Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Kayoh

I'm probably being hyperbolic, but I'm following this logic

-the current/lasting passing meta is trying to win catch rolls because receivers can't get open long enough for QBs to hit them before the situation becomes contested, or at least QBs can't hit open receivers while they're still open
-if receivers could get openfor long enough for QBs to hit them uncontested, or if QBs could hit them in stride while they are open for however brief that is, passing would become unstoppable


The overpowered passing was during the era when teams would often go 100% passing or 100% rushing. That put DBs and DCs in a bind.

The 100% passing teams fielded superfast S* WRs that ran fly and post routes all the time. QBs could lead their WRs properly which meant any slip up by your safeties led a TD.

Now, DBs could be built to keep up with the WRs, but that meant getting streamrolled by the 100% power running teams. DBs couldn't both keep up with the S* WRs and tackle S* HBs.

I think if we wanted to bring accurate passing back then we would need to make a few changes.

1) We need to nerf S* HBs a little bit. Power HBs shouldn't be racking up 40+ broken tackles a game. Elusive HBs are similarly overpowered in their own way. This would make it more feasible to build mobile DBs that can keep up with speedy WRs.
2) Lower the cost of S* CBs.
3) Have a way to tag up S* CBs with S* WRs. Could be a system where the game assigns a cover score to each CB and a receiving score to each WR. Then the system matches your highest rated CBs against their highest WRs and go down the list. DCs can toggle that on and off as a choice.

These changes would probably lower scoring across the board, but it would make the game feel more realistic.

Originally posted by darkwingaa
These changes would probably lower scoring across the board, but it would make the game feel more realistic.

My mind boggles after seeing scores at Sophomore Plus.

Originally posted by Xars
That's because it isn't Bellichick and Josh Daniels scheming against them. The moment that happens, they are all fucked.

Or did you not watch the video?



Eh, that's your opinion Xars. I watch enough Pro and College to know that 3-4 is being ran as I mentioned, including against Trips, SGs, Pistol, etc. and it has to do with LB play using guys who are hybrids.

Originally posted by Xars

You're making comments again instead of doing analysis. LBs are Tier 1 dots. Inherently, they matchup with QBs and HBs, yet their Salary Cost is that of a Tier 2. CBs are Tier 2 dots and their Salary Cost is that of a Tier 1 dot.


You honestly don't think I know what matches up with what . Look...I agree that CBs cost too much, but I don't agree about LBs costing too little. Maybe ask Bort/CDog why they chose the prices on the positions yet put them in those tiers? Better yet, how about CBs need to be Tier 1 and LBs moved to Tier 2, a much simpler fix that swapping costs and affecting rosters for the entire game vs SPP. At this late stage of the game I don't see them wanting to make such a huge change. Maybe for GLB3 if they ever get around to making us a Steam version.


Originally posted by Xars
Overall, since there are more CBs than LBs on Vet Rosters, teams would actually have more Cap Space with the Salary Change. It's just that the S* positions will shift some.

Myrik, if you have 4 LBs and 5 CBs, you free up $630,000 of Cap Space. Maybe you can't have 2 S* LBs, but you can have 1 S* LB and another S* elsewhere and more Cap room. If Zone needs multiple S* LBs to work, then it is broken. But it's broken in the wrong way - it's overpowered; not underpowered. Look at the Cover 3 Tiger yards per play analysis. It's dominant at ever tier and against every Vet formation. There are a few individual plays it is weak against, but it's difficult to build a playbook that just uses them given the playbook constraints.

That's clearly OP.

Now why is it OP?



I just disagree. I don't think it's OP, I don't think its too many S*LB, nor do I want a S*CB especially in Zone (our one great SA EotP doesn't get used as much on the position). Zone doesn't need multiple S*LBs to be good, I personally just like to build my style with 2...Guys like DLCurt or Ghanima only used 1 and both won Vet. But I do agree that CBs cost too much for what they offer and I think the easiest fix is to make LB T2 and CB T1, or simply give them some SAs or something to make up for it.

At higher tiers 3-4 Tiger Blitz loses its appeal, especially at Vet when QBs are able to get rid of the ball really fast. It's still good, but not great like in the lower tiers. I know you run all the data, but I'm sure there are plenty of times in that data that its used against weak or cpu teams, but when you play the great teams its just not as effective at least in my personal experience. I tend to sprinkle it in and not completely rely on it in the late tiers and I totally don't recommend it against 2TE & 1TE sets at all if anyone else is reading this.

Originally posted by william78
That's not generally correct. Does it work sometimes sure - it's still not the "same" otherwise teams with great LBs who are fast and fluid would never sub them out for nickel and dime. Ask Alabama against Clemson in 2019 , Alabama has been producing NFL caliber ILBs for decades some of the best - trying that early on was certainly not to their benefit.



We're just going to have to disagree. I see plenty of college and pros use 3-4 that way I mentioned. Yeah they still run nickel or dime, but it's far easier to sub 3-4 or cover exotic formations with it. You got a SS who can play LB or a LB who can DE, etc. I see lots of hybrid builds being used so a team either drops a LB up by the DE or a LB drops back and becomes a SS and they might sub one guy. Last I looked about half the league uses 3-4 if I'm not mistaken.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
We're just going to have to disagree. I see plenty of college and pros use 3-4 that way I mentioned. Yeah they still run nickel or dime, but it's far easier to sub 3-4 or cover exotic formations with it. You got a SS who can play LB or a LB who can DE, etc. I see lots of hybrid builds being used so a team either drops a LB up by the DE or a LB drops back and becomes a SS and they might sub one guy. Last I looked about half the league uses 3-4 if I'm not mistaken.

I don't want you to think I don't respect your GLB accomplishments, I also admit I don't watch as much college the past few years now that I'm much more busy.

That said, on pro football it's not an opinion https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/2020-defensive-personnel-bills-and-packers-nickel-and-dime-league

NFL Teams spent nearly 60% of their time nickel packages.

Moreover the 11 personnel right at the top column which is 3 Wide Receivers 1 Back 1 TE ...NFL teams countered with their base defesne either 4-3 or 3-4 only 2.4% of all snaps in 2020, Aginst 3 Wide they are in nickel 76.6% of the time and dime 20.9%.

--- It's pattern suicide at a high level of play to leave your LB against a WR. The skill set is just dramatically different. Even when I spent far more time watching Football as a bit of purest who enjoys the chess match its one of the biggest things that always bothered me reference GLB2 - admittedly not as much as it used it - however when I said its the original sin not applying OOP on alignment rather than depth chart it really is its a huge cause of many of the hack codings that either create something as over or underpowered. Like I said it doesn't bother me as much as it used to way way back in season 4, 5, 6 but...for real football it simply isn't done. It's a horrific idea at any point past high school unless your defensive playcall is designed to bait or confuse the QB like a zone overload where the QB anticipates player X beign in the zone and instead its player Y or a man switch.

Fix defenders reactions on deep zones pls. They are just starting to run to qb instead of covering. Also sometimes they just do dumb shit. There is something wrong there.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I just disagree. I don't think it's OP,


C'mon, could you at least try to be analytical? I'm not trying to have a pissing match here.

All of the GLOBAL data for all plays includes CPUs and bad mismatches.

I don't mind you having a different opinion. But I post analytics and data. You post your inference and it's like you refuse to discuss the data.

Originally posted by william78


That said, on pro football it's not an opinion https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/2020-defensive-personnel-bills-and-packers-nickel-and-dime-league

NFL Teams spent nearly 60% of their time nickel packages.

Moreover the 11 personnel right at the top column which is 3 Wide Receivers 1 Back 1 TE ...NFL teams countered with their base defesne either 4-3 or 3-4 only 2.4% of all snaps in 2020, Aginst 3 Wide they are in nickel 76.6% of the time and dime 20.9%.


Here's william78 posting NFL data which contradicts your "eyes" as to what you see.

So again, here's the GLOBAL data for 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger at Vet:

Originally posted by Xars


1WR: (5.00)
2TE: 0.06
2WR: (0.89)
3WR: 1.47
3WR TRIPS: (2.30)
4WR: (2.61)
4WR TRIPS: 3.45
5WR: (1.57)



All of the other plays have GLOBAL data with bad matchups, play calling, builds, etc. If that's your argument, then discuss it in detail. But this one play has GLOBAL data at every tier that's OP. It has GLOBAL data at Vet against every formation that's OP. These are problems worth discussion.

Go through the data I've posted and say it's incorrect. I'm open-minded and respond to data and analysis.

But you keep posting an "opinion" that just isn't supported by data. If you're "opinion" is correct, then the data is there to support it.

I welcome you doing it.

And for the record - to everyone, I haven't said "nerf zone". I've asked for a GLOBAL change to Salary that effects both Man and Zone. Once that's done, lets look at why some plays have OP stats against formations they shouldn't. Are there good reasons for it or bad reasons?

Should 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger really be generating NEGATIVE yards per play against 5WR at Vet????? I just don't see it. Now there's only 25 plays in that category, so wonky things can happen. But there are no 'wonky' things happening the other way. There are no formations having tons of success with low play counts.

But against 3WR, there's 319 plays of data.
Comp% is 48.39% - I thought Zone was supposed to suffer a higher completion% against??? Perhaps this isn't high enough.
YPA/YPC of 4.55 and 9.41 - both of these are too low as starting points. The YPC is partially due to play calling, but lack of deep passing completions hurts it.
Int% is 5.02% - overall fine, but given the Comp% and YPC it's too high.
Sack% is 11.83% - pretty high but could work if the Comp% against was higher.

The Net Passing YPA against 3WR is 1.47 yards. This isn't football. NFL teams don't pass 30-40 times per game so they can generate 50 yards of Offense.

I'm currently in the camp that INTs are too high and fumbles (strip, and maybe power) are too low. But that can change.

As to your suggestion, perhaps the easier implementation is to move CBs to Tier 1 and LBs to Tier 2 though I think Bort/Cdog have said that Tier 1 dots are inherently 'better' than Tier 2. That's for Bort/Cdog to tell us.

Originally posted by Xars


I'm currently in the camp that INTs are too high and fumbles (strip, and maybe power) are too low. But that can change.



I mean Sacks are way too high i agree /s

fr xars stop cherry picking data sets and pretending it means something

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I mean Sacks are way too high i agree /s

fr xars stop cherry picking data sets and pretending it means something

Sacks too high = True.

Cherry picking data? Feel free to cherry pick your own.

Originally posted by william78
I don't want you to think I don't respect your GLB accomplishments, I also admit I don't watch as much college the past few years now that I'm much more busy.

That said, on pro football it's not an opinion https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/2020-defensive-personnel-bills-and-packers-nickel-and-dime-league

NFL Teams spent nearly 60% of their time nickel packages.



Well I could be wrong on the NFL, but I know the college ball I watched this year was 3-4 variants. I know lots of NFL teams are drafting those hybrid LBs these days. And no offense taken, you're good.

Originally posted by Xars
C'mon, could you at least try to be analytical? I'm not trying to have a pissing match here.

All of the GLOBAL data for all plays includes CPUs and bad mismatches.

I don't mind you having a different opinion. But I post analytics and data. You post your inference and it's like you refuse to discuss the data.



I did mention your data and you basically just confirmed what I was saying about it, so I don't need to discuss it much further tbh.

Anyways, I appreciate you trying to be diplomatic, I wasn't trying to push your buttons either.

Originally posted by Xars
Sacks too high = True.

Cherry picking data? Feel free to cherry pick your own.



Under Sam 2 out of 5-2 has a 43% sack rate in the last 4 seasons and over 1000 calls

Great now i have to retype as i guess I timed out.

Ya da ya da ya da

No NFL teams have 9 pro bowlers on a roster, we should reduce salary cap, this will add a form of parity and force teams to pick a more diverse approach or a specialized focus. Apart from Alabama at the college level its not even close to a real thing. I dont know what that cap would look like but maybe get rid of roster minimum players even so people can still slide more S* in.

If you reduce the cap which reduces the amount of S* on a team you will then be limiting to an extent the beat down new agents get as we dont roll in with 9 to 12 S* against their zero. This however, will get blasted as despite everyone wanting the game to be fun and as competitive as possible they arent willing to adjust the way they currently build their rosters. In a way not to pick on Myrik and his god LBs, but I'm going to. Even when you make adjustments on your D you're not really making adjustments as your core 2 guys somehow have broken the game, when you combine that with having S* players at other positions its just ridiculous. End of RANT

Originally posted by vipermaw82


No NFL teams have 9 pro bowlers on a roster, we should reduce salary cap, this will add a form of parity and force teams to pick a more diverse approach or a specialized focus.

Star players do NOT = pro bowlers. Star players are more like "good" players. Not every S* player makes the all-star game. An NFL all pro player would be more like a S* player with a great build.

I would rather they put a hard cap on the number of S* players than reduce the cap. If the cap is reduced, then even with lower number of S*s, the roster will not be filled out.

I would rather Zone CBs get a new SA and some more plays on defense, but that's me lol