New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

NOTE: As of the last sim, this league was under the minimum 20% capacity. Invite your friends to join MyFootballNow to keep this league alive! Then send them to this league to become the owner of a team! The league will expire at 1/09/2025 8:00 pm.

League Forums

Main - Community Help Forum

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By setherick
10/27/2016 12:41 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
setherick wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:
First the best location for the ball to arrive (in 3D space) is chosen. Based on the location of the players nearby as well as the defenders in the path of the ball (which, depending on the QB's FOV attribute, he may or may not see),


That 'he may or may not see' was referring to the defenders in the path of the ball, not the best location for the ball to arrive. Sorry for the confusion with the way I wrote it.

Arm strength is important for long passes and fitting a ball into a receiver in coverage. Lower arm strength will mean the ball takes longer to get there which means the DB has more time to close on the WR, especially if he's in front of him. It most of the time will make the window that a receiver is considered 'open' by the WR smaller than one with higher arm strength, but will also result in more pass breakups/interceptions for WR's in traffic.


No worries about the confusion on FOV. I should have reread that a few more times. I should have understood what you meant.

The bolded line about arm is why I see it as more important right now (in terms of weights) than I do Accuracy. A QB with a big Arm that knows the plays should be more functionally accurate than a QB with high accuracy, but a weaker Arm. The big Arm QB can also "make more throws" so to speak.

I can see how a weak armed QB with high Accuracy and high FOV could be fine in a short passing system. I unfortunately cut my QB in 75 (cut the wrong QB and Blackflys nabbed him from FA before I could resign him) that had this set up or I'd be experimenting with him.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/27/2016 12:42 pm
I've started a masters degree this month....
At the moment this thread is not too dissimilar in testing my brain!

Can I just say at this point how wonderful it is that the owner (?) of an online game gets involved with the community like jdb does. Very few games you rarely ever hear from them!

But just getting back to original point:

Is there an order of receivers for each play as ray alluded to for my example one earlier?

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
10/27/2016 12:49 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
Is there an order of receivers for each play as ray alluded to for my example one earlier?


Each time it's run it could be different - no receiver has a 0 weight - but short routes are routes up to 9 yards, medium 9 - 15 yards, and long routes > 15 yards. So a 5-yard out is a short route, a 10-yard in is a medium route. Heavy consideration is given in the weights to the route distance, and a small consideration is given to the lineup position. A WR running a 10-yard out on a short passing play will have significantly lower weight than a TE running a drag route.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/27/2016 1:27 pm
Ah great that's the sort of answer is been after.
And am I right in thinking these distances are from LOS not where the qb is. A Lot seem to be short then cos they're either running behind the O line or slightly in front.
Thanks!

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
10/27/2016 1:28 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
Ah great that's the sort of answer is been after.
And am I right in thinking these distances are from LOS not where the qb is. A Lot seem to be short then cos they're either running behind the O line or slightly in front.
Thanks!


Yes, the depth of the route from the LOS.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/27/2016 1:29 pm
For me that concludes this thread - it's been fun!

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By Infinity on Trial
10/27/2016 9:53 pm
JDB, so much of the discussion lately has focused on users trying to better understand the code so we can figure how why the passing game is so infuriating. I'm more interested in your assessment: When you look at the film and overall results, what do you identify as the chief causes of poor passing results?

I have no idea what's wrong. I just know the low and inconsistent completion percentages severely undermine an otherwise fantastic game. And we don't seem to be getting anywhere by trying to drill down into QB decisions, accuracy mechanics or pass rush. Clearly, we're not going to fix this by realizing we undervalued arm strength or scrambling or FOV or any combination of individual ratings.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 2:23 am
I'll leave this kinda thing for you guys. For me I just wanted some simple indication of linking play types to likely receivers: something u guys probably knew when you were 6yo!

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By WarEagle
10/28/2016 5:48 am
jhartshorn wrote:
I'll leave this kinda thing for you guys. For me I just wanted some simple indication of linking play types to likely receivers: something u guys probably knew when you were 6yo!


Yes. Anyone who has grown up watching football knows who the intended #1 target should be on any given passing play, but that knowledge doesn't translate to MFN.

Here, I have no idea who is going to get the ball. Most likely the ref after a sack.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 6:42 am
WarEagle wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
I'll leave this kinda thing for you guys. For me I just wanted some simple indication of linking play types to likely receivers: something u guys probably knew when you were 6yo!


Yes. Anyone who has grown up watching football knows who the intended #1 target should be on any given passing play, but that knowledge doesn't translate to MFN.

Here, I have no idea who is going to get the ball. Most likely the ref after a sack.


I traded a QB in MFN1 that was a 95+ by the default ratings, the guy I replaced him with is maybe a 65 by the default ratings. I have ran the exact same system with both guys. Let's see if we can guess which one has which stats...

QB1: 103/218, 47.2% complete, 1,777 yards, 8.15 YPA, 14 sacks/87 yards, 12 TDs/9ints
4 runs, 26 yards, 1 TD
Opponent Record 21-29

QB2: 85/145, 58.6% complete, 1,238 yards, 8.54 YPA, 4 sacks/23 yards, 8TDs/4ints
6 runs, 74 yards
Opponent record 32-18
QB2 has played the tougher schedule FYI.
Last edited at 10/28/2016 6:45 am