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)

League Forums

Main - League News/General Discussion

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By raidergreg69 - League Admin
6/19/2020 1:26 pm
Cjfred68 wrote:
Are all the owners playing Setherick trying to help him set a sack record???

LONG PASSING DOESNT WORK AS A LEGIMATE STRATEGY!!!

This version was push back on the 9000-10,000 passing yards per season days of 4.2 and 4.3.....its completely transitioned to a short passing/running offense with a sprinkle of medium and dash of long passing thrown in to keep it honest.

Long passing is nerfed so before Setherick put a speedy linebacker on the front four...long passes ended up being a sack, incomplete or an interception 90% of the time if it was a slow developing play with no outlet.

Now that Seth is employing LBs up front....long passing will result in about 85% sacks.

STOP CALLING LONG PASSES!!!


Minus 69 yards of offense

That was Oakland's total for the game, -69. McKeon broke another record with 15 sacks in this game. James Lockette keeps showing up at the facility wanting a job so he can get more sacks to extend his career total and I'm sick of calling security on him. He just doesn't get the fact he's done.

Seriously though, quit enabling McKeon to kill your QB.

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By setherick
6/19/2020 1:31 pm
I sacked medium passes 5 times as well. They were all the passes that send the RB under the coverage: Max Sack (Protection), WR Post TE Out, and TE Middle.

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By Cjfred68
6/19/2020 1:44 pm
setherick wrote:
I sacked medium passes 5 times as well. They were all the passes that send the RB under the coverage: Max Sack (Protection), WR Post TE Out, and TE Middle.


I'm not saying you still won't get sacks but its like watching someone bang their head against a wall in the last half dozen games.

Setherick has 73 sacks for the season....53 by the same player....and its 1st quarter...1st and 10...no score...and its bombs away with the long pass....its a miracle he only has 3 forced fumbles or things would be worse.

This version has been out forever and everyone should know by now that its a move the chain type of offense with the occasional hitch for a big play. You CAN NOT succeed if you are constantly behind the chains in this version. Its a run for 3...short pass for 5 and run for 3 (or some variation of that) that scores points and wins the game.

If you have no clue what Seth is doing....don't call long passes...period. You may still get sacked with bad Medium pass plays but the numbers will decline dramatically.

I kinda know what I'm doing and if I call 5 long passes in a game....thats alot! And its a long pass play that works....yep I call 1 or 2 long passing plays.....period end of story....the vast majority are in the trash

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By setherick
6/19/2020 1:46 pm
All I'm doing is giving y'all the road map to beat the exploit offenses out there.

Not exploit in terms of "this is cheating" but in terms of these plays force the defense into a bad spot. The long passes "work" by clearing the edges for the RB to run wild.

They also take a LONG time to develop...

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By Cjfred68
6/19/2020 2:00 pm
setherick wrote:
All I'm doing is giving y'all the road map to beat the exploit offenses out there.

Not exploit in terms of "this is cheating" but in terms of these plays force the defense into a bad spot. The long passes "work" by clearing the edges for the RB to run wild.

They also take a LONG time to develop...


All you are doing is reinforcing the broken mechanics of offensive linemen (300 pounds) blocking speed.

This isn't some new concept...months ago I inserted RBs and WRs on the defensive front four with speed and no defensive skills.

https://champions.myfootballnow.com/box/1520

Its just an expansion on the punt block exploit....speed runs right by 300 pound elite run/pass blockers like they are standing still.

It needs to be fixed

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By Dogboyuk75
6/19/2020 2:02 pm
i havent looked into sacks too much as in watching film but strange thing about last game mckeon had 15 sacks but looking at the invaders oline it only shows 1 sack allowed makes me think hes rushing player from a spot that doesnt get picked up by oline .

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By setherick
6/19/2020 2:04 pm
Dogboyuk75 wrote:
i havent looked into sacks too much as in watching film but strange thing about last game mckeon had 15 sacks but looking at the invaders oline it only shows 1 sack allowed makes me think hes rushing player from a spot that doesnt get picked up by oline .


He's rushing from a spot that puts the DE 1:1 against the RG, and he gets off the snap faster than the RG. So the sacks aren't being counted as "missed" correctly.
Last edited at 6/19/2020 2:07 pm

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By Dogboyuk75
6/19/2020 2:07 pm
cool thanks for explanation
Last edited at 6/19/2020 2:07 pm

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By setherick
6/19/2020 2:08 pm
Dogboyuk75 wrote:
hey bud im not saying anything untoward is happening,but why doesnt it show rg giving up 15 sacks then??


The coding doesn't count it. Given up I think means engaged in the block and then losing the block. So if the RG doesn't lock up, it may not be counted.

On long passes, most of the OL block "back and out" instead of "up and in" like on runs and short passes.
Last edited at 6/19/2020 2:10 pm

Re: 1989 Good Game Thread

By Cjfred68
6/19/2020 2:14 pm
Watch the film...the RG lines up directly across from him and when the ball is snapped....turns his back to him moves several yards and turns back around while Mckeon blow right past him.

Has anyone ever seen an offensive lineman turn his back to the defense directly after the snap??

https://usflwfl.myfootballnow.com/watch/5028#916695

The RT engages nobody while spinning around too!

If I use a 95 speed RB instead of Mckeon....he would get the sack as 600 pounds of offensive linemen block nothing while square dancng
Last edited at 6/19/2020 2:19 pm