"This is a reprint of the much acclaimed tutorial by Cory Ridgeway
"Cory has won 2 of 4 WAFL championships, his team has participated in all 4 WAFL championship games, and has the top wining % all time in the 4 year WAFL %.
"I think his worst record was a 11-3 season, that also included a WAFL championship. I think that in 4 seasons (14 games per season) cory has lost only 7 or 8 regular season games."
--Bryan Bills
This is the 2nd edition of a post I made quite some time back. I had a good deal of positive feedback from it. And the reasons I made the post in the first place have now recurred. We've had some truly ugly losses in the first two weeks of this season. So once again, at the risk of offending, I'm going to spout off with unsolicited advice (my specialty... well after growing mold in my refrigerator).
First, two basic ideas about how to improve your game on the plan and profile level.
1. Addition by Subtraction: As you know, in math subtracting a negative is the same as addition. On offense in FBPro terms it's even better. Removing a bad play has more of an effect than adding an equally good play. In the same way that a 6 yard sack is more costly than a 10 yard run is valuable. This asymmetry is because you have a limited number of downs.
This is one reason that conservative offenses are better in general than high-risk offenses. But you can take it too far; as Buddy Ryan does. The idea is to avoid bad plays, not to limit your big play potential. Which sometimes seems to be Buddy's desire. At least his QBs often see it that way.
So, if you have a play that frequently costs you 3 or more yards, then run it only when such a loss is not important (i.e. on 3rd and long, not on 1st and 10) or remove it entirely.
On defense, the balance point is a little harder to see. But plays such as 46RUNMD1 can illustrate what not to do. You can afford to give up 2 or 3 big plays per game. But not 5 or 6. No matter how well the play works the rest of the time, 6 big plays will cost you at least 13 points, probably 20+. Add one TO or big special teams play and you're in trouble.
2. Diversity: A diverse game plan (and profile) will make for a more robust team. A team that relies too heavily on one type of play will find opponents that realize this and beat them as a result. And will also on occasion run across a team that just coincidentally does so.
Don't rely too heavily on a single play or player. This is one of the reasons I don't like pass-only teams in the NFL. If your starting QB goes down (and QBs take beating in the Run-and-Shoot) it takes a while for the back-up to get enough snaps to run the offense smoothly.
Of course in FBPro practice snaps are not an issue. But similar problems can arise. Note what happened to Biisk in 1995 when Harmon and Bennett went down. In the first 8 weeks their running game was 4 yards, and offense 10.2 points, better than par. In the last 6 weeks their running game was 66 yards worse than par. The Beast offense fell to 3.8 points better than par. Deprived of diversity, they struggled (relatively speaking).
A lack of defensive diversity can lead to the same problems that a bad defensive play can. Since your opponent might have one or two offensive plays that can burn your otherwise excellent defense. Boulder's 55-10 win over LA in week one is a perfect example.
Be careful not to let your desire for diversity lead you to include dog plays. Or to run your best plays too infrequently. The idea is to keep from putting all your eggs in one basket. A lot of the blow-outs we see in the WAFL are do to just that.
I'm not going to give specific play design advice. As I think that is against the spirit of competition we're striving for. But I'd like to make a note of some of the ways FBPro differs from real football. So here goes...
1. FBPro offensive linemen are dumb as posts. They will move to the outside of the pocket unless you specifically tell them not to. And if they move outside against even a modest two man rush to the inside you'd better have a RB on the spot (and he'll move to the outside too if you're not careful) or your QB is toast. Use 'Stop and Wait' or 'Move To' logic to keep your Gs where they can handle an inside rush.
Because of the lousy inside blocking, pump and play-action fakes are dangerous. Leading to frequent sacks.
2. The 'Block-Lead To' logic causes blockers to run straight at the nearest defender in their engagement zone. Since the defenders typically parallel the ball-carrier across the LOS the blocker will often end up inside the defender and misses him. Allowing the defender to pursue to the runner to the outside unhindered.
On an inside run the lead blocker will turn aside at the LOS and leave an inside LB or S that you may have wanted him to block a clean shot at the ball carrier.
3. 'Move To' logic in the original FBPro had a problem. When a player was bump off his path he would attempt to move to his next target point in the logic path anyway. Often causing runners with open field ahead of them to turn around and run right back into the arms of waiting defenders.
This has been fixed in FB95. From all appearances by having the player in 'Move To' logic run in a given direction for a certain time, rather than to a point.
Why do I mention this? Because of this players may run jiggly routes when you put more than one segment in a 'Move To' logic path. You may note that your players don't run smoothly; they stop, change directions, run in a circle, and do other weird things that are typically reserved for end-zone celebrations in the NFL.
This has nothing to do with their IN or DI. It's simply a failure of the game's sprite vectoring routine. It *does* appear to vary with SP and AG (and perhaps AC). So, where one player runs a nice route another may have a seizure.
Sometimes these little jigs they dance are beneficial in pass patterns. But most cuts are there to allow the receiver to separate from the defender. And the hiccups defeat that purpose much more often than they abet it.
I don't believe I need to tell you what it does to running backs (whose paths it rarely seems to effect) or QBs (who are especially prone to this problem).
Using multiple 'Move To' logics instead of one multi-segment 'Move To' can sometimes fix this. But it often isn't necessary.
4. Defensive players over-pursue to the inside and under-pursue to the outside (this is why we instituted the wide pitch rules). This allows plays designed to suck the defenders in and then pitch the ball outside to work too well (tricking the defense into over-pursuing is a valid football strategy - but its success in FBPro is outlandish).
There are ways to overcome this. But nothing works all the time. Just keep the notion in mind when you design your plays.
5. Zone coverage doesn't work in the same manner as in real life. The defenders do not keep the play in front of them as they should. But effectively switch to MTM coverage of the deepest receiver in their zone. Because of this they are often caught with their backs to the play. And so do not react to plays in front of them well.
A partial fix can be made by drawing your zones closer to the LOS than you normally would. This causes defenders in the underneath zones to release their men to deeper defenders at a reasonable depth. And so be able to react to short passes and runs better.
Also wide zone defenders do not shade to the outside as they should. Making your outside zones smaller and closer to the sidelines can help alleviate this failing.
Other partial fixes for these problems are one-dimensional "spot zones", and two-dimensional "line zones". The former is just 'Zone' logic with a double-click used to make the zone tiny. This makes the defender stay where you want him unless a receiver runs right over his "spot". "Line zones" are just that - zones drawn with no vertical or horizontal depth. Usually the latter, and well to the outside. The idea here is to keep a defender in position to handle outs and wide runs.
And defenders further from the QB don't play any softer than those close to him. Using 'Conservative' coverage can help a little - but only a little.
Lastly, 'Zone' logic defenders who have set-up at less than 10 yards deep will often abandon their zones to blitz if there is no receiver nearby. Which leaves no protection against a late comeback route.
6. Bump-and-run coverage has some major flaws. The defenders gain no downfield momentum from the collision. They let receivers get behind them far too often. And even end up engaging offensive lineman when they try to bump TEs or RBs. Furthermore, it the logic leads to a lot of free first downs on penalties (FB95 will call defensive holding even on running plays).
There are some advantages to bump-and-run against short passes, and because of that it is in vogue in the WAFL right now. But I think the drawbacks outweigh the advantages.
7. 'Shade Under' logic doesn't. Sometimes the defenders do shade underneath their men - but usually they don't. There is no cure. Just don't count on a player using this logic to stop a short pass by staying underneath his man.
8. 'Read' logic for LBs and DBs switches the defender between 'Run Defense' and a 'Pass Defense-Zone' area. The size and position of the zone are determined by where ALL of the secondary defenders using 'Read' logic are when they switch to it.
The depth of the zones is determined by the depth of the player at the time he uses the 'Read' logic. If he's within 5 yards of the LOS he'll drop to about 8 or 9 yards deep and defend a zone extending from about 2 to 14 yards from the LOS. If he's between 6 and 15 yards downfield when he "reads" then the set-up point and zone will be about 10 yards deeper. And so on it goes down the field in 10-yard increments.
The width of the zone will be determined by how many defenders use 'Read' logic at each depth. As the field is simply parceled out between them. For example, if you use four 'Read' calls near the LOS you will get four zones from 2-14 yards deep evenly distributed across the field.
In the first edition of this post I said that 'Read' zones do not pass off to other 'Read' or pure zones. This is not true. They do, but the zones are so deep that the players do this very late. Lateral hand-offs become a major problem because underneath receivers are often unaccounted for do the depth of the zones.
'Read' logic defenders in the shortest area set-up at less than 10 yards deep and so will abandon their zones to blitz just as 'Zone' logic defenders will.
--
Cory S. Ridgway (csr@cts.com)
"Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself."
- John Dewey
"A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their
own, have rendered the great Government of the United States
helpless and contemptible."
- Woodrow Wilson on the US Congress
--Bryan Bills
First, although I consider myself a good play designer, I've kept a copy of both editions of Cory's advice. No matter how much or how little you know, there's always someone who has seen a problem from a slightly different angle.
I wanted to add a couple thoughts about pass coverage.
>Subject: The Touble with Johnny, or Why's My Team in the Toilet (2nd ed.) > 5. Zone coverage doesn't work in the same manner as in real life. > Other partial fixes for these problems are one-dimensional > "spot zones", and two-dimensional "line zones". The former is > just 'Zone' logic with a double-click used to make the zone tiny. > This makes the defender stay where you want him unless a receiver > runs right over his "spot". "Line zones" are just that - zones > drawn with no vertical or horizontal depth. Usually the latter, > and well to the outside. The idea here is to keep a defender in > position to handle outs and wide runs.
I don't use "line zones" per se. I use "skinny zones". I've found that defenders can miss players passing through a line zone. I've also found that skinny zones -- vertical or horizontal -- are a good way to force interceptions.
I've been using a lot of vertical skinny zones lately (that's a zone from ten yards downfield to twenty yards downfield, about a yard wide) in conjunction with man coverage, read coverage and standard zone. It helps with crossing routes and often leaves a defender in a passing lane.
> > 6. Bump-and-run coverage has some major flaws. The defenders gain > no downfield momentum from the collision. They let receivers get > behind them far too often. And even end up engaging offensive > lineman when they try to bump TEs or RBs. Furthermore, it the > logic leads to a lot of free first downs on penalties (FB95 will > call defensive holding even on running plays). > There are some advantages to bump-and-run against short passes, > and because of that it is in vogue in the WAFL right now. But I > think the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. >
There are several options with bump-and-run that I wanted to mention.
1. Bumping in double coverage. Stock plays use LBs a lot to bump WRs. I use this on pure passing downs for two reasons. First, my LBs have much better DI than my DBs, so fewer penalties. Second, by being slower than WRs, they trail the play enough to stop deep come back routes (sometimes).
2. Bumping from 10 yards deep. You don't have to line up right on the line of scrimmage to bump. You're somewhat less likely to get a penalty if you start a DB 8-12 yards deep. Rather than trying to tackle the WR, the DB slows him for a moment, then tries to run with him. You get outstanding coverage at the bump, then normal coverage and higher penalties.
3. Poor man's bump. This is usually read logic, combined with a stop and wait and line up on man. It slows a receiver enough to disrupt quick timing patterns by forcing him to run through a defender. Also, a defender will follow a WR in motion with read and LOM logic. Again, if you use a slower defender, this can provide protection against come back routes.
4. Bumping the backfield. Assigning a man to bump and run coverage of a player coming out of the backfield is usually bad news, but it's not bad run defense. It turns into something like run rush aggressive, which is always dangerous because the defender must be as fast as the ball carrier to have a shot at the tackle.
5. Shading. Shading does seem to have an effect on slants. If you shade underneath, the defender seeks position to the center of the field, usually, while shade deep moves the defender to the outside of the field. This is not always true.
Jim Scott
"I have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are *kinds* of evidence."
-- Lionel Hutz.
This is a reprint of a response by Jon Famous to Cory and Jim's emails. Jon is the owner of the WAFL Valley Forge franchise, and the Commish of the IPL league.
The IPL is unique (as far as I know) in that the Commish (Jon) runs the league but does NOT have his own team in the league.
Jon also won the championship of another league (I forgot the name of the league) within the past several weeks.
Jon and I have had many discussions re: play design, and I respect him alot.
--Bryan Bills
* I don't use "line zones" per se. I use "skinny zones". I've found that * defenders can miss players passing through a line zone. I've also found * that skinny zones -- vertical or horizontal -- are a good way to force * interceptions. *
Apparently the game decides that a WR/RB must enter the "box" of the zone for the zone defender to pick him up. So a "line" zone, with no width, almost never (unless the WR steps on the line) has the WR "in" the zone to be picked up. But a very skinny line zone does.
* I've been using a lot of vertical skinny zones lately (that's a zone from * ten yards downfield to twenty yards downfield, about a yard wide) in *
Or, from 5 yards deep to 5 yards behind the LOS will provide good coverage against sweeps and outside runs, but also picks up on RB flat patterns, and shallow TE or WR out patterns.
Just my comments on that, as I've used these somewhat as well with a good degree of success.
Also, to "attack" line zones from an offensive point of view, instead of having the "clear-out" receiver run a straight up the field, have them do a slight "wiggle", running at angles slightly back and forth. This will tend to pick up and draw away line zone defenders without really changing or sacrificing the route.
Just my added thoughts...
- jfamous
090296