 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Football Game & Site Questions » Screen passes!!
dirtdevil
certainly true. the pats don't run 22-30 of them per game though and i have to think that if they did, they'd find substantially less success came from it.
February 22, 2011 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Williams_482
with the right personnel, they are extremely effective (although not quite to the extent that they have been helping me). See the New England Patriots.
certainly true. the pats don't run 22-30 of them per game though and i have to think that if they did, they'd find substantially less success came from it.
rbertoldie
[url=http://football.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=84&thid=16] Today's screen game [/url]
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by rbertoldie]
February 22, 2011 at 10:29PM View BBCode
I set my team to only run screen passes for the first three quarters today and was able to move the ball very easily. My RB ended up with 15 receptions and 230 yards.[url=http://football.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=84&thid=16] Today's screen game [/url]
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by rbertoldie]
Bowerz101
If a team runs 25 screens a game, the defense will pick up on this and adjust. In a screen situation, the line is going to count to two-Mississippi and let the D-Line by them. If this keeps happening, they will realize whats going on and quit rushing while focusing on the RB.
If a team passes 60 times a game, the line is going to pin their ears back and strictly pass rush, resulting in more pressure, sacks, and interceptions.
If a team runs 45 times a game, the defense will still run a 4-3, but will bring the strong safety into the box to stop the run.
If a team blitzes 75% of the time(when blitzing works), then the other team will start to run screens and draws to slow the rush down.
IMO, the best relative results should be a product of a balanced attack that keeps the defense guessing. In the sim world, I would imagine this is hard to code in. I think I remember Chris saying something about building adaptability into the coding of the defense -- I think, IMHO, adaptability should be built in on both sides of the ball.
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by Bowerz101]
February 22, 2011 at 10:33PM View BBCode
I think there should be diminishing returns with any one type of action that gets abused.If a team runs 25 screens a game, the defense will pick up on this and adjust. In a screen situation, the line is going to count to two-Mississippi and let the D-Line by them. If this keeps happening, they will realize whats going on and quit rushing while focusing on the RB.
If a team passes 60 times a game, the line is going to pin their ears back and strictly pass rush, resulting in more pressure, sacks, and interceptions.
If a team runs 45 times a game, the defense will still run a 4-3, but will bring the strong safety into the box to stop the run.
If a team blitzes 75% of the time(when blitzing works), then the other team will start to run screens and draws to slow the rush down.
IMO, the best relative results should be a product of a balanced attack that keeps the defense guessing. In the sim world, I would imagine this is hard to code in. I think I remember Chris saying something about building adaptability into the coding of the defense -- I think, IMHO, adaptability should be built in on both sides of the ball.
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by Bowerz101]
Williams_482
You are right, it usually would not work nearly as well. and there should be something in place to encourage people not to use all screens, or all runs, or all shotgun passes, or all anything.
I wonder if a deep zone would work against screens? It would be useless against a run, but if all they do is screens, it should at least cut down YAC a lot.
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by Williams_482]
February 22, 2011 at 11:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by Williams_482
with the right personnel, they are extremely effective (although not quite to the extent that they have been helping me). See the New England Patriots.
certainly true. the pats don't run 22-30 of them per game though and i have to think that if they did, they'd find substantially less success came from it.
You are right, it usually would not work nearly as well. and there should be something in place to encourage people not to use all screens, or all runs, or all shotgun passes, or all anything.
I wonder if a deep zone would work against screens? It would be useless against a run, but if all they do is screens, it should at least cut down YAC a lot.
[Edited on 2-22-2011 by Williams_482]
CCondardo
But that is all based on the assumption that I really have no idea how anything works, in both the program and in football :)
~Corey
February 23, 2011 at 06:26AM View BBCode
Chris said he planned to make some slight changes. I am guessing that in the program there is some kind of way that the RB gets outside. To defend that the DE need to recognize the play based on a guard/tackle pulling, and get out in front. I bet the program doesn't have the ability to read the pull, thus letting the RB face up against only 1 OLB followed by 1 CB and 1 S. 3 Defenders with blockers on them = YAC.But that is all based on the assumption that I really have no idea how anything works, in both the program and in football :)
~Corey
dirtdevil
February 23, 2011 at 09:13PM View BBCode
of course you can. it happens all the time. in real life, anyway.
Hamilton2
February 23, 2011 at 09:18PM View BBCode
There is already a partial fix for this issue on Beta. I just won the conference championship game against a team that ran a lot of screens. Granted, we got really lucky with an INT late in the 4th quarter and barely won: 31-28, but still, this is being worked on.
Admin
In addition to other fixes, the basic gist of what is going to happen is that the last 5 plays will be tracked, and if 3 of the last 5 plays are the same passing strategy, the defense will get a lot better at defending against that strategy. (I am only doing this on pass plays for now because there isn't enough variety on the running side yet.) Also, interceptions on screens have been increased (still lower than on other pass plays) and since there are fewer offensive players involved, screen interceptions will often go for TD's.
With these changes, throwing a normal amount of screens will get normal results, but trying an all-screen offense will likely be disastrous.
--Chris
February 24, 2011 at 08:01AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bowerz101
I think there should be diminishing returns with any one type of action that gets abused.
[...]
IMO, the best relative results should be a product of a balanced attack that keeps the defense guessing. In the sim world, I would imagine this is hard to code in. I think I remember Chris saying something about building adaptability into the coding of the defense -- I think, IMHO, adaptability should be built in on both sides of the ball.
In addition to other fixes, the basic gist of what is going to happen is that the last 5 plays will be tracked, and if 3 of the last 5 plays are the same passing strategy, the defense will get a lot better at defending against that strategy. (I am only doing this on pass plays for now because there isn't enough variety on the running side yet.) Also, interceptions on screens have been increased (still lower than on other pass plays) and since there are fewer offensive players involved, screen interceptions will often go for TD's.
With these changes, throwing a normal amount of screens will get normal results, but trying an all-screen offense will likely be disastrous.
--Chris
KLKRTR
Because I count 35 screens through the first 3 quarters from a last-place team against a 6-0 team to lead to a 38-7 lead for the all-screen offense.
[url=http://football.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=3129&thid=312]Here[/url]
February 24, 2011 at 07:29PM View BBCode
Was this "all-screen offense will likely be disastrous" supposed to come into effect today?Because I count 35 screens through the first 3 quarters from a last-place team against a 6-0 team to lead to a 38-7 lead for the all-screen offense.
[url=http://football.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=3129&thid=312]Here[/url]
Hamilton2
February 24, 2011 at 07:42PM View BBCode
Chris, IMO, the problem is in the broken tackles. You have dozens of screen plays in a row where the WR or RB breaks a tackle from the first guy there. That just shouldn't be happening as frequently on screen plays.
CCondardo
During a screen the guard/tackle might pull. Typically the QB feels a lot of pressure during the quick pass. Should you increase the %chance of sack? Just a small amount.
The key is we need to make screens less enticing but still effective if they are used 5 times a game.
~Corey
February 24, 2011 at 07:56PM View BBCode
Chris,During a screen the guard/tackle might pull. Typically the QB feels a lot of pressure during the quick pass. Should you increase the %chance of sack? Just a small amount.
The key is we need to make screens less enticing but still effective if they are used 5 times a game.
~Corey
KLKRTR
There aren't usually a lot of sacks on screen passes (in fact, they are usually more effective when the QB is blitzed). That being said, there is usually a decrease in throwing accuracy to the HB...but like Hamilton said, the problem comes with the broken tackles, and I have to wonder if there is enough time in between when a defender would get to the HB (who is catching the ball and turning), and the HB breaking the tackle. Also, is it even possible to force a negative play (other than an INT) on a screen pass? It seems like you'll get one of four options:
? Incomplete Pass
? Interception
? Short Gain
? Huge Gain
I think it would be more realistic if we lowered the number of broken tackles immediately after a catch (reducing huge gains), increased number of short gains, and increased number of tackles for a loss. This would of course need to depend on the defense:
? Blitz: Screen more likely to be effective.
? Shallow Zone: Screen less likely to be effective.
? Others would be pretty much in between.
Thoughts?
February 24, 2011 at 08:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by CCondardo
Chris,
During a screen the guard/tackle might pull. Typically the QB feels a lot of pressure during the quick pass. Should you increase the %chance of sack? Just a small amount.
The key is we need to make screens less enticing but still effective if they are used 5 times a game.
~Corey
There aren't usually a lot of sacks on screen passes (in fact, they are usually more effective when the QB is blitzed). That being said, there is usually a decrease in throwing accuracy to the HB...but like Hamilton said, the problem comes with the broken tackles, and I have to wonder if there is enough time in between when a defender would get to the HB (who is catching the ball and turning), and the HB breaking the tackle. Also, is it even possible to force a negative play (other than an INT) on a screen pass? It seems like you'll get one of four options:
? Incomplete Pass
? Interception
? Short Gain
? Huge Gain
I think it would be more realistic if we lowered the number of broken tackles immediately after a catch (reducing huge gains), increased number of short gains, and increased number of tackles for a loss. This would of course need to depend on the defense:
? Blitz: Screen more likely to be effective.
? Shallow Zone: Screen less likely to be effective.
? Others would be pretty much in between.
Thoughts?
spyboy1306
True, but blitzers tip a lot of screen passes and maybe that's something that can be added to the mix as well - the batted ball by the DL.
February 24, 2011 at 11:00PM View BBCode
Originally posted by KLKRTR
There aren't usually a lot of sacks on screen passes (in fact, they are usually more effective when the QB is blitzed).
Thoughts?
True, but blitzers tip a lot of screen passes and maybe that's something that can be added to the mix as well - the batted ball by the DL.
Williams_482
February 25, 2011 at 12:50AM View BBCode
by "normal results," do you mean broken tackle and 15+ yard gain, or 5-10 yards?
redcped
February 25, 2011 at 01:02AM View BBCode
Something else to consider: Sometimes a screen is actually thrown backward, and if it's not caught, that's a fumble.
KLKRTR
I haven't even seen a screen caught for a loss...much less a fumble on a failed lateral.
February 25, 2011 at 01:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by redcped
Something else to consider: Sometimes a screen is actually thrown backward, and if it's not caught, that's a fumble.
I haven't even seen a screen caught for a loss...much less a fumble on a failed lateral.
Williams_482
I have had a couple of 1 yard losses when I was running all screens preseason and week one. so they are uncommon, but they do happen. (no fumbles, though).
February 25, 2011 at 02:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by KLKRTR
I haven't even seen a screen caught for a loss...much less a fumble on a failed lateral.
I have had a couple of 1 yard losses when I was running all screens preseason and week one. so they are uncommon, but they do happen. (no fumbles, though).
KLKRTR
I thought tackles for loss were pretty common with screens though...(and fumbles aren't unheard of either).
Maybe tie a HB's catching ability into how well they can get out of the backfield? (bobbling, etc.)
February 25, 2011 at 05:20AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Williams_482
Originally posted by KLKRTR
I haven't even seen a screen caught for a loss...much less a fumble on a failed lateral.
I have had a couple of 1 yard losses when I was running all screens preseason and week one. so they are uncommon, but they do happen. (no fumbles, though).
I thought tackles for loss were pretty common with screens though...(and fumbles aren't unheard of either).
Maybe tie a HB's catching ability into how well they can get out of the backfield? (bobbling, etc.)
dsaved
[edited after the second quarter]
I do notice one thing though: a few more screen passes are dropped by the receiver. That said, if the ball is caught, it's 20 Yds minimum. The guy seemingly has set the screen as a primary red zone weapon and already has 2 TDs on screens of 20 or more yds.
[Edited on 2-25-2011 by dsaved]
February 25, 2011 at 12:14PM View BBCode
sorry to keep ranting on this, but screens continue to be not defendable, and always with the "break tackle" issue...[edited after the second quarter]
I do notice one thing though: a few more screen passes are dropped by the receiver. That said, if the ball is caught, it's 20 Yds minimum. The guy seemingly has set the screen as a primary red zone weapon and already has 2 TDs on screens of 20 or more yds.
[Edited on 2-25-2011 by dsaved]
Admin
--Chris
February 27, 2011 at 10:42PM View BBCode
The changes to stop screen abuse are in place now.--Chris
Slimlizard
Perhaps, there should be a line of code that determines whether the D-line picks up the screen. It's determined by the O-lines ability to sell it (covers for a bad o-line being AWESOME for screen plays), the RB/QB ability to connect, and other factors, like execution, conditioning, etc, and of course whether its happening 80% of the time.) If the d-line DOES pick up the screen, then the chance of breaking tackles, and getting more than a yard drops to 5% or something. That way the effectiveness of COMPLETING the Screen is maintained, but the Interceptions/Fumbles/drops, etc are minimalized.
I say all of this because I've got a Screen happy team, (Its my version of a west coast offense), I put it in, because my OLine has been leaking like a sieve, and all the blitz happy teams in the league are coming after me. Particularly, one team, my division rival has a particularly aggressive D, so I was looking forward to exacting some revenge today.
Needless to say, because of the new rules, I'm getting slaughtered by a Blitz happy team. My QB is 10-24 on Screens, two INT's one returned for a TD, even though he's got A+ Power and Accuracy (RB/WR's all have A hands). I mean, if a screen pass can't beat the blitz, I don't know what else to do.
I don't want to sound like I'm on a rant, I just think there might not be a quick and easy adjustment to this one.
February 28, 2011 at 04:23PM View BBCode
This is just a Devil's advocate thought.... Shouldn't it be the coach's responsibility to make the adjustment to the offensive scheme? I mean, if a team bitzes frequently in their package, I don't think they should get a boost simply because the other player has a solution to it. I mean, what I've had to do is look at a teams previous offensive and defensive schemes to see what things I need to emphasize more.Perhaps, there should be a line of code that determines whether the D-line picks up the screen. It's determined by the O-lines ability to sell it (covers for a bad o-line being AWESOME for screen plays), the RB/QB ability to connect, and other factors, like execution, conditioning, etc, and of course whether its happening 80% of the time.) If the d-line DOES pick up the screen, then the chance of breaking tackles, and getting more than a yard drops to 5% or something. That way the effectiveness of COMPLETING the Screen is maintained, but the Interceptions/Fumbles/drops, etc are minimalized.
I say all of this because I've got a Screen happy team, (Its my version of a west coast offense), I put it in, because my OLine has been leaking like a sieve, and all the blitz happy teams in the league are coming after me. Particularly, one team, my division rival has a particularly aggressive D, so I was looking forward to exacting some revenge today.
Needless to say, because of the new rules, I'm getting slaughtered by a Blitz happy team. My QB is 10-24 on Screens, two INT's one returned for a TD, even though he's got A+ Power and Accuracy (RB/WR's all have A hands). I mean, if a screen pass can't beat the blitz, I don't know what else to do.
I don't want to sound like I'm on a rant, I just think there might not be a quick and easy adjustment to this one.
Admin
Now the screen should be able to beat the blitz on occasion, so I will look at that section of code again. Interceptions possibly being returned for a TD is definately an occupational hazard for the screen,and I did actually reduce HB drops on the screen.
--Chris
February 28, 2011 at 04:53PM View BBCode
The game is going to go through many tweaks and adjustments and expansions. If the game comes down to "throw the same play over and over again", people start to lose interest in it. And a defense should see that you are throwing the screen over and over again and counter for it.Now the screen should be able to beat the blitz on occasion, so I will look at that section of code again. Interceptions possibly being returned for a TD is definately an occupational hazard for the screen,and I did actually reduce HB drops on the screen.
--Chris
Hamilton2
February 28, 2011 at 05:11PM View BBCode
Throw short shotgun passes. They destroy the blitz.
Slimlizard
1. Even though people will lose interest with the "Run the same play" mentality (A la Bo Jackson in Tecmo Bowl), there should still be an effective adjustment the coach can make when a particular team throws a particular package at you.
2. I tried Short Shotgun. Worse results. Now I'm down 26-0. Initially I thought it was somehow just a talent issue, but my team is 8-3 outside of games with him. His is 5-6.
I agree with the penalty for running the same play over and over. I just think it should be assessed on the part of the code where the D gets caught on trickery... i.e. the same place where Play action fools the linebackers, etc... rather than on the ability of the team to actually perform. (I'm just thinking... If a team ran the same base package over and over... they'd get better at it, not worse. Perhaps the penalty should be on YAC, or yardage period rather than the INTs, and the Dropped passes).
February 28, 2011 at 06:39PM View BBCode
Agreed with everything gentlemen. Believe me, I'm loving the game, just trying to figure it out.1. Even though people will lose interest with the "Run the same play" mentality (A la Bo Jackson in Tecmo Bowl), there should still be an effective adjustment the coach can make when a particular team throws a particular package at you.
2. I tried Short Shotgun. Worse results. Now I'm down 26-0. Initially I thought it was somehow just a talent issue, but my team is 8-3 outside of games with him. His is 5-6.
I agree with the penalty for running the same play over and over. I just think it should be assessed on the part of the code where the D gets caught on trickery... i.e. the same place where Play action fools the linebackers, etc... rather than on the ability of the team to actually perform. (I'm just thinking... If a team ran the same base package over and over... they'd get better at it, not worse. Perhaps the penalty should be on YAC, or yardage period rather than the INTs, and the Dropped passes).