 rating points is good enough  (even if it's across the board) to "overwhelm" your opponent?   The difference in a 90 STR vs 80 STR is not      the same as a 50 STR vs a 40 STR, is it?  
6/22/2013 1:02 AM
I don't think any match-up should be determined by just one of the ratings. But if you look at blocking, if an O line with strength + blocking is 10-15 percent better than the other teams DL strength and elusivness - or whatever you want to use - then that should be enough to create an advantage. Also as the numbers change in each division, the 10-15 percent is just as big a range for DIII from poor 40's to great 60's as in D1A from poor 60's to great 90's.
6/22/2013 6:51 AM
It honestly feels like we're after two different games. Some want a SIM college football game, others want a SIM college football recruiting game. The problem is GD is designed to be both...at the same time, and it's going to be very hard if not impossible to please both sides unless we all agree that both recruiting and game planning should both matter. If I out recruit you, we play against each other, and you are a much better coach as far as putting a game plan together, should either one of us win every time we play? I just don't see the logic in that. If it were this way, why play the game? Why not just have one off season after another and the team with the best recruiting class is named National Champ?

6/22/2013 7:31 AM
Posted by bhazlewood on 6/21/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):
Except this game doesn't give you the option of flooding a zone, doubling a WR, bump-and-run...and only minor input on how much (but not really when) to blitz.

You have the illusion of control, which may be worse than having no control at all.

The trouble with both the "Talent Should Rule" and the "Game Plan to Win!: arguments are that somewhere you have to decide where talent should overcome scheme. Nearly everyone agrees that in evenly-matched teams, the better game plan should prevail.  Whatever the "better game plan is".  And everyone agrees that there's a point where a team's talent differential is such that no amount of game planning can overcome it.  The trick - and I certainly don't have the answer - is deciding what that point is, and where and how much the "Talent vs Scheme" balance of power shifts.  And there's no consensus here at all.  

bhazlewood, you are 100% spot on with this post. I believe, before we can all work together to help make 3,0 the best it can be, we have to at least get closer to agreement on where talent should take over.
I also understand what you're saying about "whatever the best game plan is". No, we do not have anywhere near complete control over flooding zones, etc., and never will in GD, but I still feel like I have enough control to "out game plan" my opponent at times. Example:
I scout and realize my OL is much better than his def. line, but he does have good DB's and fair-medium LB's. Of course I want to run the ball, right? BUT...If he plays a 5-2/run or a 4-4/heavy run he could make it much harder to do so, right? So I go back through his previous games and look for times he played strong running teams. Did he go to a 5-2 or a 4-4/run and stuff them? If so, maybe I want to set up in an I-formation...force him to play a 5-2 or 4-4...then throw the ball. If he doesn't go to the strong running def. formations and sell out, then I may decide to simply line up and run the ball down his throat. As you can see, talent is the most important consideration...but the right game plan could possibly off-set that talent advantage (based on how much of a talent gap there is) and at that point, the right game plan should make the difference in winning or losing.
Again, this is just one example. There are tons of different ways of out game planning an opponent, BUT it all starts with talent...

6/22/2013 8:27 AM
Posted by 0bigzeke0 on 6/22/2013 1:02:00 AM (view original):
I don't think any match-up should be determined by just one of the ratings. But if you look at blocking, if an O line with strength + blocking is 10-15 percent better than the other teams DL strength and elusivness - or whatever you want to use - then that should be enough to create an advantage. Also as the numbers change in each division, the 10-15 percent is just as big a range for DIII from poor 40's to great 60's as in D1A from poor 60's to great 90's.
I used a single stat to simplify the conversation. Every match-up should have at least one physical rating, one skill rating, and possibly one "mental" rating.  At least, that's my initial thought - I haven't looked at it in depth.
of 2
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > When is talent going to matter again?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.