Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TxSteve
Ok - so are you willing to share: which team can I scout that will show me that the lurk plays have "done wonders for pass D" this season?

This season's short lurks I haven't really figured out yet. There are some slight zone problems with how they work. But the 3-4 can be useful. You are better off using the robbers than the short lurks though.

The medium lurks I used a ton last season on all of my teams. I don't think that went unnoticed. Like I said before though. Because of the way it is set up, you have to use them as an either/or option rather than use them with any consistency. If you use a lurk, you can't run man base or man under or anything like that for most formations because you will be picked apart when your lurk comes out in early downs by wide open players.

Something else I want to mention is that your builds entirely make up how successful plays can be in the passing game.

Here are some stats from this season with Default Name to which we all know is 100% passing as well.

18 plays majority all from 3WR sets.
ALL of those 18 plays average for more than 50% completion rate! 8 of those plays are above 60%. That is 18 plays that are imo successful in the passing game for "MY" team. The reason they are is that I have built the team to spread the ball around and be a ball control style offense.

Season 10 results, 22 plays (as I said haven't changed the PB but yet 4 other plays got in there, not sure how but meh...)

Of those 22 plays 21 of the plays averaged above 50% completion rate. Of the 22 plays 9 of the plays averaged above a 60% completion rate.

Teams are all built differently and their results will skew opinions, you have to take the masses average into account.

Originally posted by Stobie
There are so many arguments/debates happening in this thread. Good to see activity, though sad that its just the same folks

But... to what Steve and Xars are hitting on, the reason people run 3 WR so exclusively is that they have success... The issue with all the other passing formations are that they are 'too' easy to stop by defenses and 3 WR is the last strong hold for any successful passing game. I know this won't sound so popular, but hear me out. Lessen the failure rates on the other passing formations, essentially give a small passing bump, some how some way (pathing,logic,???) and you will see more passing teams doing unique things and game planning more because they 'can' use 5WR or 2TE. Frankly the talent in this game is not the offense, its the defense...



The failure rates come from 2 things.

- The bad progressions for most of the plays.
- Audible protections holding in valuable targets unnecessarily.

For a team like Logzilla, the best failure you can hope for is trips posts calls and the TE holds in against Man Base.

Ok thanks. Now I see what you're saying.

Veteran # last season (all 31 games) - 830 pass plays

Dime 326 C1 Double Lurk: 71 times / 39% / 6.4/16
326 C2 Double Lurk: 46 times 37% / 5.3 / 14.5

You used them 14% of the time.


I don't want to come across like an a-hole - I just think you're exaggerating a little with the 'wonders for pass d' thing.

Still so early this season Stobie. Default Name could have just had a pretty easy schedule so far

Originally posted by TxSteve
Ok thanks. Now I see what you're saying.

Veteran # last season (all 31 games) - 830 pass plays

Dime 326 C1 Double Lurk: 71 times / 39% / 6.4/16
326 C2 Double Lurk: 46 times 37% / 5.3 / 14.5

You used them 14% of the time.


I don't want to come across like an a-hole - I just think you're exaggerating a little with the 'wonders for pass d' thing.

Considering those were statistics from an all run stopping team with just 2 pass based corners, I don't really think I am. In terms of 14% of the time, that is entirely 3rd/4th downs. And not against any all run based teams obviously.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Still so early this season Stobie. Default Name could have just had a pretty easy schedule so far


That is why I gave the numbers from ALL of season 10 where I didn't do that well, didn't make the playoffs, yet passing numbers were ok

Originally posted by bhall43
Considering those were statistics from an all run stopping team with just 2 pass based corners, I don't really think I am. In terms of 14% of the time, that is entirely 3rd/4th downs. And not against any all run based teams obviously.

sorry - just to be clear that was only 3WR sets.

if I go back to last season and only look at games where I have a "they are decent" impression (whoville/bulldogs/dd/whoville/da/runglb/ftcollins/air raid/mma):

3WR sets: 355 times

28 times 326 C1 double lurk: 46.4% / 9.4 / 20.2
14 times 326 C2 double lurk: 57% / 8.4 / 14.8

If I narrow further to 3rd/4th down only: 70 times
20 times C1 double lurk: 45% completion / 8.7 / 19.2
12 times C2 double lurk: 58.3% completion / 9.8 / 16.7

Originally posted by TxSteve
That's a reason I'd like to see Corndog step away from the lurks (the answer isn't going to be in zone...zone mechanics don't work well) and just get simple. Get some plays in there you'd see in a game in your street:

Disagree. Some of these under zones are sexy, and they work. Some of them are a little meh, I wish the LB drops were deeper. Others I haven't tested yet, but not all plays that look similar in the playart are run similarly on the field. I actually want more double lurks. There are a few formations where some extra double lurk variety could really take away some passing teams bread and butter.

How many older teams have players built to take advantage of under zones? How many of the newer teams will?

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Disagree. Some of these under zones are sexy, and they work. Some of them are a little meh, I wish the LB drops were deeper. Others I haven't tested yet, but not all plays that look similar in the playart are run similarly on the field. I actually want more double lurks. There are a few formations where some extra double lurk variety could really take away some passing teams bread and butter.

How many older teams have players built to take advantage of under zones? How many of the newer teams will?

Ok. which of them work? Let's take a look.


Looking at FSM - and 3WR sets. Dime cover 1 Lurk has been decent for you. You've run it 10.6% of the time 40.9% completion / 4.0 / 9.8 -- but it has been nowhere NEAR as effective for you as over will mike

87.8% of the time / 29.3% completion / 3.2 / 11 (which probably doesn't include sacks) - 26% sack rate (your LB is sick)

Originally posted by TxSteve
Now we're on the same page I think.

You run a small, small playbook because those are the plays that work the best (nothing wrong with that).

People who run other plays...are generally wasting their time.



Originally posted by Stobie

But... to what Steve and Xars are hitting on, the reason people run 3 WR so exclusively is that they have success... The issue with all the other passing formations are that they are 'too' easy to stop by defenses and 3 WR is the last strong hold for any successful passing game. I know this won't sound so popular, but hear me out. Lessen the failure rates on the other passing formations, essentially give a small passing bump, some how some way (pathing,logic,???) and you will see more passing teams doing unique things and game planning more because they 'can' use 5WR or 2TE. Frankly the talent in this game is not the offense, its the defense...


OK so the 2 TE plays suck. But here's the rest of 3WR:

YPA
Under Swing 7.5
Flanker Drag 6.94
Flood Right 6.77
All Go WR Clear Out 6.5
HB Clear Out 6.45
TE In N Out 6.41
HB Clear 5.8
Overload 5.76
WR Hook 5.71
Quick In 5.68
Double Slant 5.63
Up and Over 5.35
Singleback Cross Up 5.32
Shotgun Smash 5.29
Corner Threat 5.21
In N Out 5.18
Shotgun Hooks 5.1
Slot Deep Cross 4.96
WR Drags 4.92
TE Lead 4.82
HB Wheel 4.78
HB Weak Out 4.75
Quick Cutback 4.71
Trips Left Slants 4.69
WR1 Clearout 4.61
WR Unders 4.08
Strong Flood 4
HB Fly 3.84
Flood Left 3.83
TE Shallow Cross 3.71
Trips Left Hooks 3.67
TE Cross Slant 3.32
Deep Corner 3.22
TE Drag 3.17
Reverse Slant 2.95
Z Spot 2.75
Slot In N Up 2.56
Middle Overload 2.56
Cross Up 2.35
TE Shallow Drag 2.32
Trips Left Quick Routes 2.25
Singleback Quick Slant 2.14
Middle Cross 1.71
HB Under Out 0
Quick Routes -0.17
Curls Left -2.33

So the first 3 plays, have averages at/above the avg I posted for non-LZ: 6.8 YPA. The lowest play I use on a YPA basis is TRIP WR Cross and for non-LZ teams that play has a YPA of 5.35. In the above list, there are 12 plays at/above that amount.

So in reality there are 17 plays that can be mixed and matched within 3WR to get to an acceptable base YPA. Then you build to execute those plays.

The problem is what Stobie alludes to: 3WR has acceptable pass plays and the other formations don't.

Originally posted by Xars
Ok so someone needs to find some non-3WR Passing plays that a playbook and players can be built around.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/1356

However, I've also created 4 differently built WR's for the future, in case I find out some of my current WR's don't quite work. It's a fun test that so far seems to be going really well.

Originally posted by Xars
Guess I'll get around to doing it eventually if no one else does.

Why not anyways? It would have the benefit of other team's DC's having no real idea how to defend you.

Originally posted by TxSteve
sorry - just to be clear that was only 3WR sets.

if I go back to last season and only look at games where I have a "they are decent" impression (whoville/bulldogs/dd/whoville/da/runglb/ftcollins/air raid/mma):

3WR sets: 355 times

28 times 326 C1 double lurk: 46.4% / 9.4 / 20.2
14 times 326 C2 double lurk: 57% / 8.4 / 14.8

If I narrow further to 3rd/4th down only: 70 times
20 times C1 double lurk: 45% completion / 8.7 / 19.2
12 times C2 double lurk: 58.3% completion / 9.8 / 16.7

Again, I want to stress that you are taking statistics from an all run defensive line, all run stopping LB's, and mostly run stopping secondary. Very few pass stopping skills there.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Disagree. Some of these under zones are sexy, and they work. Some of them are a little meh, I wish the LB drops were deeper. Others I haven't tested yet, but not all plays that look similar in the playart are run similarly on the field. I actually want more double lurks. There are a few formations where some extra double lurk variety could really take away some passing teams bread and butter.

How many older teams have players built to take advantage of under zones? How many of the newer teams will?

Some of the new lurks could be better if the LB's dropped into zones that were more middle of the field and deeper. Not exactly a robber but I don't want them creeping out to almost a flat like they currently sometimes do. It is frustrating to see the LB pass up a TE on post because a back is gonna enter his zone.

Watchers of the Wall, currently in seasoned, will make a lot of use out of the Lurks and Robbers. We have a zone coverage LB and one is waiting in the wings if we feel that 2 are necessary. I really like some of the plays.

I see where I am going wrong in this thread. I was under the impression that more formations existed beyond 3 WR. But they must not exist anymore.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Ok. which of them work? Let's take a look.


Looking at FSM - and 3WR sets. Dime cover 1 Lurk has been decent for you. You've run it 10.6% of the time 40.9% completion / 4.0 / 9.8 -- but it has been nowhere NEAR as effective for you as over will mike

87.8% of the time / 29.3% completion / 3.2 / 11 (which probably doesn't include sacks) - 26% sack rate (your LB is sick)

One of the issues when comparing stats like this, is that my defense is generally built to take advantage of Over Will, whereas it's not built to take advantage of Lurk's. I don't have any Zone SA's on any of my guys, I don't have much Zone Awareness, I've spent a lot of SP in areas I wouldn't have if I were building them for Lurk's.

This is an argument that right now is fun, but I seriously doubt any of the teams at the Seasoned or higher level have built rosters with Lurk's in mind.

But there's another Lurk that I've only ran 5 times, and might run it more often if a team runs similar plays to what Whoville did:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/189494/604633 (3 guys including the LB in Lurk, converge on WR1 to prevent him from catching it, the LB even gets a deflection roll according to the JSON info)
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/189494/603124 (this one was caught, but the linebacker got pump faked away from the throwing lane, it's an example of a build being asked to do a Lurk, when it wasn't designed for that)