To add to chalvorson's notes- the ability to select to double-cover specific receiver(s).

The 1AA championship game in Dobie that just simmed is a great example of the need for better control of clock management.  Tied 6-6 with 1 minute to go, McNeese gets the ball on their own 21.  Wishbone run for 2 yards...and the engine calls a timeout.  Wishbone run for 0 yards, and the engine calls a timeout.  Shotgun pass incomplete.  In reality, that coach probably would have wanted to run the clock and go to OT or force the opponent to use their time outs, but that isn't an option and they punted the ball back after using only 19 seconds.  Their opponent ended up moving the ball down the field in 3 plays (using 3 time outs) and kicking a 49 yard FG to win the championship  A whole season comes down to being decided not by a random bad game but by a hole in the game planning options.

Posted by chalvorson on 2/1/2012 10:20:00 AM (view original):
I think that's why its important to have all of the "Default" settings so that a new coach wont be overwhelmed with all the choices. I wouldn't limit the possibility of having these choices at any level. Hopefully it is these many, many choices, and the direct results from making these choices, we will make the game more like everyone is hoping for.

What I'd like to accomplish with coaching settings is to create a basic set of settings that cover most things at a very basic level and then have links to advanced settings.  This way it won't be overwhelming to a new user and as they get more comfortable with the game, they can explore the advanced settings at their own pace.  But the key to the settings will be to actually change the engine to where you can see some sort of effect from those settings.  It will be a while before I really get my hands dirty in the engine, but some of the design is starting to take shape.

Pie are sqar.

One thing I would want to see also, Norbert, is with the player practice settings. This should be an easy fix if desired. What is the philosopy behind practice time maxing out! It would seem that to make coaches have to make a choice - the more an attribute is practiced (or formation) the more it should grow. Make 10 min no growth and < 10 min negative growth and positive growth continues up to whatever minutes the coach has available. (Want a really strong team - practice 30 min on strength - but to the detriment of what other skills?).

+ 1

I have just 1 simple request.  I would like to see JUCO's and transfers in GD instead of players just going down the drain.  I think it would improve the game greatly.

. . . and keep in mind that we should be able to defensive dynasties just like some have build offensive dynasties. (personally I'm not offended, but some may be.)

Posted by andrew5975 on 1/31/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):

  chalvorson

Agreed with this.

I also second Bhazlewood's suggestion of being able to double cover WRs as needed.  This could simply be a "shadowing" drop down that let's me choose which WR (by # on the depth chart) to have my guys double cover.  For example, if I want to take out a particularly strong WR with a High-Low formation, I could set both a CB and Safety to both cover him in that situation (or in every situation) but by doing so, I know that Im leaving one less guy in the secondary out to cover the other receivers.  My hope there is that we get enough pressure to stop the QB before he has time to move through all of his check downs.

More “Pie In the Sky”….. However, this may be easy.

It would be helpful to have a way of quickly determining how well or how poorly our teams should perform in common, key areas of the game.  There could be another page created under the “Office” or “Rankings” menu which could be dedicated to this concept. 

One way to accomplish this would be to give a letter grade in those areas of the game.

These grades should be comparable across all teams, in all divisions.  For example, a very good tackling LB for D-IA Ohio State might have a tackling grade of A.  While a very good tackling LB for DIII Mount Union College night have a tackling grade of C+.  This shows the difference in ability between D-IA and DIII.   There could also be a category which takes into account the team’s offensive line and running backs and produces a grade for the team’s ability to run the ball “inside” and a grade for the team’s ability to run the ball “outside”.   There could many categories to assign grades to for a given school (see below).

I’m sure various attributes are used along with perhaps some sort of multiplier (i.e. ATH) to arrive at some sort of value used in the game for each one of the common, key areas.  By using these grades, you’re not giving too much away.  We don’t know what the formula is which uses the player’s attributes to ultimately generate a grade. 

This will give new and veteran coaches a real indication of their team’s strength and weakness versus other schools.  This will allow them to make coaching decisions (i.e. PLAYERS ROLE in my previous post) to either exploit their opponents weakness or help mitigate their own weaknesses.

I would like to see the analysis shown for my team and also have a second table showing the results from a drop down box which would include all schools (DIII through D-IA).

Below is a list of several of the categories and common, key areas of the game.  These should be split by position to the extent possible. 

Defensive Categories might include;
1. Tackling
2. Zone Coverage
3. Man-to-Man Coverage
4. Blitz
5. Pass Rush
6. Team Inside Rush Defense
7. Team Outside Rush Defense

Offensive Categories might include;
1. QB Deep pass ability
2. QB Short pass ability
2. HB Inside Rushing
3. HB Outside Rushing
4. RB Pass Block
5. FB Run Blocking
6. TE Run Blocking
7. WR Pass Catch
8. TE Pass Catch
9. RB Pass Catch
10. OL Run Blocking
11. OL Pass Blocking
 

To expand on my above post, I would also like to see a letter grade per common, key areas per player.  Much like the recently added page which shows the players formation growth in the Player Profile, I would like see a letter grade per common, key area for each player.

Again, this shouldn’t be viewed as giving away too much information, since we don’t know the formula used to ultimately arrive at a letter grade.

This contributes to desire to have a more “direct cause and effect” within the game for coaches.  If a coach wants to build a powerful running attack and needs a quality blocking FB, the letter grade is a one-stop indication.   I would like to see a player’s formation IQ factored into their letter grade when applicable / possible.    For example, if we have 2 blocking FBs with identical attributes but one has a 40 in Formation IQ for I-Formation, Pro-set, ND Box & Wishbone while the other has a 40 only in Trips.  The blocking FB with higher formation IQ in running formations would receive an increase in the formula used to produce a letter grade for “FB Blocking” since he is incrementally better because of his IQ in running formations.  Essentially, attempt to incorporate formation IQ into the letter grade.

This would take nothing away from evaluating the other player attributes.  I believe most coaches would want well rounded players and still want as high an attribute score in all attributes as possible.

Once put into place, the system meshes nicely with your comment in the “Anatomy of a Rushing Play” Post where you detailed the short comings of having both a Tackling Attribute and Technique Attribute.  Essentially saying that these mean the same thing.  This letter grade concept would allow the combination of several physical attributes perhaps combined with a few mental attributes to generate a players Tackling grade.  As opposed to simply having a Tackling attribute.
 

+1 chalvorson original post

At this point I feel like I’m just taking advantage of this open forum.  I guess since we have poetic license to post our thoughts, I might as well just go with it.

Make player height and weight important and impactful to the game.

Use a player’s height and weight as a multiplier to certain aspects of the game.  For instance, use a WR or TE height as a multiplier to that player’s ability to make catches.  Use the mass, height multiplied by weight, of a RB, TE, WR, & QB as a multiplier to that player’s ability to break tackles.  Conversely, use the mass of a defender as a multiplier to their ability to tackle.

Mass can also be incorporated into lineman play on both sides of the ball.

I know this is a change to the engine and is likely a long-term suggestion, but I think this would add depth player evaluation.
 

Posted by chalvorson on 2/4/2012 9:59:00 AM (view original):

At this point I feel like I’m just taking advantage of this open forum.  I guess since we have poetic license to post our thoughts, I might as well just go with it.

Make player height and weight important and impactful to the game.

Use a player’s height and weight as a multiplier to certain aspects of the game.  For instance, use a WR or TE height as a multiplier to that player’s ability to make catches.  Use the mass, height multiplied by weight, of a RB, TE, WR, & QB as a multiplier to that player’s ability to break tackles.  Conversely, use the mass of a defender as a multiplier to their ability to tackle.

Mass can also be incorporated into lineman play on both sides of the ball.

I know this is a change to the engine and is likely a long-term suggestion, but I think this would add depth player evaluation.
 

+1

Agreed with Chalvorson's last point.  I would love to see the height's and weights actually matter.