 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Well, based on week 1 in BPFL
tworoosters
Only seven teams had 300+ yards of offense and only 19 TDs scored. Could be an interesting year.
[Edited on 10-6-2011 by tworoosters]
Well, based on week 1 in BPFL
October 06, 2011 at 06:09AM View BBCode
The offense has certainly been curbed.Only seven teams had 300+ yards of offense and only 19 TDs scored. Could be an interesting year.
[Edited on 10-6-2011 by tworoosters]
RichNYC1
Its a small sample, but it seems that with the lesser QB´s, 3rd down is tougher and when the defense keys in it can actually can stop the offense. I know Chris is busy, but this would be a great time to see the expanded playbooks we´ve discussed. Maybe the talent will take things back to where we are in Gamma, but it looks like you will have to be creative on offense to be successful.
October 06, 2011 at 01:30PM View BBCode
Its harder, right?Its a small sample, but it seems that with the lesser QB´s, 3rd down is tougher and when the defense keys in it can actually can stop the offense. I know Chris is busy, but this would be a great time to see the expanded playbooks we´ve discussed. Maybe the talent will take things back to where we are in Gamma, but it looks like you will have to be creative on offense to be successful.
casperthegm
Is the toned down passing game simply due to our more average rated qb's? That's fine if it is, but this would mean that all existing pay leagues would not see a correction like we're seeing here until their stud qb's start retiring, and are replaced with qb's in the draft that are not so juiced up, yes? Or is there more to this adjustment than just toned down qb's?
October 06, 2011 at 01:51PM View BBCode
It's a bit of a jolt to the system to no longer see the ball flying through the air with ease but based on the small sample size, I think we're headed in the right direction.Is the toned down passing game simply due to our more average rated qb's? That's fine if it is, but this would mean that all existing pay leagues would not see a correction like we're seeing here until their stud qb's start retiring, and are replaced with qb's in the draft that are not so juiced up, yes? Or is there more to this adjustment than just toned down qb's?
Admin
--Chris
October 06, 2011 at 04:31PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
That's the question... is it the changes in code or the initial draft talent pool? That's why I re-started Gamma, so we could have a proper comparison point.
--Chris
tworoosters
Week 3 saw scoring drop down again, only 19 TDs again.
Through thee weeks only three teams have QB ratings over 90, as opposed to 11 in 1966 Gamma.
Here are the per game comparisons through three weeks with 1966 Gamma
Average QB rating
BPFL - 70.5
Gamma - 100.3
Passing yards per game
BPFL - 192.1
Gamma - 233.7
Rushing average
BPFL - 3.8
Gamma - 4.2
Rushing yards per game
BPFL - 98.9
Gamma - 113.8
Offensive TDs per team per game
BPFL - 1.46
Gamma - 2.4
October 06, 2011 at 05:25PM View BBCode
Overall offense was up slightly in week 2, and scoring was up considerably but still well below Gamma levels.Week 3 saw scoring drop down again, only 19 TDs again.
Through thee weeks only three teams have QB ratings over 90, as opposed to 11 in 1966 Gamma.
Here are the per game comparisons through three weeks with 1966 Gamma
Average QB rating
BPFL - 70.5
Gamma - 100.3
Passing yards per game
BPFL - 192.1
Gamma - 233.7
Rushing average
BPFL - 3.8
Gamma - 4.2
Rushing yards per game
BPFL - 98.9
Gamma - 113.8
Offensive TDs per team per game
BPFL - 1.46
Gamma - 2.4
KLKRTR
Average QB rating
BPFL - 70.5
Gamma Total - 100.3
Gamma 1960 - 71.2
Passing yards per game
BPFL - 192.1
Gamma Total - 233.7
Gamma 1960 - 177.0
Rushing average
BPFL - 3.8
Gamma Total - 4.2
Gamma 1960 - 4.3
Rushing yards per game
BPFL - 98.9
Gamma Total - 113.8
Gamma 1960 - 119.9
Offensive TDs per team per game
BPFL - 1.46
Gamma Total - 2.4
Gamma 1960 - 1.90
Something tells me that strategies have been adjusted somewhat to make teams pass more from when we were in Gamma, so I have a feeling that's why you see the rushing totals are different...but who knows? But this shows that while scoring is still well below Gamma levels, it is only about half as low when compared with just the initial year of Gamma.
October 06, 2011 at 05:39PM View BBCode
TR, I'm going to show you something, which will make us have to wait and see...you put the Gamma averages over all of the years. Take a look at the numbers from 1960 Gamma:Average QB rating
BPFL - 70.5
Gamma Total - 100.3
Gamma 1960 - 71.2
Passing yards per game
BPFL - 192.1
Gamma Total - 233.7
Gamma 1960 - 177.0
Rushing average
BPFL - 3.8
Gamma Total - 4.2
Gamma 1960 - 4.3
Rushing yards per game
BPFL - 98.9
Gamma Total - 113.8
Gamma 1960 - 119.9
Offensive TDs per team per game
BPFL - 1.46
Gamma Total - 2.4
Gamma 1960 - 1.90
Something tells me that strategies have been adjusted somewhat to make teams pass more from when we were in Gamma, so I have a feeling that's why you see the rushing totals are different...but who knows? But this shows that while scoring is still well below Gamma levels, it is only about half as low when compared with just the initial year of Gamma.
tworoosters
Much has been said about talent inflation but that evolution of strategies created a great deal of the offensive numbers in Gamma, so while it's not realistic to straight up compare 1966 Gamma to 1960 BPFL neither is a comparison to 1960 Gamma exact either.
October 06, 2011 at 06:11PM View BBCode
I'm not saying the changes are as dramatic as at first glance but it must be considered that I assume most teams are using strategies closer to 1966 Gamma than 1960 Gamma in the BPFL.Much has been said about talent inflation but that evolution of strategies created a great deal of the offensive numbers in Gamma, so while it's not realistic to straight up compare 1966 Gamma to 1960 BPFL neither is a comparison to 1960 Gamma exact either.
lancereisen
I believe the SS influences the run defense and that code was weak, too.
October 06, 2011 at 07:35PM View BBCode
In '60 gamma, the DT code was skewed to the downside, which would affect rushing numbers.I believe the SS influences the run defense and that code was weak, too.
redcped
So there are two QBs in the top 10 of the 1961 draft class, and the next highest one is in the 80s. I think it's safe to say the low-ranked ones will not make it here, so this will add only slightly to the pool of young QBs available.
If we add only 2 a year, that's probably about right to keep pace with declines and retirements down the line.
October 06, 2011 at 08:01PM View BBCode
Originally posted by casperthegm
It's a bit of a jolt to the system to no longer see the ball flying through the air with ease but based on the small sample size, I think we're headed in the right direction.
Is the toned down passing game simply due to our more average rated qb's? That's fine if it is, but this would mean that all existing pay leagues would not see a correction like we're seeing here until their stud qb's start retiring, and are replaced with qb's in the draft that are not so juiced up, yes? Or is there more to this adjustment than just toned down qb's?
So there are two QBs in the top 10 of the 1961 draft class, and the next highest one is in the 80s. I think it's safe to say the low-ranked ones will not make it here, so this will add only slightly to the pool of young QBs available.
If we add only 2 a year, that's probably about right to keep pace with declines and retirements down the line.
Admin
--Chris
October 07, 2011 at 03:03PM View BBCode
Defensive players were also created stronger in the initial draft. And that is another effect existing leagues will not feel. That's why this is only part of the overall solution.--Chris
Pages: 1