My recollection is that if you don't throw to the 100% guy, it would be "even odds" who you target next, since they are all at 0%. But I'm certainly open to uncovering a new understanding.

Look in the formation setup. You can set which receivers go to what depths utilizing the depth charts and the formation setup itself.

So set 3 receivers very short, and the best receiver long or medium. Draw the best receiver from a customized depth chart, or just a different depth chart than the other slots draw from. Go to playbook and target that depth 100%. The only player there ****should**** be the WR you designated, provided the settings are working correctly. This used to work. It was cheap, but you could do it. I am not sure how they fixed it or if they fixed it. Maybe they increased sack % or int % for continued use of one depth, or nerfed the completion %, but they can't force you to throw somewhere you don't instruct your team to throw. I don't think anyway.

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by samson75 on 2/22/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
That isn't how it used to work. Maybe you know something we don't. Like I said, it may have changed.

If you only have 1 receiver set to the targeted depth in the formation, and you only throw at that depth in the playbook, and the formation correctly draws from the depth chart as instructed, I don't know how you can throw to anyone else. There isn't anyone else there and the QB won't look anywhere else. Unless the settings are meaningless, which is a possibility.

Easy to test that. Create a gameplan with this construct. Execute that gameplan. Do you ever throw to any other target, other than the "1 receiver"? If so, it doesn't work this way. If you go a whole season with only ever throwing to that "1 receiver", then it does.

well, I am saying that it did work, not that it does currently work. I (and many others) played against this offense and only 1 WR was targeted, except when he came out because of fatigue. It was always the same play. Every single time. over and over and over again. There is no other way for a WR to have over 800 receptions and 10K yards in a season.

I think Harris is right though that something was changed. I didn't run this offense, but the offense I did run was shotgun and it was about half as effective as it once was and the targets were off. I have since changed to trips. I have targeted specific depths and specific receivers at those depths using certain gameplans though in this formation. But never 100%. I will try it next season and report back. I expect it will simply be ineffective (low comp%, ints and sacks). I would still be surprised though if somehow WRs other than the ones designated are catching balls at depths other than what I assign.

Also, the original progression that ebel was talking about was from GD 1.0 and it did work that way. It went away with GD 2.0, unfortunately.

Posted by ebel331 on 2/22/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Also, the original progression that ebel was talking about was from GD 1.0 and it did work that way. It went away with GD 2.0, unfortunately.

thanks for all the info. apparently i missed the boat on formation passing%. I thought it was only controlling first look

I think I just learned something, too. If so, my passing offense has not been operating at full efficiency all this time.

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ebel331 on 2/22/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Also, the original progression that ebel was talking about was from GD 1.0 and it did work that way. It went away with GD 2.0, unfortunately.

thanks for all the info. apparently i missed the boat on formation passing%. I thought it was only controlling first look

I think I just learned something, too. If so, my passing offense has not been operating at full efficiency all this time.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH

Gt Deuce, if your passing attack hasn't been operating at full effectiveness , then we are ALL in trouble, since you have been winning NC after NC.
But have no fear, I am back in Stagg to help you with that and take the crown that weighs so heavily on your head :)

Well... it's one thing to conceptualize my inefficiency. It's quite another to get the game engine to respond to my new inputs. And, of course, there is the little matter of "The Other Team" who is trying desperately to counter whatever moves I make.

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Well... it's one thing to conceptualize my inefficiency. It's quite another to get the game engine to respond to my new inputs. And, of course, there is the little matter of "The Other Team" who is trying desperately to counter whatever moves I make.

"desperately" being a very appropriate word for most.

Ditto

Posted by hypnotoad on 2/22/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 2/22/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Well... it's one thing to conceptualize my inefficiency. It's quite another to get the game engine to respond to my new inputs. And, of course, there is the little matter of "The Other Team" who is trying desperately to counter whatever moves I make.

"desperately" being a very appropriate word for most.

Says the coach who completely owned me across like ten seasons in Rockne D-IA...

I tested this out with Nebraska exhibition games in Camp

The way I thought this worked is all receiving options are available at the play-specified depth. And the target% on the formation would determine the first look but if it didn't go to the first look it could still go to someone with a 0% because even though they are not the first look they are still in the route.

You guys are telling me that the target% determines who is available at that depth in the route. If they have a 0% they aren't even there so they can't get the ball. This is what you are saying, correct?

Functionally this doesn't even matter that much because if i gave the guy a 0% i didn't want him getting the ball anyway. But it would make a big difference if these target% actually assigned depth of routes and the defense responded like in real life then I can keep everyone short to draw up coverage and take deep shot with one guy.

So for 1st exhibition game I set ProSet to 100% target for RB1 for all depths. All other options were set to 0%. Results were that 100% of the time, the RB1 was targeted. This doesn't prove that the RB1 was the only option available since Nebraska players really good vs the simai it's possible QB never had to look to a 2nd option. However since it was 100% i'm inclined to say yes RB1 was the only options and the 0% for other guys removed them from the play. So are they still running routes and drawing coverage or does the simai not consider that?

For game #2 I set everyone target% to zero. So nobody should be available to target? Results were the simai just distributed the ball evenly. Everyone who was targeted in this game was assigned a 0target% yet was still available to get the ball.

That's brilliant feedback, thanks a million. So basically it's not a first look at all, the QB picks someone in the ratio that we enter irrespective of whether he's free or not. I've got an exhibition game coming up and I'll test at 70/30/0/0 and see what the results are.