Defensive game plan for stopping third down running silliness.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It's a fair question, and one that I landed on the exact opposite side of for some time. However, having seen the divide that can develop when things aren't documented and doing the unexpected yields greater rewards than it should, I'm now perfectly fine with some in-game limits. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but it's silly that someone can go 1-1-98 on 2nd and short all season long (I've done that before) and just TORCH defenses nearly every time that situation comes up.

Well, limiting control is where fof2004 went wrong. Instead of backtracking, perhaps Jim can add more scouting features that tell you more than what a teams starting roster is. I remember back in the EA FOF days there was a scouting report email that was sent to you listing team tendencies on each down and situation. It was removed for the 2004 era of the game. Now, this report wasn't as detailed as the stelmack suite's gameplan analyzer, but why couldn't be reimplimented and improved?

I guess numbing it down is better than dumbing it down?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Why it's an issue plays into my response to Chubby's last post. It's an issue because a significant number of people don't have the time/interest to pay attention at the level that Kozure is mentioning. Sure, if everyone ran Gameplan Analyzer before every game and acted on what they saw, it's a non-issue. In a perfect MP environment, no one gets away with anything "sneaky" week in and week out. But this is just the latest in a long line of stuff that people--myself included--have gotten away with primarily because lots of people aren't going to "scout" the opposition at that level, if at all. Ramping up passing in the red zone worked wonderfully prior to 6.3, when it was patched away, and you could see that people were doing that from within the game! There was no need to use a third-party utility to see that some teams were doing this big-time. If you just ramped up the pass defense in the red zone, you could shut it down easily, but that took looking in the game to see that people were doing it. As one who used to pass in the red zone a fair bit more than normal, I can assure you that the vast majority of my opponents in every league simply never noticed it.


...and that gets to Chubby's comment..Here's the problem with not having limits: it adds yet another advantage to people like you and me, simply because a significant portion of the rest of the community (and pretty much 100% of the people who just want to sim football and not test the engine) assume that something like that wouldn't work because it doesn't work in real football. So the advantages of playing out on the margins end up only being available to those who enjoy testing the margins out. Most people never think to try the unintuitive nothing-to-do-with-football stuff that works (or has worked in the past) in this game such as using only 1 minute for special teams and formations in TC, or running 85-90% of the time on 3rd and 8, or ramping up passing in the red zone, or throwing the bomb on 2nd and 1 nearly every time, or overlaying pictures of bars before and after interviews, or using adjustments on every play, etc. etc. etc.

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!")

I get that argument< i just thinks it comes down to a screwed either way for Jim. In a true "GM sim" (where I hire the coaches/coordinators who put their system in place) the "shenanigans" are removed and it levels the playing field while reducing headaches for Jim.

Yes, I'm sure somebody will go "I NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE THAT!!!!!" but if the system were fully fleshed out with lots of options, system experience, the ability to influence what system your team practices (but not to the micro level of camp and gameplanning) then I think it's at least something to look at.

and a fog of war option

[Warhammer]

What if we went to a hybrid system approach?

At the start of training camp, you had a checkbox that would indicate the type of offense you run: Balanced/Spread/Singe Wing/Pro Set/etc. This would dictate the %s in which you could game plan.

So you choose a run-first game plan, you are limited to at most 25% pass plays in a 1st and 10 situation. You could have an override, but if you do, you suffer consequences for doing so.

You could also link this to the O-Coordinators, they would have adaptability ratings (would mean a lesser penalty when they override a system for a game)and preferred systems. Suddenly, different systems have different WR requirements, and different RB requirements, etc. I would imagine this would enhance the game as "system" guys would become very valuable to some guys running systems. These guys go to a different team and they are not the same, etc.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Kozure

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

I guess I should clarify. My problem with it is that, perversely, running on 3rd and long seems, in my experience, to work better than running on any other down! If I could be sure of picking up 6-10 yard gains on other downs as regularly as it's possible to do on third down, I'd run all the time!

So my complaint is more about that it ruins the immersion factor for me, and seems an imperfection of the engine, not that it's some gameplanning loophole, if that makes sense. I just find it offputting that I can see the gears of the engine so clearly, that the 'make 1st down' logic so clearly outshines the 'realistic rushing gain' logic in this instance.

[Pyser]

seems like theres a split camp here, and maybe that should be reflected in leagues. when a league starts, choose either Coach Chooses Game Plans (not rexed, but the proper West Coast o-coords, Cover 2 defenses, etc), or GM Chooses Game Plans, and then its business as normal.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Pyser

seems like theres a split camp here, and maybe that should be reflected in leagues. when a league starts, choose either Coach Chooses Game Plans (not rexed, but the proper West Coast o-coords, Cover 2 defenses, etc), or GM Chooses Game Plans, and then its business as normal.

...but here's the thing: there are 15-20 established leagues that aren't going anywhere. People in both camps (and those in between) have some extensive histories that they're not willing to give up. I agree that in a perfect world, people bent toward playing a certain way would join together and form leagues. But some leagues have 8+ years of real-time history, so we're stuck with each other.

[sidthelid]

I think Ben brings up an interesting point when he mentions people don't have time to scout there teams. Some people don't have time as life stuff comes up which is obviously more important but some people have so many teams they can't possibly concentrate and scout teams. They then perhaps concentrate on 1 or 2 teams based on how good the team is or if it’s their favourite league or whatever criteria they use. You then get leagues where you have say half the GM’s working hard on their team and half not. I don’t know what the answer is but I see this as a big issue with MP leagues.

I also think because there are so many leagues you are always going to get a mix of GM's some very good, some average and some newbies. Being a newbie is horrible when you play the season vets at this game, you just don't stand a chance and that forces people to become disillusioned with the game and frustrated. I think this forum does a great job in helping people but maybe a far better manual would help people understand the game and its quirks. How old is the help manual now, 4 to 5 years old I think? As someone said in a post earlier in this thread there needs to be more aids in the game to help people. I appreciate Jim is a one man band and he has done a great job with the game but maybe it’s time for the more senior FOF’ers to work together and build a manual that helps the newbies and the people who struggle. It was just an idea before I get shot down.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...but here's the thing: there are 15-20 established leagues that aren't going anywhere. People in both camps (and those in between) have some extensive histories that they're not willing to give up. I agree that in a perfect world, people bent toward playing a certain way would join together and form leagues. But some leagues have 8+ years of real-time history, so we're stuck with each other.

yeah, established leagues are boned. so it goes. it would only be a choice for new leagues that start...which lets be honest. if a new game ever comes out, plenty of brand new leagues would start up.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I guess I should clarify. My problem with it is that, perversely, running on 3rd and long seems, in my experience, to work better than running on any other down! If I could be sure of picking up 6-10 yard gains on other downs as regularly as it's possible to do on third down, I'd run all the time!

So my complaint is more about that it ruins the immersion factor for me, and seems an imperfection of the engine, not that it's some gameplanning loophole, if that makes sense. I just find it offputting that I can see the gears of the engine so clearly, that the 'make 1st down' logic so clearly outshines the 'realistic rushing gain' logic in this instance.

I understand your way of thinking. It's just that I gave up on the whole realism thing back around FOF2000.

Though how do we know what is realistic and not? How do we know that NFL defenses don't go into a third and 8 with a higher expectation of the run than what is portrayed in our default defensive gameplans and that is why there is a higher success rate in FOF?

I think in realism is a matter of perspective. But if the issue is that GM don't have the time to gameplan, then maybe adding in-game tools, scouting help similar to the stelmack suite gameplan analyzer would help them. A major help to GMs would be if the gameplan analyzer set defensive run and pass expectations to what the analyzer was showing with the push of a "recommend" button. Then you could still go in and tweak where u wish.

I think this is a better than regressing the game and dumbing it down. Adding helpful features to help the average GM along is the way to go, since it appeals to every crowd and goes along with our natural expectation of a bigger and better game.

And yes, implementing something that is "helpful" is easier said than done.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Kozure

But if the issue is that GM don't have the time to gameplan, then maybe adding in-game tools, scouting help similar to the stelmack suite gameplan analyzer would help them. A major help to GMs would be if the gameplan analyzer set defensive run and pass expectations to what the analyzer was showing with the push of a "recommend" button. Then you could still go in and tweak where u wish

Well, sure. That would solve it completely AND would be realistic (scouting staff prepares based on the other team's tendencies) but...

And yes, implementing something that is "helpful" is easier said than done.

Yeah.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Well, sure. That would solve it completely AND would be realistic (scouting staff prepares based on the other team's tendencies) but...Yeah.

Still doable, just not sure the expectations match the ambition. Not meaning Jim lacks ambition. The game proves otherwise. But I'm sure IF he is adding a feature or creating s new game, a reasonable timeframe until completion negates the ability to implement many great ideas, just like it is with any game.

But if this is a thread that has solecismic's ear, why not throw it out there? Heh

[Jughead Spock]

I'd just like to see the coaches mean something in these instances. A def. coach with an 'Excellent' rating seeing ...HEY! those guys run it on 3rd down, like EVERY time! Some sort of percentage adjustment to the def. playcalls.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!")

I think you're right about that reaction, but it also would certainly add a large degree of satisfaction to calling in your coach in at the end of the season and firing his a$$.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

I'd just like to see the coaches mean something in these instances. A def. coach with an 'Excellent' rating seeing ...HEY! those guys run it on 3rd down, like EVERY time! Some sort of percentage adjustment to the def. playcalls.

Yeah, i was thinking something similar. If the coordinator skill level could matter a bit more, it could probably slow down the silliness.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah, i was thinking something similar. If the coordinator skill level could matter a bit more, it could probably slow down the silliness.

Or you don't edit the gameplan at all, but rather hire coordinators who bring gameplans with them...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think you're right about that reaction, but it also would certainly add a large degree of satisfaction to calling in your coach in at the end of the season and firing his a$$.

Hehehehe.

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or you don't edit the gameplan at all, but rather hire coordinators who bring gameplans with them...

i honestly would have no problem with that.

[scorp]

It would be nice if there was a checkbox or slider for coordinator/coach adjust.
You could have no coach help or max it for the coaches to use their abiilty to adjust during the game.

[merry]

Hi,
It's not clear to me how often a run succeeds on 3rd and 8-10 against:
1) 100% pass defense with a nickle.
2) 100% aggresive pass defense with a nickle.
Compared with passing success in against the same distance.
.
In any event there must be a tipping point where a simple % run defense makes running less succesful than passing. Why not use that when they usually run a lot.?
You don't need the game analyser to sweep your eyes down a game log and look at their offense on 3rd and 8-10. And if they are consistantly running let the other GMs know what you have noticed. I bet that run team will have to change their calls pretty quickly.
What do you think?
Merry

[aston217]

You don't need the game analyser to sweep your eyes down a game log and look at their offense on 3rd and 8-10.

Well, this is true, but it's tedious and you can be easily misled by small sample size.

Much easier to pull up GPA and say, "oh, okay, he's never really run on 3rd and 10 the entire year." Or "Oh okay, he runs a ton on 3rd and 10." Just be prepared for trickses

[A-Husker-4-Life]

It's great to see Jim commenting on the games engine and it sounds like he's not satisfied with all the results. I believe that give's us hope he's making a new version.

[Simbo Klice]

I never really liked the Run/Pass aggressive emphasis to begin with. I think that should be decided more with the formation you and your opponent are in, and the plays being run.

For example, if it's 3rd and 9 and the offense comes out in a 4-wide and runs a dive play, and I'm in the dime with a cover 2 deep, the yardage should be close to the average for a middle run with maybe a slightly higher chance of a long run because there's less people in the space than usual. They don't have a large blocking advantage, because they're just as spread out as I am. Now if they come out in a 3 wide with a TE and I'm in dime, even if one of my CB's would be hypothetically in to cover the TE, there should be an advantage to the offensive line there if the TE isn't a complete run blocking scrub and the play should be typically better than average.

[Firefly]

Has decreasing the penalty for playing aggressive pass defense against the run in every situation been discussed? Maybe it's too high to begin with.

[Wanderer]

Whoa, late to the party on this...

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

I'd just like to see the coaches mean something in these instances. A def. coach with an 'Excellent' rating seeing ...HEY! those guys run it on 3rd down, like EVERY time! Some sort of percentage adjustment to the def. playcalls.

This is what I was thinking as I read through the thread. These are in-game reactions, and so basically out of the GM's hands.

I can visualize an additional explicit coaching and/or scouting attribute, "Film Room" or some such. This metric would combine with the amount of film available on an opposing team/coach that measures how much he is able to learn about a opposing team/coach's tendencies and his ability to adjust accordingly. This would allow adjustments from the gameplan to increase speed that "familiar" notifications build in the course of a game.

Also, a hidden attribute akin to experience for players, but an accruing measure of the number of times a coach has gone head-to-head with a particular coach, or if they had been on a staff together in the past, gives him an ability to "smell" tricks and deviations.
Think of how many times Fisher, Cowher, & Billick faced each other, butting heads for 8 years in the AFC North (& Central). Or the battle of wits when Belichick finally faced off against Parcells when the Browns faced the Pats and bested him in the playoffs with a clearly inferior team.

It sounds abstract, but it's definitely modelable once you settle on what the different effects would be and how they play off each other. If you have a good coach and an opposing GM pulls that shit you would shut it down in a big hurry. Of course, if their coach is good, he'll go up top on a run action 3-step drop right past your 1-deep bump coverage.

Does that make coaches matter too much? Maybe. But football is a coach's game. And I agree that a GM should have the ability to "turn down the dial" on this, though not all the way to zero.



Secondarily, we have attributes for intelligence and play recognition, we measure experience and leadership. With low-ish confidence, my *impression* is that they are drastically underutilized in-game. Is there any reason your veteran MLB or SS with 85 INT, 79 PR, and 95 Ld shouldn't have some effect on this? If an opposing team was doing this, don't you think Ronnie Lott or Brian Dawkins, Mike Singletary or Zach Thomas would make them pay?


All that said, I agree that running for punt/field position on 3rd & long is often a good play in real football as well, depending on clock and field position. Probably more than it is actually used.

[Wanderer]

Oh, and most of all I agree with Jim that we can't keep patching over the game planning modules. They need to be stripped, rethought, and rebuilt.

[aston217]

I think there is a good mix of 'bars that affect game mechanics.' Intelligence plays a pretty significant and interesting factor in player evaluation out of the draft for a large number of positions (perhaps it could be incorporated into OL somehow), but I think these ancillary attributes are in the right place for the most part.

Leadership/personality only count for the (somewhat simplistic and underdeveloped) affinities and leaders model the game has. But, even if it's simplistic, from the user standpoint it's interesting without being a game changer. Do you build your roster for affinities (like that one guy who's going to have 20 exceptional affinities on his roster in an MP league...) or are you going to sacrifice for talent in most cases?

I love a lot of those ideas and they make sense. Although from the standpoint of MP gameplay, it should remain a GM (as in the human controller)'s game. Coaches matter enough already, IMO, in enough variety of ways. The difference between average and great playcalling is very noticeable. New coaches and low discipline ones can kill you with penalties. Of course, injuries plays a role as well. And then there's that 'motivation' modifier that sort of rolls all the little things into one skill.

[Wanderer]

Yeah, I can definitely see the film room thing residing with the scouts instead of the coaches. Having scouts affect more than just draft/FA would be interesting (and realistic).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by aston217

Do you build your roster for affinities (like that one guy who's going to have 20 exceptional affinities on his roster in an MP league...) or are you going to sacrifice for talent in most cases?

*perks up*

[Magnum357]

I know I'm going to regret saying this, but those "3rd down" run percentages remind me of Arena Football Percentages. In the "Standard" Arena Football game, coaches hardly run the ball (maybe 4 or 5 rushes by the FB or FL, more if the QB is involved) but its indeed entirely possible for your QB's to scramble the ball on 3rd down situations. Not saying this is true, but the percentages REALLY remind of the same bell curve.

This is the main "debat" between Arena Football and Indoor Football. Indoor Football's main focus is on standard Football, while Arena Football's focus is to Pass the ball 95% of the game. Personally, I kinda like Indoor Football's logic to this, but you would be suprised by the "die hard" Arena Football fans they have. They are willing to "kill" if you don't agree to there philosophy. Trust me, I know.

And we are right in the middle of Arena Football season with an 18 game season. Keep that in mind, ok.

[Autumn]

An example of what I"m talking about here - I'm playing a team that runs quite a bit on third down, so I called a lot of run. Here on 3rd and 14 I'm playing a perfect defense, yet give up a 17 yard run. This happens an inordinate amount on third down runs. I think it's clear that the system determines "is this 3rd down run a success" before it determines how many yards it gets, leading to skewed results.

Buffalo: I formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 and 1-deep, bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
3-14-BUF49 (1Q: 04:51) Rashard Kowalczyk ran outside the right tackle for 17 yards. Tackled by ILB Joel Baca, assisted by ILB D'andrea Hevey. Key block delivered by Ryan Newlon.

[Autumn]

Even more annoying about it. I have no control over my two-minute defense, while the opponent can shut off their two-minute offense. So I get stuck playing aggressive dime while he keeps running.

Buffalo: I formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Abner is blitzing.
3-7-BUF11 (2Q: 01:02) Michael Maupin ran around right end for 24 yards. Tackled by S Darryl Wilker. Key block delivered by Peter Blunk.

Buffalo: Weak formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Mann is blitzing.
1-10-BUF35 (2Q: 00:24) PENALTY: Buffalo was called for a False Start.

Buffalo: I formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Mann is blitzing.
1-15-BUF30 (2Q: 00:24) Rashard Kowalczyk ran around left end for 70 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! Key block delivered by Jonas Keifer. Chicago 10, Buffalo 9

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's exactly what the engine does right now. Familiarity is a scale - you don't see the message until you're fairly far down that road. But the threshold could be higher in these specific instances.

For those of you who were around for earlier versions of the game, there were harder limits on game plans for precisely this reason at one time. I felt the consensus at the time was that those limits were too artificial.

I must have missed this the first time around. Perhaps you were misunderstanding what I was saying. The previous "limits" WERE artificial in the sense that you could put any numbers in those boxes, but certain numbers brought automatic death. Doing it that way doesn't make sense. It would be far better to simply limit what numbers can go in the little boxes. There's no justifiable reason to allow someone to run 80% of the time on 3rd and 11 or to pass 95% of the time on 2nd and 1.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

There's no justifiable reason to allow someone to run 80% of the time on 3rd and 11 or to pass 95% of the time on 2nd and 1.

I disagree here. If I am a run based/defensive team, I'd prefer to run the ball and punt than risk an interception.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Autumn

An example of what I"m talking about here - I'm playing a team that runs quite a bit on third down, so I called a lot of run. Here on 3rd and 14 I'm playing a perfect defense, yet give up a 17 yard run. This happens an inordinate amount on third down runs. I think it's clear that the system determines "is this 3rd down run a success" before it determines how many yards it gets, leading to skewed results.

No offense, but what we have here is a case of "your-run-defense-sucks-balls". Or had a terrible game, at the very least. Even against agressive pass defense you're not going to convert 3rd and 14s a good % of the time by running the ball. More than is realistic, yes, but that's all.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Firefly

No offense, but what we have here is a case of "your-run-defense-sucks-balls". Or had a terrible game, at the very least. Even against agressive pass defense you're not going to convert 3rd and 14s a good % of the time by running the ball. More than is realistic, yes, but that's all.

I don't think that's the case at all, but I certainly don't have the evidence to prove it. That defense quoted above was one of the best in the league this year.

I have not found any reason to think the quality of my defense (or lack thereof) is the reason that gameplans like that work well, since teams that run on third down do well, not just against my team (which in this case went 11-7), but against all sorts of teams. Certainly like any offense they do better against crappy defenses. But the point in question is whether they do better than should be expected, and I think the answer is a definite yes. I think you will find it's easier to get a 16 yard again on 3rd and 15 than it is on 1st and 15, or 1st and 5 or 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 10.

[strickzilla]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think that's the case at all, but I certainly don't have the evidence to prove it. That defense quoted above was one of the best in the league this year.

I have not found any reason to think the quality of my defense (or lack thereof) is the reason that gameplans like that work well, since teams that run on third down do well, not just against my team (which in this case went 11-7), but against all sorts of teams. Certainly like any offense they do better against crappy defenses. But the point in question is whether they do better than should be expected, and I think the answer is a definite yes. I think you will find it's easier to get a 16 yard again on 3rd and 15 than it is on 1st and 15, or 1st and 5 or 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 10.

well met sir

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think that's the case at all, but I certainly don't have the evidence to prove it. That defense quoted above was one of the best in the league this year.

I have not found any reason to think the quality of my defense (or lack thereof) is the reason that gameplans like that work well, since teams that run on third down do well, not just against my team (which in this case went 11-7), but against all sorts of teams. Certainly like any offense they do better against crappy defenses. But the point in question is whether they do better than should be expected, and I think the answer is a definite yes. I think you will find it's easier to get a 16 yard again on 3rd and 15 than it is on 1st and 15, or 1st and 5 or 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 10.

Not only that, but what effects does it have on field position as well. Even if you only gain 7 on 3rd and 15 as opposed to the likely incomplete pass, then you've gained 7 yards of field position.

[Yoda]

My general philosophy is that on 3rd and long, if I don't have a reasonable chance to make it or if I have stud punter/special teams, is that I would RATHER run the ball and punt.

You have people who say that in fof each yard doesn't matter. Personally, I think those people are idiots. Each yard is another yard they have to go for a TD, to get into FG range.

Also, I want to comment on defensive familiarity. I don't think it works. Period. I've seen to many teams have dominating defense that play nothing but Bump and Run / 3 Deep with no ill effects (giving up more yardage/completions as the game goes on).

I have teams who have gotten BETTER defensively by limiting the number of defensive formations they run (to like 2 or maybe 3 different ones per game).

If you are in pass aggressive defense and it's 3rd and 6, the offense should have a decent chance of converting when it runs the ball.

As for conversions when running when it's 3rd and 10 or more, I'd have to look at the stats, but it shouldn't be impossible.

[Firefly]

lol Yoda, good post. Converting on 3rd and 10 and beyond running the ball, from what I've seen in the GP analyzer, doesn't have a great chance of success, but neither does passing the ball. Generally speaking.