Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Xars
No.

You will get sacked no matter how much Footwork and Pocket Awareness you have.

It's the code.

There is literally a wall 7 yards behind the QB. You can't drift back farther (like in real football) and avoid the rush. You can only slide up or down (left or right depending on how you view it).

This is why there are no 8 yard sacks. No 9 yard sacks. No 10 yard sacks.

The majority of sacks are pinches. You need DBG because the fumble calculation is based on the Power Tackling of the defender and your QBs Conditioning - Toughness - Drop Back Grip. Since QB conditioning is almost always low, you need high values in the other two.

People are blitzing with 80-90 Power Tackling LBs. QB values of 30 aren't going to cut it.

The footwork and pocket awareness aren't to move back in the pocket, but rather to step up and to the side. Not every sack is a pinch, and even a split second can buy you the time to get the ball out. High footwork also means you complete the dropback sooner, which causes the QB to start looking for targets sooner and avoids missing receivers that are open early, thus reducing the time you have to spend in the pocket. If you do a test with Quick Read you'll see that it never procs before the exact moment that the dropback is completed, meaning footwork does improve a QB's ability to start searching for receivers.

Using agerm's Rampage QB as an example (https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/334338), he is sacked an average of 1 time per game - 30 in 26 games. With only 30 drop back grip, 20 toughness, and no Iron Grip SA, he has only fumbled 6 times all season, despite also rushing 35 times with only 19 carry grip. A less than 10% rate on fumbles from situations where he was tackled in Vet, with minimal investment in preventing fumbles. And of those fumbles, how many were lost? 2.

One lost fumble in every 13 games does not warrant wasting large amounts of SP for a slightly increased (but not guaranteed) chance to prevent it, and it certainly does not warrant wasting an SA. In the few situations where you get sacked, the fewer situations where you fumble, and the even fewer situations where you lose that fumble, just accept it and win anyways because you invested all of your stats and abilities in scoring, not in trying to control a worst-case scenario that almost never occurs. And if you really want to prevent turnovers, his 40 interceptions are a lot more damaging than the 2 lost fumbles. How do you reduce interceptions? By being a better passer.

FWIW, that line of thinking also means I was wrong about pocket awareness. Rampage's QB doesn't have any and if avoiding sacks is in fact less efficient than just completing better passes, pocket awareness is a poor way to spend points.

Originally posted by Kvothe27

One lost fumble in every 13 games does not warrant wasting large amounts of SP for a slightly increased (but not guaranteed) chance to prevent it, and it certainly does not warrant wasting an SA. In the few situations where you get sacked, the fewer situations where you fumble, and the even fewer situations where you lose that fumble, just accept it and win anyways because you invested all of your stats and abilities in scoring, not in trying to control a worst-case scenario.

You don't win SHIPs and the Ladder looking at averages. Out of 30 games, less than 10 a season (and maybe as few as 5) are competitive to top teams.

I've watched more Passing plays than probably anyone. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/98747 Think anyone else has watched 2000+ passing plays a season since the beginning?

Against top teams, fighting for SHIPs and the Ladder, you can't get away with low values here. Belgarath had low values (DBG of 14; but Toughness of 78/82) but that was years ago where blitzing with Power LBs weren't a thing yet because the Tiger Zone Blitz plays didn't exist yet. Plus on an all-pass team, you build the OLine for pure pass and don't get eaten by the blitz as badly.

What does a sack & fumble cost you? 52 yards.

The top teams are fighting for a 100 yard differential in a game. You just gave away half of that.

Beating the CPU, beating newbs with roster issues, bad chemistry, lack of S* and playing lopsided Ladder matches (Vet vs Pro; Vet vs Journey) skew the overall numbers.

Myrik's Kentucky team has a 20% sack rate this season (204 / 1099), ON AVERAGE. He has 72 INTs and 72 Forced Fumbles against Passing plays.

Against top teams, those numbers are lower (10% sack rate), but don't think 30 DBG and 20 Toughness will save you. He's got 12 Forced Fumbles and 11 INTS on 166 plays against Southside, Hawaii and Miamisburg - the top 3 Ladder teams.

23 TOs where the INTs cost you 35 yards and the sack/fumbles cost you 52 works out to this math: (11 * 35) + (12 * 52) = 1009 yards. That's on 166 plays, or 6.07 yards per play. Know what the YPA against him is on Passing plays? 5.5 YPA.

So adjusted for TOs, his Pass Defense is giving up NEGATIVE .57 yards per play. Those numbers are against the Top 3 Ladder teams (outside him). The AVERAGE of all 30 games is far far worse.

Argue and lose or agree and maybe win.

The choice is yours.

Xars, man, calm down, this is a safe space. Despite the "choice" you have so graciously presented, often times arguing actually causes you to win more, not less, since it forces you to critically examine your beliefs and see how they hold up when tested. It's great that you're so confident in your ideas but be careful not to become dogmatic and dismissive. You have a tendency to present your opinion as fact, and I would encourage you to be more open minded.

Anyways, a forced fumble means nothing compared to a lost fumble because it's the turnover we care about when calculating threat (a recovered fumble technically has 0), so stats on Kentucky's raw forced fumbles are irrelevant. Additionally, the majority of those "sack/fumbles" (in quotes because they are your words) you listed in games against the top 3 were not even against the QB. Only 5 of those 13 were QB fumbles, while most were HBs and receivers. Either you are not as smart as you think you are, or you misrepresented the data on purpose. If we are going to have a good faith discussion, please present your statistics ethically.

In two games against the elite Kentucky Mountaineer pass rush, Rampage's QB lost one fumble. I think this justifies ignoring drop back grip, toughness, and the Iron Grip SA because:

1. There is no guarantee that putting another 20 points in drop back grip and toughness and Iron Grip even prevents that fumble. It reduces your chances, but there are plenty of situations where it doesn't change the outcome at all, thereby wasting all of those points.
2. Putting all those points in anti-fumbling is expensive, and there is an opportunity cost. If a QB removes points from other areas, he will complete fewer passes and also throw more interceptions.
3. Bad passes were a much bigger deal in these games than fumbles. Rampage QB threw 7 interceptions over the course of those two games, and unlike fumbles, there is no uncertainty about who will end up with the ball on an interception. It is a guaranteed turnover.
4. Interceptions were not only the dominant threat in Maine v. Kentucky, but in ALL of Kentucky's other top matchups as well. KC's QB lost 0 fumbles and threw 1 pick. Dream Team's QB lost 0 fumbles and threw 7 picks. Lizards lost 0 fumbles and threw 6 picks (over 2 games). Southside lost 2 fumbles and threw 4 picks (over 2 games). Nebraska lost 0 fumbles and threw 8 picks (over 2 games). Miamisburg lost 2 fumbles and threw 4 picks. Hawaii lost 2 fumbles and threw 3 picks. Himalayas lost 0 fumbles and threw 1 pick. The sum total: 6 lost fumbles and 34 interceptions over 11 games. An average, against the most competitive teams, of 1/2 a sack fumble per game. Maine also only lost a sack fumble once in every two games. Is this really worth the opportunity cost?
5. The SPs and SAs that reduce interception rate (the big killer) happen to be the same SAs and SPs that result in more completed passes and more offensive production. On the other hand, the SPs and SAs that reduce sack fumble rate do absolutely nothing when you are not sack fumbling. Having the awareness to find open receivers means forcing less passes into coverage. Throwing more accurate passes means less balls thrown directly to a defender. More pass power means less time for the defender to react/jump, as well as the ability to better complete deep passes and avoid dangerous underneath zones. More tech reduces contested interceptions as well as improving TTN proc rate, which reduces defender interception chance even when passes are jumped uncontested by underneath zones. Throwing better = more first downs, more points scored, less interceptions. Holding onto the ball better while being sacked = ?? Nothing.

frankly, a difference of opinions and approaches makes the game a hell of a lot more fun

There are some universal truths when building these positions, but like I said in the HB thread, there will be variances depending on the team and obviously more than one way to build a good player. I could take my QB and plug him into another team's offense and he may or may not perform as well (I know this because guys on my team have made players using my templates for other teams with a variety of results). That being said, Xars does make a point about your TE/WR build variances... those can complement your QB if they are all built with a scheme in mind.


Originally posted by agerm73
Thank you for your suggestion Myrik. I appreciate it. Is there any chance that you would post your QB build, for comparison and the benefit of the GLB2 community.

Eh, I could, but tbh if anyone has been on my Lex or previous second teams you get a decent idea how I like to build my versions of any position anyways, and as I stated before, it's just a template... you all gotta figure out what works best for your system. I've always built my KYM teams with a certain style/scheme in mind so the players each compliment each other as well being built to make certain plays work.


Originally posted by Xars


I've watched more Passing plays than probably anyone. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/98747 Think anyone else has watched 2000+ passing plays a season since the beginning?



I've prob not watched the amount you have, but I've watched a damn lot of GLB2 since I've been here to figure out how to make my style work, lol. That's what these guys gotta do, just experiment and watch games... watch what the top teams are doing as well as your own. Eventually you start seeing a bigger picture.

Emphasis on the "experiment" part over the "watch". Too many conclusions drawn from just watching games can and often does lead to false biases, such as an irrational fear of sack fumbles, since the things you remember most are the plays that stand out and not necessarily the most objectively or consistently relevant. This is a game that relies on probabilities, so statistics and sound logic are, in my opinion, the best predictors of success. Luck just plays too much of a factor to learn the right lessons exclusively from watching games. There is definitely no substitute for watching games to see how builds and mechanics function and interact, but there is also no substitute for studying metadata and statistics, nor for theorycrafting. The most important thing is that quality takes precedence over quantity. To actually improve, you can't just look at plays or numbers - you need to have a clear idea of what you're looking for in each play, and more importantly - why. Watching 2000+ plays a season doesn't automatically turn you into a better player. Watching specific plays to answer specific questions does. Likewise, watching 2000+ plays a season doesn't make you right. Arguments supported by data and logic are what make you right - nothing else.

Originally posted by Xars
It depends on the WR/TE builds. If you are going with CiT monsters (90+) then get Pass Tech to 100 and Gold TTN.

If you're building the WR/TE differently, then adjust.

Frankly, 30 Drop Back Grip and 30 Toughness aren't enough.

Trait Scholar is a questionable choice simply because we have no idea what Play Knowledge brings. Also, what benefit does it have once you have Gold levels of Play Knowledge? None? Because at Journeyman, I already have 2 at Gold and 6 at Silver.

This is seriously squaring with what I'm seeing with Assisted Living's QB right now. Willcoll and I don't know what do do about these sacks. We dumped a bunch of points into Pocket Awareness at the start of rookie (50+) but against top level teams poor Ozymandias is still getting sacked all over the place. In our last game of the season Jarvis got to our QB 6 times. I checked to see if maybe it was just a certain plays or formations but nah. I checked to see if our O-line builds were trash but no dice.

We did fine against most teams but against the top tiers of rookie last season like Nevada, Jarvis, Brooklyn, we were just a mess. We are seriously debating ditching "On the Run" and just getting "Brace For Impact" instead as our QBs next SA. It's a signature ability powered by pocket awareness so it would fit right into what we already have for our build.

B4I is powered by carry awareness

Originally posted by Cybertron
B4I is powered by carry awareness

Oh crap. Well so much for that idea lol.

You know you can respec....once for free.

Originally posted by Cybertron
You know you can respec....once for free.

Nah I had high Pocket Awareness anyway. What I'm starting to wonder is if Pocket Awareness actually does anything. You have guys like Agerm's QB with no Pocket Awareness and way less sacks than our QB on Assisted Living.

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
Nah I had high Pocket Awareness anyway. What I'm starting to wonder is if Pocket Awareness actually does anything. You have guys like Agerm's QB with no Pocket Awareness and way less sacks than our QB on Assisted Living.

You can't just look at sacks. You have to watch the replays. Maybe he doesn't get sacked because he has a great O Line? I think Pocket Awareness is good for a QB who has a run blocking line, little pass protection and needs to avoid the rush for a few seconds before getting rid of the ball.

Watch Jamelle Holieway through his career. He will be behind a full on run blocking O Line with little pocket awareness...but he will have very high footwork.

Play calling has the greatest effect on sacks. Then OLine builds. Play calling by a wide margin though.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Play calling has the greatest effect on sacks. Then OLine builds. Play calling by a wide margin though.

Yep.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Play calling has the greatest effect on sacks. Then OLine builds. Play calling by a wide margin though.

^This^ Not all plays were created equally.

There are two ways to learn this.
(1) Scout the plays that top teams are using, if you do so you will definitely see a set of core plays.
or
(2) Play a lot and discover on your own.

In order for some uniqueness we do need some people to try new stuff. I suggest mixing some of the "Good Stuff" with some experimental stuff. You can always test all you want in scrimmmages or ladder matches.