Posted by ebel331 on 2/27/2017 8:52:00 AM (view original):
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.

JFootball used to say that he set the other guys short to be "decoys". He would pull his best receiver and put him in the #3 or #4 slot in the shotgun. He **believed** that the #1 and #2 would then be covered by the best 2 cornerbacks who would be forced to cover very short and taken out of the play altogether since the targeted receiver was sent to a different depth. So did they run routes? I don't think anybody knows for sure. This led to the mad questioning about whether coverage is man or zone and the classic answers from CS that they were both. Your secondary plays in a zone but covers man when the opposition enters the zone. Or something similar to that. Or not similar at all since the answers were never clarified to my knowledge and we were given the run around about difficult to explain wording or coding and how it doesn't translate to simple explanations that can be visualized easily. The depth you set for the defense only affects safeties I believe. The others are playing in this man/zone hybrid model. How that model work? I don't think anyone knows. So even if the members of the offense assigned 0% in this example are running routes (or not running them), do we even know if it even matters in how the defense reacts?

I'm not sure how to test that. Maybe if you worked with the other coach to know the coverage and could see if it changed depending on if wrs were set to 0 versus set for short targets?

Sure would be nice to have test games in which you could control both teams HINT HINT

Posted by hypnotoad on 2/27/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Sure would be nice to have test games in which you could control both teams HINT HINT

#1 ask I have to add to the game.

That was an awesome week or two when we had the option to test games.

There used to be tons of info on this type of thing. Many many threads trying to get to the bottom of coverage, especially from Beta. It is my belief that Oriole Fan deleted these threads as he continued to tinker and change things following Beta and didn't know how to deal with players linking the threads from Beta that contradicted what he would say.

Irregardless of any of that, I think the safeties always play zone as assigned by the depth (short/medium/long) you assign. One will play more shallow than the assigned and the other will play longer than the assigned depth. Both can cover the assigned depth though. As for linebackers and cbs, I believe they play the man/zone hybrid mentioned above. I know some will swear coverage is always zone and it was in versions 1 & 2. During Beta, we were told it was man, and following Beta, we were told of the man/zone. Coincidently, these threads are nowhere to be found now. I don't understand how a cb can be in coverage at all varieties of depths if in a zone, but somehow it happens. I also don't understand how receivers make catches in triple coverage, but that happened too during and after Beta till the extended play by play was tinkered with to remove that (it was explained that the offensive players were not really covered despite the game naming specific defensive players covering the intended receiver, but rather that the defensive players were in the designated zone of the play so they were listed). Again, the notorious Jfootball played a part in the simplification of the playbyplay because his receiver was always double and triple covered, and the QB would go through the reads looking at the receiver over and over before forcing it to him. His opponents were sharing the questionable results and trying to figure out how coverage worked. This came at a time when coaches were asking why certain defensive players were covering multiple depths on the same plays in the extended play by play. The way safeties operate partially explains that but doesn't explain how cbs are everywhere all over the field. Coaches were continuously asking about what the play by play was describing. Shortly after this, the extended play by play was simplified to either cover up these flaws or to cover up Customer Service's inability to explain the wording.

As for how it relates to using decoys and if the QB works through a progression properly, I have no clue if the engine works as intended or if it is a runaway train. I only know that you can target one receiver at one depth and the results of Ebel's game with the running back seem to support this (thanks for describing what you experienced Ebel!!). The rest is a mystery. If anyone is able to figure these things out, please share the results.

Learned a lot from this thread thanks guys! I had never made the connection that playbook pass depth is related to formation allocation. Ebel noticing the short/medium/long based on PBP wording, then expanded having the QB reads, is really helpful for people like me wondering how cebrake/gt_deuce/etc. just trounce me non-stop on offense.

Gameplanning is something I've never spent much time learning, I don't think I've altered my offensive gameplan in multiple years until now. If anyone has any advice on Formation Passing % allocation for Pro-Set or I-Form, I'm all ears (seems like everyone is RB heavy already).

this is how i always thought passing works:

in the playbook when it has the % for the different levels, very short, short, med... I think the way it works is that those are the percentage of routes in your playbook that would be at those distances.

Some coaches think if they set it at 10-20-50-10-10 as the distances that 10 percent of the plays will be ALL very short, and 20 of the plays will be ALL short, 50 med...

but the way it works is every play has a mix of these distances. the mix depends on the levels that you put.

in the example above, if you ran 100 pass plays out of shotgun that would be 5 wr on routes, multiplied by the 100 plays and what you should expect if you expand f the play by play is that of those 500 routes, there will be multiple routes on each play and they would occur at the rate set.

Then when you set your formations and the target %, it will decide who runs what routes during the plays.

If you set your RB to 100% on all plays, he will be the primary target on all plays, and because 50 is the highest of all of your routes %, he will run the med route as the primary target. other players will run the other routes because they have too. But if you set your RB as the primary med target, you could set your wr as your primary short target, and your wr2 as your deep target, and on play when you run those three routes, those players will run them as you set.

I am not sure if this is all 100% how it works. I run the ball a lot. But this is how I understand it works.

I read that twice and I do not understand how you understand it works lol

I am not sure you can break it down exactly when you set multiple targets. I think it can only be exact if you specify one target. As soon as you have more than one target at more than one depth, I believe the Qb will work through the reads, rather than reading the one target over and over. So you can set 60 long for instance for one intended receiver and 20 short, with the other 2 splitting the remaining 20 % at medium and deep, and I would be willing to bet against defense set to medium, the short guy will get more targets. I have set long against defenses playing short and improved the targets long, but I think with a semi decent Qb, if the coverage is medium to long, he will check down and work through the progression to another receiver. This is part of what may have been changed. Forcing it into coverage seems more difficult , unless it is a rb for whatever reason. So once there is more than 1 target specified at more than one depth, the control of targeting 1 receiver at 1 depth is lost and the resulting targets won't match up with the gameplan well, although I bet the looks might if that was measured.

---------------------------------------------------------

https://www.spreaker.com/show/2173663

---------------------------------------------------------

Episode 5 is up now. Part 3 I try to clarify. try...

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been messing around with this for a few days (luckily in 2 worlds I have a few walkover games in a row). With my previously completely unrefined passing game, the one thing I would notice is that my completion % was always very low compared to the top guys. After checking the PBP of some top passing coaches I've played against, I've noticed they are sticking mainly to the medium routes (almost zero long routes), with RBs as the primary target followed by WRs.

After tinkering a bit, one of the problems I'm having is getting the average yards per reception up to double digits for RBs. The one thing I've noticed is that top coaches, even against humans, are getting >10ypc for RBs, whereas mine is usually around 7/8/9ypc. Does anyone know how to do that while still only running Medium and Short routes? Reducing the number of short routes seems like the obvious solution, but I'm already running very few short routes so I could reduce it further, looking for any other advice there.

The good news is my completion % is way up already, I'll find out if it holds vs. humans in a few days.

So this thread is pretty amazing...kind of mad I just stumbled across it.

It’s my belief that linebackers play zone and the secondary plays man coverage. It doesn’t matter where you set the depth to defend this is always the case. As a result, a defensive back can cover all throughout the depth of pass.

*Another thing I thought I was right about is the short, medium, long scenarios. When you set your defense to short, medium, or long it’s referring to the distance off the ball the defensive backs are playing more than the linebackers. I believe setting it to short brings the CBS close to the line and almost immolates a “bump” type of coverage. It’s highly effective as it throws off the timing of the play simulation. However, you will give up 3-4 long bombs if you’re playing smart coach. So basically pick your poison.

*I believed this until an earlier post in this thread lol. If those distances only correspond to the safeties then this belief is wrong.

It’s my belief that linebackers play zone and the secondary plays man coverage.

All coverage is zone.

nitros

Again, this was the argument that went back and forth immediately following Beta. Long time users who played versions 1 and 2 swore it was zone. Newer users who followed beta closely swore it was man (and were told as much by the developers during Beta). Oriolefan took over midway through beta and after analyzing the project, claimed the defense plays in a "manzone". It is both according to him. Not sure if that tells us anything useful in terms of setting up the offense though because I don't think anyone knows how both works exactly. I would link threads but they are missing in action as described above. I may have some CS direct responses though. I will look through them and see if I can find anything useful and/or at least interesting.