Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Stoned Beaver
Just because it isn't a problem on that particular play for you doesn't make it less proof of what I'm saying.

https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=3015468&pbp_id=1151156

I look at this play, and its a prime example of how a higher vision total would result in less big plays (potentially more often than it gives them up) the MLB takes his time passing his pursuit angle vision check...allows the HB time to make his way down field and block him, and inevitably misses the tackle.

His 160 speed got him a chance to make the tackle (all be it for a gain of 10 yards) despite his lack of vision clearly costing him an opportunity to be in prime position to make the stop for much less, but the problem was it also opened up a HB getting out in front to block him and ultimately it was probably as much the coming off that block attempt that cost him the missed tackle as it was the missing strength/tackling.

that is a HHLB - probably slower and less vision than the high speed, agility and vision players we are talking about

Originally posted by Stoned Beaver
And also, this is just absolutely untrue, advance the play a single tick at a time, and the runner has committed to the middle of the field LONG before they move anywhere but directly toward the zone they were told to go to.

I am not misunderstanding that this is the INTENTION of the play-call, nor am I knocking the appropriate use of these zones the way the players are built... I'm just offering proof that "when the QB handed the ball off" is not the reason why defenders get frozen in their zones, its is normal operation that has nothing to do with the timing of the ball being handed off.

Also note that even once they FINALLY reach the zone they are being instructed to go to, that they still take a legit pause inside their zone for multiple ticks (and the runner is at this point 2+ yards down field up the middle with defenders on either side of him) before finally passing a vision check to take the appropriate path to cut the runner off for further advancement.

yeah, I don't know the logic that releases them from their zone of coverage - maybe once the ball crosses the line of scrimmage

in this particular case, others were in better position to make the play and those players (FS and both ILB's) moved at the point of the handoff

Yes but knowing 3 players notably release from their coverage at different times eliminates the possibility that it has anything to do with the timing of the handoff (and also see how there is no difference from how players perform on QB runs).

The point I'm continuing to make is that the way "play reading" works is that in a way that can't possibly be quantified a vision check allows for a player to:

Know the play type, know the best possible path to prevent the least amount of yards on the play (and avoid blockers), and in the event of a pass know the route of the receiver and the best possible path to maintain dictated coverage distance from that player.

Until that moment happens the player will do one of the following:

Blindly Blitz - any player with no man coverage assignments will blindly run directly at the QB from the start of the play, making no effort to avoid blockers

Blindly Zone- this is what happens with the CBs who run straight to their zone, zone coverage probably either makes the vision check harder or actually delays the vision check until the player reach's the designed center of their zone as well

Blindly Man Cover- this is something that we in peewee fight with, the player will drift toward the player (NOT THE DIRECTION OF THEIR ROUTE, DIRECTLY TOWARD THEM) at the start of a play until a vision check is passed.

I also am suspicious that the vision checks are tiered as well, the first tier allows the player to know the play type : Run/Pass and is much easier to pass...

The second vision check is a "bonus" vision check that both opens up avoidance-pathing (blockers/defenders) and seemingly offers a bonus to all other attributes. This "bonus" vision check becomes drastically easier to pass via the Repeat Play Penalty, and passing it automatically passes the first tier.

Also worth noting the "collision avoidance" logic does not take into account the likeliness of a player who is currently engaged in a blocking interaction (whether blocking or being blocked) to break free from that interaction. Also defensive players have absolutely no knowledge of where other defensive players are on the field. (this does not appear to be true for the offense, as there does appear to be a vision-checked logic for seeking out players to block, using the distance another un-engaged blocker is from a person to decide who should block who)

Originally posted by Stoned Beaver
Yes but knowing 3 players notably release from their coverage at different times eliminates the possibility that it has anything to do with the timing of the handoff (and also see how there is no difference from how players perform on QB runs).

The point I'm continuing to make is that the way "play reading" works is that in a way that can't possibly be quantified a vision check allows for a player to:

Know the play type, know the best possible path to prevent the least amount of yards on the play (and avoid blockers), and in the event of a pass know the route of the receiver and the best possible path to maintain dictated coverage distance from that player.

Until that moment happens the player will do one of the following:

Blindly Blitz - any player with no man coverage assignments will blindly run directly at the QB from the start of the play, making no effort to avoid blockers

Blindly Zone- this is what happens with the CBs who run straight to their zone, zone coverage probably either makes the vision check harder or actually delays the vision check until the player reach's the designed center of their zone as well

Blindly Man Cover- this is something that we in peewee fight with, the player will drift toward the player (NOT THE DIRECTION OF THEIR ROUTE, DIRECTLY TOWARD THEM) at the start of a play until a vision check is passed.

I also am suspicious that the vision checks are tiered as well, the first tier allows the player to know the play type : Run/Pass and is much easier to pass...

The second vision check is a "bonus" vision check that both opens up avoidance-pathing (blockers/defenders) and seemingly offers a bonus to all other attributes. This "bonus" vision check becomes drastically easier to pass via the Repeat Play Penalty, and passing it automatically passes the first tier.

https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=3016481&pbp_id=1213567

on this play here, both outside CB's and both DE's head towards the runner at the same time

I can't imagine the DE's have much more than 60 vision and the cover CB likely has close to 90

this would indicate that they don't leave their zone of coverage until they know the RB has crossed the line of scrimmage, whereas the players in the middle of the field head towards the RB at the moment of handoff (FS and 2 ILB's)

LE is in zone and does the same thing every other zone player weve talked about has, runs right to his zone, RE comes after disengaging from block. The LE does leave his zone very quickly after getting there, but its also because the play is so far along that the vision check is much easier at that point.

Also as per Bort:

Vision operates in a cone, and no amount of vision will help a player in a flat zone see a player on an inside run faster, seems like here we may both be correct. They probably are getting a "oh god the play is way past me" alert that is actually breaking them out of their zones, but I do imagine that does require a passed vision check.

Also, so much for "the more developed the play the easier the vision check" when the reality is that its "the closer the play is to ME the easier the vision check"

And moreover: my analysis of tiers of visions checks is "more or less" true.

Bort basically says that "seeing" a player requires a vision check, thus explaining why I felt like a player needed a second vision check to navigate around players, but its more that he has to pass a vision check for every possible player he would have to avoid.

Also though its not something I have recently read again I do very specifically remember Bort discussing how vision applies to a dot simply knowing whether it is a pass or run... and that HAS to apply to stopping doing what you naturally do off the snap and starting to actually react to the play. Sad that increasing vision doesn't increase the "cone of vision" but basically all it really means to me is that if you plan on having a player predominantly play lot flat zones then vision is a big waste of an attribute.

Originally posted by Stoned Beaver
I again understand that nobody "thinks" agility and vision can make up for this, but my point is challenging that all of that is based purely on assumption and not actual testing. And while my testing is hard to compare because its on the peewee level, the speed/agility/vision equation is still the same equation... and I've PROVEN beyond the shadow of a doubt that this works on the peewee level.

You lost me here. You guys are saints for entertaining this guys arguments lol.

How is 80 seasons of data not testing? Agents have literally spent years tweaking builds to come up with the most optimal builds for on-the-field play. At some point, the ROI on a skill reaches a point where the return is not worth it.

Your testing is beyond hard to compare; it is impossible to compare. I'm sure it's easy to get all excited about vision in peewee when you can see the discrepancy more clearly, but it's not like WL builds neglect vision.

Originally posted by o The Boss x
You lost me here. You guys are saints for entertaining this guys arguments lol.
Yeah you saw I had to check out after one post

I asked very specifically if anyone had ever tried what I'm suggesting, if it hasn't been tried then it hasn't been tested.

That is just fact.

Get off your high horse, nobody cares. Not here to gain "street cred" because I don't care about World League as much as you don't care about Peewee, I'm here because I was curious if anyone had every actually TESTED using agility/vision totals higher than the current "Meta" to make up for less speed...

Then I tried to deflect the sheepish morons spouting off what the "meta" is by suggesting that I don't care about the people blindly following the "meta" I'm curious about the opinion/comments of someone who has ACTIVELY TESTED my suggestion and proven it wrong.

One the one hand, Stoned Beaver is right... 80 seasons of dot-builders gradually reaching a general consensus of what seems to work in World League is not the same thing as rigorously and specifically testing how multiple low-Speed high-Vision defensive dots perform with competent DCs who know how to use them. They are not the same thing.

On the other hand, Stoned Beaver is greatly underestimating and dismissing the value and meaning of 80 seasons of dot-builders gradually reaching a general consensus of what works in World League. Over the years, especially early on, people tried all kinds of crazy things in WL. When something worked, other people copied it. When something didn't work, it got forgotten about and disappeared.

The odds are pretty good that SOMEONE in the past 80 years has tried low-Speed high-Vision defensive dots in World League, because I've seen people propose that idea before. The fact that nobody tries it now is pretty good evidence -- not PROOF, but EVIDENCE -- that when it got tried before, it didn't work. The fact that nobody can recall anyone trying this is also evidence that it didn't work, because ideas that work get remembered and copied, and ideas that don't work get forgotten.

Again, it's not proof -- but it is evidence.

Stoned Beaver, the only way you're going to get a definitive answer on this is to build the dots yourself and try them out. Your answer to that will most likely be "But I don't have the patience to properly build dots for two whole years!" And my counter-response is... then you're not going to get a definitive answer to your question, because there's really no way to avoid the two-year build process. If you want to know the answer THAT BADLY, you're going to have to figure out how to stick with building a dot for two years. It all comes down to that.

Originally posted by Novus


Stoned Beaver, the only way you're going to get a definitive answer on this is to build the dots yourself and try them out. Your answer to that will most likely be "But I don't have the patience to properly build dots for two whole years!" And my counter-response is... then you're not going to get a definitive answer to your question, because there's really no way to avoid the two-year build process. If you want to know the answer THAT BADLY, you're going to have to figure out how to stick with building a dot for two years. It all comes down to that.

He can own a team, and some dudes can sign up for "crazy builds" and hope to get into an easier pro league and make it to WL, then all he had to do is fork up flex for the team....

I'd be willing to "waste" flex on 1 defensive dot CB with 130 speed, 110 vision, 90-100 agility? Might suck at other stuff.......but whatevs LOL

He DC's a new rookie team, he can just ask dancingd to build a CB like this..It's not too late