I routinely plan between 10-15 plays that are going to be called 80% of the time, and I'm rarely in the wrong coverage.

Look, CR, I'm not missing anything. Go up a few posts to my reply about the 46 Heavy. If someone was abusing a play like the 4-3 Cover 2 or the 4-3 2 Deep Zone Man Under, none of the offensive game planners would care because those plays would get wrecked by the common slant game plan.

(I know for a fact that multiple respected GMs in this league call the 3-3-5 almost exclusively against the 113 and 203 sets. And another well respected GM calls two different blitz plays against the 212 sets. Both are incredibly vulnerable defenses, but most of the time they are effective.)

It's just because the 46 Heavy is so effective, especially paired with the FZ, against the common game slant game plan that people noticed and now are upset.

No. You really are missing the point. I have a problem with extremely limited gameplans. I've always had this problem. Anytime I notice it, I bring it up. It is disingenuous. It is lazy. It isn't a gameplan at all. It's 5 flipping plays!!!

No, you're missing my point. My point was that there are multiple GMs in this league that are never called out that only use a handful of defensive plays period.

What you are mad about is that the ones 4343 is using are effective at shutting down your offense. Otherwise, you would have never noticed (and, frankly, obviously never noticed) that many others do the same thing with less effective plays.

The example I gave about the 335 is a really good illustration of this. That play shuts down, like really shuts down, most of the 113, 122, and 203 passing plays. It gets absolutely shredded by the run, but people use it as their main defense against those mentioned sets because it's so good against the pass. They win a lot of games, but most of the time fly under the radar because those plays don't produce the same dominating wins as the FZ and 46.

Name the other other GM's that use limited playbooks.. You might as well. There obviously aren't any secrets here. Infinty on Trial made sure of that. After all, it should be common knowledge to anyone that scouts opponents.

I'll wait......


And again. NO. I'm not mad about it. I expected the loss. I specifically asked if there was a way to restrict limited playbooks.

Why should I?

1) I don't mind when folks use a limited game plan. Actually, the folks using the 335 have taught me a whole lot. When I can quickly download a few seasons of data to see how a person effectively used X play against Y play, it puts me a step ahead of where I was before. Also, I respect what they are doing, just like I respect what 4343 is doing.

2) Everything I do, you can get from scouting. It just takes a lot longer. I'd rather write a SQL query (well, several, really) that just spit it out for me. It's better than trying to figure what my opponent does by watching film or reading game logs because it eliminates observational bias.

As Smirt and Fred say, it's a chess game. While I'm willing to suggest some moves, I'm not going to show you my whole strategy. Whereas Smirt studies how to get the most out of the best plays, and Fred studies how to best convoy players, and who knows what IoT does (seriously, I've known him for 20+ years, and I have no idea how he wins game), I study data. It's what I know.

Because you're the one defending the idea that so many actually play this way in this league. I call BS. Don't believe one bit of it.

I'm not asking for your strategies. I'm asking for evidence of your statement. Prove it. Who are they? I'm not asking for their plays. I'm asking for their names. It's a lot less than what IoT did to Smirt & I.

Crazy,

I completely understand the frustration from someone using 2 defensive plays 90% of the time.

Honestly, the only reason it works is because the dozen or so staple offensive plays most use to move the ball....don't work well against them.

There are plenty of plays that will work against those 2 plays but that means completely changing your offense for that one or two games against those opponents.

Now the majority of owners don't have a database or the time to rework their whole offense for a week 9 game against the next opponent so most just run out the offense they have been using to various degrees of success all season.

I would love for everyone to pick 30 offensive plays and 20 defensive plays and let the randomness happen of the play selection combined with the sim rolls. That's how a huge majority of owners play this game.

The problem is a minority of owners take everything to extremes be it limited play selection, making every offensive weapon a WR so they are fast....eg 228 pound TEs, all players getting rushing attempts under 200 pounds and LBs made into CBs weighting 210 with speed.

The sim engine doesn't penalize players enough for being underweight for their position while getting a boost from the added speed. Not to mention 191 CBs leading teams in rushing and Interceptions and WRs leading the league in Interceptions. Let's not forget punt blocks and sacks from speedy underweight players on the defensive front.

Go team by team and look at the player distribution and you will find the owners attempting to play a football sim and the owners playing the code.

If you see 12 WRs and 12 CBs on a roster with 0-1 DTs and TEs. They are playing the code. If all the players taking rushing attempts are under 200 pounds, they are playing the code.

I came to play a football sim and I try my best to have all my RBs be RBs with a weight over 200 pounds. I try to have actual 300 DTs, 250+ TEs and FBs with decent size. I rarely have more then 5 CBs on the roster and they play CB, I have at least 2 SLB, 3 MLB and 2 WLB on the roster. In fact my starters at every position are their actual position almost 100% of the time. I use players as depth in positions other then their actual physical position and never use overrides.

I think plenty of owners joined MFN because its a fun roster management sim but its the elite gameplanners that win most. I need a great roster with plenty of depth to win and I see owners with (to me) seems like a garbage roster...win constantly.

That means gameplanning rules the day in this game so the owners that are elite at gameplanning win. I've improved some but don't consider myself a great gameplanner so when I win, I chalk it up to getting the benefit of the sim rolls and my roster strength being the reason.

I dont see a way to control how many plays each owner must call that is easily enforceable for the league admin. I think it would become a nightmare to police.

The way I feel in general is that if someone can find enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment from a 2 play defense....more power to them. I try to play this game like I'm running a real football team and avoid using exploits as much possible. That way I personally can feel good about any success I have and know I played this sim what I consider to be the right way.

What he said. The vote is 9-7 anyway, and I prefer a 2-1 majority to change anything major but keep this in mind for any other rule proposals. If I can't easily enforce it, I won't do it.

If it becomes a 'set in stone' scenario with JDB PUBLICLY stating the changes for out of position then everyone has to adjust, so you adjust to win.

Broken down to it's simplest form:

Conference Final Stage: 75% chance
Title Game: 100% chance

^ Probability your opposing stage boss GM will have a '***** to the wall, all-out' strategy.

Those #s are probably pretty close but that's in where the problem lays. Deeper you get in the playoffs, the near certainty you'll be across from an 'every angle used' opponent.

Update: Dug in some more on your comments. CJ, you're an elite game planner. You chess board game plan and adjust; especially for high profile, playoff tilts and are one of my most difficult challenging opponents.