The "Have a Plan" Series Topic

VHoward: You know my name. I have been reading articles in the GD forums for a Very Long Time.
Naturally, I have seen the gamut; from posts that suck to those I thought excellent.
But I have been fascinated with yours here. I guess partly because it agrees with most of what I believe.
So far it sounds like you have put a lot of inciteful thought into this and I am loving it !
3/5/2016 2:58 PM
Great work as usual.

Anecdotally, when deciding which team to take over, St. Peter's was the choice due to its proximity (or, rather, lack thereof) compared to other conference mates. Admittedly, when joining, the OVC was the only conference we looked at, so that narrowed our options. However, we considered recruiting location very heavily and even though St. Peter's was, at the time, the worst team in the OVC by a wide margin, it presented us with an interesting opportunity to recruit a talented yet crowded Northeast region without battling conference mates at every turn.

Loved the article. Keep it up.
3/5/2016 4:51 PM
I thought the article was great and very insightful. It will be a blessing for any new coach who reads it. I am looking forward to the upcoming articles as well.
3/5/2016 7:19 PM
Posted by vhoward415 on 3/3/2016 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Part I is posted above. I've got a special request with this one, for those that have the time/interest...

Once you've read this, I'd love to hear your feedback. How was it? Was anything missing? Was this what you were expecting? Was it useful?

You can post here or sitemail me. Thanks!
Very nice read, appreciate the effort. I agree with a lot of your thoughts. VHoward415, you mentioned that you would like to have some feedback, so here goes.

Naturally if you are targeting a specific team the particulars do not matter. However, if I am targeting a fair to decent to good to maybe even a quality team there are certain things I am looking for. Short term, prefer to have double digit ships to work with initially and want to be able to put my footprint on the team immediately. Long term my preference is for the ships to be somewhat balanced. Not looking for any 20+ classes, the priority is to build to be a consistent contender.

Likewise, I would rather start off with some offensive weapons just to keep from getting too bored early on. Hope to find a good to quality QB that can buffer me until I get one developed. In addition, looking for a QB that has a few playmakers to work with. If I find a developed QB with no playmakers or playmakers with no QB then I normally keep looking. I prefer a situation where the offensive talent overlaps. I am willing to build up the defense, fill in the gaps, and find my own building blocks for the future.

I don't have a problem with having another really good team in conference and if so would suggest that it would be more favorable to be in the opposite division. The plus side of that is more recruiting dollars available to use for recruiting and hopefully upgrades.

When evaluating an individual team or talent, I normally try to figure out how much above average potential the team I am considering has. Then determine how that potential lines up with the talent at hand, the WE, and youth of the players.

You can use the Guess Reports if need be to compare how the players were developing from season to season. Basically, just trying to verify what I am looking at and wondering if there are any high end growth players, maybe a STL player. You could always try to ask the previous coach about the team but I prefer to do most of the research myself.

Roster balance is very important and could influence my decision about taking over a team or not. If it is too out of whack I would probably look for another option. But I am more than willing to cut players that offer no value and to cut players because of poor roster balance issues. When I can afford to, I tend to cut the younger ones first to speed up the churning out process. The quicker you can get rid of the dead weight the better.

Look forward to reading the rest of your ongoing post vhoward415.
3/7/2016 8:07 PM (edited)
Part Two posted.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I don't have time to respond now, but I will soon.
3/8/2016 7:48 PM
Great stuff man!
3/8/2016 11:52 PM
I like the second part. Well done again. And now I am even more annoyed with myself for having missed the deadline to rescind schollies with my new Warner team.

I will make two counter points to your 3 QB theory though. I traditionally carry 2.5 (in other words I get one every other seasons and always redshirt them, meaning that I only have to split time between two at any given moment). One is that this way you will still always start a redshirt junior or redshirt senior, which I think is enough experience for the FIQ (particularly if one is careful to make sure one values GPA and FIQ correctly when recruiting), while also not holding the other QBs develoment back by being able to give them enough playing time. QB is pretty much the only position where the number of players on the field is set to a static 1, so you really cannot give much time at all to a third string QB. So splitting time between more than two QBS will necessarily hold the developmeent of at least on pipeline player back.
The other counter point is on the notion that the current form of the game absolutely necessitates some throwing. You are definitely not alone in that assessment, but to me that is a common myth right now. There are very few teams out there in my mind who really buy into creating a proper running giant, including recruiting and building the roster just for that. But I believe it can be successful if somebody is smart and really buys into going all out to cram it down peoples throats, and there are creative ways of doing that. Of course it is nice to be able to throw a bit in a third and long situation, but I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary for a title run. Particularly with the 3-4 becoming more prevalent I expect that someone will pull off a string of great 90% run seasons with a few titles in the not so distant future.
3/9/2016 2:33 PM
Posted by dachmann on 3/9/2016 2:33:00 PM (view original):
I like the second part. Well done again. And now I am even more annoyed with myself for having missed the deadline to rescind schollies with my new Warner team.

I will make two counter points to your 3 QB theory though. I traditionally carry 2.5 (in other words I get one every other seasons and always redshirt them, meaning that I only have to split time between two at any given moment). One is that this way you will still always start a redshirt junior or redshirt senior, which I think is enough experience for the FIQ (particularly if one is careful to make sure one values GPA and FIQ correctly when recruiting), while also not holding the other QBs develoment back by being able to give them enough playing time. QB is pretty much the only position where the number of players on the field is set to a static 1, so you really cannot give much time at all to a third string QB. So splitting time between more than two QBS will necessarily hold the developmeent of at least on pipeline player back.
The other counter point is on the notion that the current form of the game absolutely necessitates some throwing. You are definitely not alone in that assessment, but to me that is a common myth right now. There are very few teams out there in my mind who really buy into creating a proper running giant, including recruiting and building the roster just for that. But I believe it can be successful if somebody is smart and really buys into going all out to cram it down peoples throats, and there are creative ways of doing that. Of course it is nice to be able to throw a bit in a third and long situation, but I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary for a title run. Particularly with the 3-4 becoming more prevalent I expect that someone will pull off a string of great 90% run seasons with a few titles in the not so distant future.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your second point. Until some GD savant runs off a string of NC using a ~90% running attack - all the way through the playoffs, including the NC game - I won't believe it's possible. There's too much stacked against it in the current engine. I don't mean in a "you can't pass the ball in this (GD 1.0) engine" way, which was never actually true; I mean you simply cannot run the ball down the field, drive after drive, and score enough points to win NCs.

Regarding the QB pipeline, I agree it's not strictly necessary to carry more than two, depending on your offensive strategy. In my personal offensive system, two simply isn't enough. Really, three isn't enough to cover every season, so I'm moving to four. This still leaves me with a RS Soph QB playing second-string, which I use a ton, two out of every five seasons. And I don't like RS Soph QBs deep in the playoffs - they just can't compete with these top-shelf defenses. This is recruiting the best QBs available at any given level, too.
3/9/2016 5:51 PM
Dachmann --

I'm trying it right now versus Vhoward in 1-AA...100% Pass vs 90% to 100% run...It is not looking so good. you CAN get a top 20 team by running, but you may not win a NC (See Sacred Heart's evisceration of opponents this year). The only way to have a shot of winning in this incarnation is keep those offenses off the field by jamming it down their throats (not easy), play great ST and have a Monster defense with speed and a few "out-of-position" players playing other positions.

The real kicker is this: In REAL life preparing for a wishbone (or flexbone, etc) team generally causes major issues for the defense (trust me, I know) and they give up big plays on blown assignments (the engine does a decent job of this, not great, but decent). You will historically ONLY score 21-28 points a game (I know the Sooners of the 80's, but that's NOT where we are today). The main difference between 2014 and 2015 Wrambling Wreck of GT? Defense. Not offense.

The reason the Air Raid (and then Pistol) offenses were so effective is their "new-ness" to the game. Once they are figured out by D Coordinators, they get marginalized UNLESS you have the BEST players in those spots (Think Cam vs Kapernick vs Manziel). I can shut down Kapernick and Manziel, I do not (yet) have the horses to shut down Cam...Until they stop favoring "Air Raid" offenses OR allow me to put 2 SS in the LB spots in the Nickel (basically 4-0-7 or 4-1-6 [NOT 3-2-6], with the ability to blitz 2...think Bears 4-6 with either Singletary or Dave Duerson in the middle) , it probably won't change.
3/14/2016 7:53 AM
When I was running 100% Wishbone with Southern Illinois, one of the things that finally got me to move out of it, I felt fumbles were occurring way too often. I don't think an all, or even mostly, run attack is possible for that reason. At the moment, I'd say fumbles are too high and interceptions are too low. At some point, it would be nice if they could both meet somewhere in the middle.
3/14/2016 3:08 PM
Posted by hitman1979 on 3/14/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
When I was running 100% Wishbone with Southern Illinois, one of the things that finally got me to move out of it, I felt fumbles were occurring way too often. I don't think an all, or even mostly, run attack is possible for that reason. At the moment, I'd say fumbles are too high and interceptions are too low. At some point, it would be nice if they could both meet somewhere in the middle.
This. Running game has merit and you can drive the ball (in my limit experience upon my return Div III and Div II). Too many fumbles. If I understood the engine on fumbles a bit better, maybe I could recruit around the issue.
3/14/2016 3:39 PM
Posted by nitros on 3/14/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hitman1979 on 3/14/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
When I was running 100% Wishbone with Southern Illinois, one of the things that finally got me to move out of it, I felt fumbles were occurring way too often. I don't think an all, or even mostly, run attack is possible for that reason. At the moment, I'd say fumbles are too high and interceptions are too low. At some point, it would be nice if they could both meet somewhere in the middle.
This. Running game has merit and you can drive the ball (in my limit experience upon my return Div III and Div II). Too many fumbles. If I understood the engine on fumbles a bit better, maybe I could recruit around the issue.
Your first folly would be to assume a strong causal relationship between some subset of attributes and fumbles. I believe they are, at best, weakly related to some combination of attributes, and more strongly based on pure (bad) luck. With sufficient data, some ambitious data-miner might be able to tease out a very weak correlation with Formation IQ and STR and, perhaps-though-I-doubt-it, HAN. Certainly nothing worth fretting over during recruiting.

IMHO
3/14/2016 6:00 PM
Part three - Practice Plans - is now posted (on the first page of this thread).
3/14/2016 7:53 PM
Great work vhoward415. Iam definitely enjoying this.
3/15/2016 12:47 PM
This is amazing. I've never done as well against humans as my team ratings suggest I should do. I've already seen one significant error in my approach. Whether it improves my chances to beat other humans or not, I feel like I have a better understanding of the game, and that's cool.
3/26/2016 8:04 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
The "Have a Plan" Series Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.