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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1/03/2024 11:26 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.
