FOF 6.4 Data Mining Using Game Plan Analyzer

[Guest]

Large tables don't post well at FOFC, so I created a thread at the CCFL Forums. http://108.59.255.76/~benelou/ccfl/f...ead.php?t=1932

[Guest]

Large tables don't post well at FOFC, so I created a thread at the CCFL Forums. http://108.59.255.76/~benelou/ccfl/f...ead.php?t=1932

Thanks for the link, Ben. Good stuff.

[Aston]

so many numbarz.

The 4-deep zone thing is interesting. It is fairly damning how much worse it performs against deep passes, compared to the 3-deep zone. Although below 40 yards it's hard to tell. That's the kind of thing that is hard to shrug off as an anomaly. 7.89 ypa vs 4.76 ypa for pretty comparably large sample sizes.

So there were zero in-game adjustments on both sides, right? I wonder what could explain such a thing. A 4-deep zone should be better at defending the 40+ yard pass attempt. But it's not.

I wonder, how much variety has to do with it. What were the pass coverages? Could it be that in the interests of balance, stuff like 4-deep is being called too often, hindering its effectiveness? Similar questions about other areas where a balanced variety could actually mean some things are being called too often (formations for example).

It also appears pretty clear that 2-deep man is at least on par with 2-deep bump and run for short distances, and sometimes better. It's only when you get to 19-to-26 and above where 2-deep bump and run starts to shine. I am interested in seeing the data for how well runs performed against all these coverages, though. The trade-off could be that 2-deep man is substantially worse at stopping the run for those short distances.

[Nemesis]

so many numbarz.

The 4-deep zone thing is interesting. It is fairly damning how much worse it performs against deep passes, compared to the 3-deep zone. Although below 40 yards it's hard to tell. That's the kind of thing that is hard to shrug off as an anomaly. 7.89 ypa vs 4.76 ypa for pretty comparably large sample sizes.

So there were zero in-game adjustments on both sides, right? I wonder what could explain such a thing. A 4-deep zone should be better at defending the 40+ yard pass attempt. But it's not.

I wonder, how much variety has to do with it. What were the pass coverages? Could it be that in the interests of balance, stuff like 4-deep is being called too often, hindering its effectiveness? Similar questions about other areas where a balanced variety could actually mean some things are being called too often (formations for example).

It also appears pretty clear that 2-deep man is at least on par with 2-deep bump and run for short distances, and sometimes better. It's only when you get to 19-to-26 and above where 2-deep bump and run starts to shine. I am interested in seeing the data for how well runs performed against all these coverages, though. The trade-off could be that 2-deep man is substantially worse at stopping the run for those short distances.

Yes, but I mean if you really want to get technical, it's not really a matter of 4 deep zone being worse, I look at it as 3 Deep being much better. In reality, 4 Deep is the 3rd best of the 8 coverages vs 40+ passes.