2019 Week 1 Results.

[Guest]

If your DC settings are zero, the CPU auto assigns double coverages.

Really? I had no idea. I have to check this out since I have used the double 0 strategy in the past and assumed it meant "no double coverage".

[nelmsm]

LOL nah our game could have went either way and im sure it will be very different in week 9. your passing game was VERY effective 33 of 43 just a sloppy week one game that i got lucky on. i also had a blocked fg and waaaaayyyyy too many turnovers.

i will say im happy with my punter IIRC late in the 3rd he pinned you guys at the 2 yard line and you guys went 70+ yard but only got a fg to tie the game. makes me wish i had gotten my punter in the 3rd

Well if my rushing attack doesn't improve it's going to be a long season. Defense was adequete as I thought I would put up a few more points though we gave up too many big plays. Was pleasantly surprised at my passing game, especially the play of my late round pick Lowe.

[Guest]

Really? I had no idea. I have to check this out since I have used the double 0 strategy in the past and assumed it meant "no double coverage".

i can confirm what Nutah said, i believe Bear in the vnfl discovered this. IIRC he said setting it to 0 tells REX to double whenever it feels it needs to. ive set them all to 1. and it seems to work, i think the same is true for blitzing. weve all seen from time to time a player weve set to 0 blitz on a play blitzing. usually a cb or safety on a mulitple bitz package

[Guest]

i can confirm what Nutah said, i believe Bear in the vnfl discovered this.

I can't confirm this. In fact, I pretty much confirmed the opposite. It was a single player test but I can't see why things would turn out different in multi-player. Anyhow: I simmed about 7-8 games set to 0 double coverage. And that's exactly what I got - my guys never doubled anyone. There was even one team that had a 79/79 WR and his next best was 39/39. Still no double coverage.

To humor you, I will use the 0 double coverage defense in this league at some point in the next few games.

As for Nutah's point about TEs getting doubled because of your defensive set... I think the fact that I saw 7-8 games in a row without a double coverage pretty much disproves that. But if I get some more time I will do more testing.

[Guest]

http://www.bearsruletheworld.com/vnf...-defense/page2

from the vnfl. in fact i liek to get my stff from the v rather than fofc seems a more open exchange of ideas where as fofc is pretty much "this is how it is cause i say so"

[Aston]

Might be outdated info, that's one thing...

OTOH, wouldn't make much sense to me. Feels like there should be a "let the AI handle it in-game" setting. But more than that, say you have a really good (72/72) WR1 with 70 RR. A really poor (35/35) WR2 with 30 RR. And some crap TE with 75 RR. You're saying that if I set the coverages to 100% double cover the top receiver, I'd ignore the WR1 and double cover the horrible TE on every play? In other words, there would then be no way to ensure that I'm double covering this burner by receiver?

[Guest]

from the vnfl.

Yoda's quote from that thread:

Also, on double teaming. If you don't set someone to be double teamed, then the AI will assign someone to be doubled. A receiver that is running throught that players zone would be my guess as to who gets DCed. That is how I interpret that statement.

I hate to disagree with Yoda. But someone else in that thread called out what I just tested above. That is, if you set double coverages to 0, the log shows absolutely no double coverages. As far as I can tell, no one ever replied to that point.

I wonder if the point is actually more broad in this sense: on any particular play, if you don't double someone, what is that extra player doing?

[Aston]

I'd have to agree with chuck based on the testing. 0/0 does seem to result in no double coverages. Regarding what I said in the above post...

I'm playing a team (SP) which has the following RR's on their players:

TE: RR63, END74
FL1: RR56/60, END56/64
FL2: RR22/56, END94
SE: RR46, END91
SE2: RR38, END42
SE3: RR18/39, END50/56
FB: RR31/61, END18/59
RB: RR63, END70

I saw plenty of FL1 and SE1 being double covered. I imagine SE1 being double covered meant that FL1 was off the field. However, on one occasion, the QB threw to FL1 and it was away from DC. This was a single-back set with the defense in a 3-4 Nickel and 3-deep zone.

So basically, I'm a bit confused. When do TEs get double covered, then?

If the receiver coverage screens affect TEs, then the TE (or the RB) should have been double covered on more pass plays instead of either of the receivers. If the receiver coverage screen affects only WRs, under no circumstance would FL1 be on the field and not be double covered.

[Aston]

I wonder if the point is actually more broad in this sense: on any particular play, if you don't double someone, what is that extra player doing?

I think of it the other way around - if you DO double someone, who is doing the job? It should be a safety. In other words, if you're playing 2-or-more deep and double a receiver, then one of the safeties is doubling up with a corner to cover a guy, taking him out of his deep zone responsibility.

What happens if you are playing 1-deep? I guess the one-deep safety goes and covers a receiver. Seems kind of like a bad idea, really.

It would not make sense for LBs or corners to be the double man.

[Guest]

OTOH, wouldn't make much sense to me. Feels like there should be a "let the AI handle it in-game" setting.

That's kind of what doubling the top WR does. The top RR player is going to get the most throws, regardless of his other skills. Having said that, it would be better to have a drop down list and actually be able to pick which WR you want to double.

But more than that, say you have a really good (72/72) WR1 with 70 RR. A really poor (35/35) WR2 with 30 RR. And some crap TE with 75 RR.

I will modify this point a little after doing a lot of reading on FOFC. My theory is now this: top WR=one with best RR. It could even be a TE or RB. However, you have to remember that the displayed RR for a TE is not equivalent to the RR of a WR. So I would expect that a TE should rarely be the top WR.

Looking at the example of our game, I am even more convinced that endurance is the primary factor. The RR of Ross and Browning is pretty close (maybe even closer after unmasking). Out of the two players, Ross caught a pass first, presumably tiring him a bit. Then on the next pass, Browning was probably in the DC. At some point Ross starts to be DC, I'm guessing after Browning catches a pass or two. You can have a look - I don't have the time to analyze more right now.

[Guest]

I think of it the other way around - if you DO double someone, who is doing the job? It should be a safety. In other words, if you're playing 2-or-more deep and double a receiver, then one of the safeties is doubling up with a corner to cover a guy, taking him out of his deep zone responsibility.

What happens if you are playing 1-deep? I guess the one-deep safety goes and covers a receiver. Seems kind of like a bad idea, really.

It would not make sense for LBs or corners to be the double man.

according to Jim in that thread its supposed to be the FS, BUT ive noticed my LB monty lester gets quite a few picks (for a LB) is it because of the zone sceme i play? or is it because of hes in lots of zones and hes the DC guy thats not being reported? is it his high Play Diag? hes had a 77% and 78% pass D the last 2 years and 2 picks a year


this is Jim's quote
"In double-coverage, a safety (usually the free safety first) automatically joins one of the cornerbacks. This doesn't mean there won't be double coverage elsewhere, just that it's automatic in this case."

[Guest]

I will modify this point a little after doing a lot of reading on FOFC. My theory is now this: top WR=one with best RR. It could even be a TE or RB. However, you have to remember that the displayed RR for a TE is not equivalent to the RR of a WR. So I would expect that a TE should rarely be the top WR.

thats a very intresting point that a 80 rr TE could be less than a 80 RR WR

[Aston]

Really what this game needs is a drop-down menu. I wanna DC this guy, etc. And maybe a little less numbers gamesmanship. A defense should not trot out base 4-3 personnel against a 5WR set, no matter what the down and distance percentages say. But that's another discussion.

[Guest]

What happens if you are playing 1-deep? I guess the one-deep safety goes and covers a receiver. Seems kind of like a bad idea, really.

A couple of comments.

First, I really think it helps if you stop trying to compare the game to real football. Stop trying to think who is in coverage, why the coverage does not work anymore when people are doubled, etc. I suspect the game is probably a lot simpler than all of that. And even if it is more complex, I find that this type of thinking just leads to more headaches.

Second, are you sure you used 100% double on Ross for this game? I did notice at least one instance where nobody was doubled... And it seemed like a situation where a double was possible.

Third... A better test to see if it is possible for TEs get doubled would be to do something more wacky. Set up a multi-player setting and control the two teams playing. Have one of the teams play almost exclusively in 2 TE sets. Have the other team double the 2nd WR. Just a suggestion. I was planning to do something similar but did not have the time (in fact, I even forgot to send my export last night with this discussion ).

Also, I'm not really that certain that TEs and RBs can be doubled. I just thought that I had seen it before. But I was pretty certain that it did not just boil down to a coverage war between the FL1 and SE1. That would make the 3 WR, best WR in the slot strategy too easy.

[Aston]

The only situation where I didn't use 100% double was on extreme rush. If you noticed a situation without DC, it should be an extreme rush.

That test is an interesting idea - maybe something to try during the preseason sometime.

I didn't mean FL1/SE1 by the way - just all the WRs. I think I definitely have seen TEs double covered. Good point about the translation of RR skills to WR.