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)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By Mcbolt55
1/01/2024 5:24 pm
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.


Tell that to every 3-4 defense I have, averaging 4.9 yards allowed…FZ was a solid 2 yard against almost every offensive formation and play type. I don’t think they are in the same league at all.
Last edited at 1/01/2024 5:26 pm

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By Legendruthless
1/01/2024 5:55 pm
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.


It’s not as dominant and can be beaten. It’s only truly strong against the 113 formation, even then there’s a couple of passes and a few runs that work against it.

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By setherick
1/01/2024 6:38 pm
Legendruthless wrote:
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.


It’s not as dominant and can be beaten. It’s only truly strong against the 113 formation, even then there’s a couple of passes and a few runs that work against it.


I ran a basic probability model against it since I've been using ChatGPT to help me write better python code, and it's as dominant.

Basically, I set a success metric of 5 yards for a short pass and 4 yards for a inside or outside run and then set an alpha and beta prior of .5. Against the 113, 203, 122, 212, and 311 there were 15 plays that had a probability of > .5 against the 113. And most of those had a low distribution, so they can't be trusted.

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By Mcbolt55
1/01/2024 6:41 pm
So as long as it’s only situationally dominant, it’s hardly the same as flat zone…never a fan of eliminating the handful of useful plays we have to begin with. Maybe it’s not feasible to have a “rock, paper, scissors” system for play calls, but there should be more than one strategy that works.

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By Legendruthless
1/01/2024 6:44 pm
setherick wrote:
Legendruthless wrote:
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.


It’s not as dominant and can be beaten. It’s only truly strong against the 113 formation, even then there’s a couple of passes and a few runs that work against it.


I ran a basic probability model against it since I've been using ChatGPT to help me write better python code, and it's as dominant.

Basically, I set a success metric of 5 yards for a short pass and 4 yards for an inside or outside run and then set an alpha and beta prior of .5. Against the 113, 203, 122, 212, and 311 there were 15 plays that had a probability of > .5 against the 113. And most of those had a low distribution, so they can't be trusted.


How much data do you have? I have about 30-35 seasons worth of data and defensively I rarely use it outside of 113. It just depends on what plays people are calling.

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By setherick
1/03/2024 6:25 pm
Legendruthless wrote:
setherick wrote:
Legendruthless wrote:
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.


It’s not as dominant and can be beaten. It’s only truly strong against the 113 formation, even then there’s a couple of passes and a few runs that work against it.


I ran a basic probability model against it since I've been using ChatGPT to help me write better python code, and it's as dominant.

Basically, I set a success metric of 5 yards for a short pass and 4 yards for an inside or outside run and then set an alpha and beta prior of .5. Against the 113, 203, 122, 212, and 311 there were 15 plays that had a probability of > .5 against the 113. And most of those had a low distribution, so they can't be trusted.


How much data do you have? I have about 30-35 seasons worth of data and defensively I rarely use it outside of 113. It just depends on what plays people are calling.


That's probably what I have in the multiple leagues I was collecting it for and that I ran the model against. Agreed that it does the best at the 113.
Last edited at 1/03/2024 6:26 pm

Re: IMPORTANT: Play Removal Notice

By Action-Jackson
2/11/2024 5:15 pm
setherick wrote:
When this move was made, JDB should have also removed the 3-4 Cover 1. It's as effective and less vulnerable than the FZ was.

Play: Man Cover 1
Formation: 3-4 Normal
LB: Zone In
Sec: 1-Deep Man
In Playbook: No
Off Familiarity: -92%
Def Familiarity: 14%
Times Used/Avg: 0/0

I know this has been talked about before (Off Familiarity: -92%) but this bugs me to no end.
Last edited at 2/11/2024 5:18 pm