Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Notes on Super Bowl pre=plays

Expand Messages
  • werderwayne
    After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed: Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:

      Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
      1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
      2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
      3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
      4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.

      Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
      1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
      2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
      3) Fumble return columns.
      4) Quarterback sneak play column.


      Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
      1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
      2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
      3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
      4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
      5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
      6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.

      Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
      1) Fumble return columns.
      2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
      3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.

      Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!

      -WW
    • jojorody
      Well written. Many of the reviews I have read contain facts that are presented as undeniably accurate without possibility of question. Yet, when I scratch
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Well written.


        Many of the "reviews" I have read contain "facts" that are presented as undeniably accurate without possibility of question. Yet, when I scratch the surface, I rarely find any usable information and mostly pablum-based opinion laced with diatribe.


        Your "mini-review' was actually readable and insightful. Now I have a flexible opinion of the two design engines (Red Zone and Data Driven).


        Kudos...



        --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "werderwayne" <ismith@...> wrote:
        >
        > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
        >
        > Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
        > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
        > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
        > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
        > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
        >
        > Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
        > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
        > 2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
        > 3) Fumble return columns.
        > 4) Quarterback sneak play column.
        >
        >
        > Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
        > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
        > 2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
        > 3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
        > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
        > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
        > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
        >
        > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
        > 1) Fumble return columns.
        > 2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
        > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
        >
        > Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
        >
        > -WW
        >
      • randy
        ... What the #@%$#?!?? I can only assume this was aimed at me. Sorry to have insulted you with my pablum-based diatribe there, friend. I wasn t claiming to
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "jojorody" <jojo349199@...> wrote:
          >
          > Many of the "reviews" I have read contain "facts" that are presented as undeniably accurate without possibility of question. Yet, when I scratch the surface, I rarely find any usable information and mostly pablum-based opinion laced with diatribe.
          >
          >

          What the #@%$#?!??

          I can only assume this was aimed at me. Sorry to have insulted you with my "pablum-based diatribe" there, friend. I wasn't claiming to have cured cancer or to have sent a man to Mars.

          I simply wanted to share with other fans an enjoyable evening I had playing Paydirt, with a result which turned out to be remarkably accurate.

          Sheesh.

          You guys have a nice club here. Good luck with it.

          RPS
        • sundancekid63@sbcglobal.net
          Randy,   I went back and read your post again.  If you are referring to your pre-play of the super bowl with your father, I see no correlation between your
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Randy,
             
            I went back and read your post again.  If you are referring to your pre-play of the super bowl with your father, I see no correlation between your post and Joseph's post.
             
            First, let me say I am sorry to hear about your father's illness.  My father has the same thing, so I know how you feel.
             
            I thought your post was a nice take on a fun game you played with your dad.  In no way did I read it as a review of the DDF charts.
             
            Joseph's post was referring to many posts made, both in this group and the Bowlbound group, that purport to be "fact" based reviews of the various charts.  However, upon reading them, they are nothing more than opinions & diatribe.  You can go back and review the posts in either group to find examples.
             
            Anyway, welcome to the group.  I hope you join the Bowlbound group as well.  One rule of thumb is to not take the posts personally.  Otherwise, this board is no fun.
             
            Flo
             


            --- On Sat, 3/6/10, randy <randysteinman@...> wrote:

            From: randy <randysteinman@...>
            Subject: [Paydirt] Re: Notes on Super Bowl pre=plays
            To: Paydirt@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 6:19 AM

             
            --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups .com, "jojorody" <jojo349199@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > Many of the "reviews" I have read contain "facts" that are presented as undeniably accurate without possibility of question. Yet, when I scratch the surface, I rarely find any usable information and mostly pablum-based opinion laced with diatribe.
            >
            >

            What the #@%$#?!??

            I can only assume this was aimed at me. Sorry to have insulted you with my "pablum-based diatribe" there, friend. I wasn't claiming to have cured cancer or to have sent a man to Mars.

            I simply wanted to share with other fans an enjoyable evening I had playing Paydirt, with a result which turned out to be remarkably accurate.

            Sheesh.

            You guys have a nice club here. Good luck with it.

            RPS

          • jojorody
            Whoooa .. slow down. Randy, this was not directed at you. I had no idea you even posted on this topic. I rarely read all the posts in all the groups I belong
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Whoooa .. slow down.


              Randy, this was not directed at you. I had no idea you even posted on this topic. I rarely read all the posts in all the groups I belong to. This probably makes me sound "uninformed" and that is true to some degree.


              I just happened to see WW's post today and thought it was well formulated and I found it unusually refreshing. I have not ever read your post, I don't know which post is yours and I won't read it until AFTER I post my response to you.


              I did not mean to offend you. That does not mean I won't deliberately try to offend you at some future date nor does it take away my god-given right to impugn your personhood or intellectual ability.


              Just so happens, I liked what WW wrote. ...and I did not mean take shots at you nor do I want you to disassociate yourself from the group.


              I would formally apologize but I don't know exactly what I did wrong. If it is any consolation, I probably wouldn't have written it if I realized it was going to cause you any consternation... and I don't even know what you wrote.




              --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "randy" <randysteinman@...> wrote:
              >

              > What the #@%$#?!??
              >
              > I can only assume this was aimed at me. Sorry to have insulted you with my "pablum-based diatribe" there, friend. I wasn't claiming to have cured cancer or to have sent a man to Mars.
              >
              > I simply wanted to share with other fans an enjoyable evening I had playing Paydirt, with a result which turned out to be remarkably accurate.
              >
              > Sheesh.
              >
              > You guys have a nice club here. Good luck with it.
              >
              > RPS
              >
            • Ron Pisarz, Jr.
              Here is the response I shared with Wayne... Thanks for your feedback. I m always open to suggestions on what can be improved. I d like to add some insight to
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Here is the response I shared with Wayne...

                Thanks for your feedback.  I'm always open to suggestions on what can be improved.  I'd like to add some insight to your comments under the "odd" section.

                1) "Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse."
                This is probably more specific to NO/IND than the entire set.  As a general statement 'A' will provide much better protection vs 7/8/9 than B/C (and the short pass for that matter).  In NO's case I had two three formations to allocate large gains on: A,E,F... as you can see A and F were the formations.  All three had multiple large gains, and to put a large ( # ) gain on E vs. 8 for a Super Bowl team is just  not right.

                2) Both defenses were comparable 4.3 (IND) vs 4.5 (NO).  IND is below average vs 2/3/4 but well above average vs 1 and relative to other teams the IND defense faced a larger number of line plunges. NO is below avg. vs 2/3 but that is the bulk of rushes they faced.  Play call distribution is the difference.

                3) You are correct regarding the NO punt return chart.  Downed and out of bounds punts were not returned, and statistically do not count as a punt return therefore they do NOT appear on the chart. 
                Here are NO's punt return details:
                yards    count
                -6 1
                -5 1
                -2 2
                -1 1
                0 4
                1 4
                2 1
                3 2
                4 4
                5 2
                6 2
                7 1
                9 2
                11 2
                14 1
                22 1
                23 1
                FC 17
                F 0 1
                F 11 1
                OFF 10 8
                Here is NO's stats from NFL.com
                ret  yds  avg lng            FC fums
                33  152  4.6  23  0  2  0  17  2
                This is exactly what their punt return chart reflects.  Punts that were downed or out of bounds are not reflected statistically.  If a team punting to NO chooses coffin corner and kicks the ball out of bounds there is no return, and does not impact their average.  7 punts were downed and 7 went out of bounds.  I can send you the play text for all their punts and punt returns if you are interested.  If a team punts the ball inside the NO 10 yard line and the coach decides to let it roll and it is either downed or rolls into the end zone the punt return chart is not consulted which it shouldn't be.

                Regarding punts ONLY out of bounds punts are noted as such.  The fact the returner 'lets the ball roll' IS based on the return team.  A downed punt is downed because the return team chose NOT to return it, but the punt was returnable.  The return team decided not to return (probably because they were near their own end zone), and had nothing to do with the New Orleans punting unit. 

                Both charts properly reflect the events based on the rules of the game.

                4/6)  Valid point.  My view did change on how to handle missed FGs from a long distance.  I do give credit for a missed attempt (much LESS credit than a success. I do have a guideline)... otherwise a team would never try from that distance obviously not representing reality.  Normally, I only apply the credit to missed FGs > 50, but I require at least 1 made FG from > 50 to earn the credit.  That is why NO did not receive credit but IND did.  After reviewing NO's data I agree that partial credit should be given for the missed 49 att. against MIA.  I will adjust.  Thank you for pointing that out.

                5) This is a typo... the red '13' in the die roll column provides confirmation that it is indeed a lost fumble.  I corrected the text and will post the update.  Thank you again.

                Also, as a general statement the 'E' defense will generally give up yards vs. 5/6.  It just so happens both IND and NO defend the screen well (ranked 8th/11th).  Here is KC's pass D/E pass defense by contrast:



                Thanks for your diligence and comments... and thanks for trying my charts.

                Best Regards,
                Ron


                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "werderwayne" <ismith@...>
                Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:42 PM
                To: <Paydirt@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [Paydirt] Notes on Super Bowl pre=plays

                > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and
                Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
                >
                > Things that
                seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
                > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than
                Short Yardage (B).
                > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass
                than Standard (A).
                > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against
                screen.
                > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge.  It
                isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
                >
                > Things I particularly liked while playing
                RedZone:
                > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor
                punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
                > 2) Pass
                prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
                > 3) Fumble return columns.
                > 4) Quarterback sneak play
                column.
                >
                >
                > Things that seemed odd to me as I played
                Data-Driven football:
                > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally)
                substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
                > 2) The Saints running defense
                looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
                > 3) What seemed like 90% of the
                non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart.  The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns).  That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column.  Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable.  This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
                > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with
                10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal. 
                > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND
                lost.
                > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35."  It seems out of place as the
                second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG.  The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
                >
                > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven
                Football:
                > 1) Fumble return columns.
                > 2) The (-) in front of
                numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
                > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the
                defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
                >
                > Thanks to Ron
                and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
                >
                > -WW
                >
                >
                >
                >
                ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups
                Links
                >
                > <*> To visit your group on the web, go
                to:
                >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paydirt/
                >
                > <*> Your email settings:
                >    Individual
                Email | Traditional
                >
                > <*> To change settings online go
                to:
                >   
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paydirt/join
                >    (Yahoo! ID
                required)
                >
                > <*> To change settings via
                email:
                >    Paydirt-digest@yahoogroups.com
                >    Paydirt-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >    Paydirt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
                to:
                >    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Darrin Hunter
                Wayne thanks for your input. Blitz play does force some passes defensed as the rushing line men get there hands up and bat down some balls, but overall very
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wayne thanks for your input.

                  Blitz play does force some passes defensed as the rushing line men get there hands up and bat down some balls, but overall very week against the screen.

                  pass prevent short has no help over the top, so is week vs the bomb

                  As far as more picks on the defenses this could be true but my guess is there are less on the offense chart except the bomb.

                  RedZone charts sideline passes do include bombs outside the numbers these could be be goes or hitch and goes.

                  Manning is one of thee best if not the best at throwing to the outside.

                  Pain killer king



                  --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "werderwayne" <ismith@...> :
                  >
                  > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
                  >
                  > Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
                  > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
                  > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
                  > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
                  > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
                  >
                  > Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
                  > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
                  > 2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
                  > 3) Fumble return columns.
                  > 4) Quarterback sneak play column.
                  >
                  >
                  > Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
                  > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
                  > 2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
                  > 3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
                  > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
                  > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
                  > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
                  >
                  > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
                  > 1) Fumble return columns.
                  > 2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
                  > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
                  >
                  > Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
                  >
                  > -WW
                  >
                • Darrin Hunter
                  Wayne thanks for your input. Blitz play does force some passes defensed as the rushing line men get there hands up and bat down some balls, but overall very
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wayne thanks for your input.

                    Blitz play does force some passes defensed as the rushing line men get there hands up and bat down some balls, but overall very week against the screen.

                    pass prevent short has no help over the top, so is week vs the bomb

                    As far as more picks on the defenses this could be true but my guess is there are less on the offense chart except the bomb.

                    RedZone charts sideline passes do include bombs outside the numbers these could be be goes or hitch and goes.

                    Manning is one of thee best if not the best at throwing to the outside.

                    Pain killer king



                    --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "werderwayne" <ismith@...> :
                    >
                    > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
                    >
                    > Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
                    > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
                    > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
                    > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
                    > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
                    >
                    > Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
                    > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
                    > 2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
                    > 3) Fumble return columns.
                    > 4) Quarterback sneak play column.
                    >
                    >
                    > Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
                    > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
                    > 2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
                    > 3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
                    > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
                    > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
                    > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
                    >
                    > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
                    > 1) Fumble return columns.
                    > 2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
                    > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
                    >
                    > Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
                    >
                    > -WW
                    >
                  • werderwayne
                    Hi Ron, Thanks so much for the responses. They are very enlightening. I E-mailed this response to Ron, upon getting his responses: As far as unreturned punts,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 7, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Ron,

                      Thanks so much for the responses. They are very enlightening.

                      I E-mailed this response to Ron, upon getting his responses:

                      As far as unreturned punts, I think of punts that either go OB or are downed as punts successfully kicked away from the returner so that he couldn't get to the ball to catch it, (allowing it to bounce and roll dead). It could also have been a punt so BAD that the returner couldn't get to it! Whatever the reason, the punt team was probably responsible for creating a situation that prevented the returner from getting to the ball. Of course, the exception to this would be when the returner ELECTS to let the ball roll in an attempt to gain a touchback. If the ball hits outside the 15 yard line or goes out of bounds outside the 25, the punt would have to be considered not returnable and not a coffin corner or "pooch punt."

                      "Strat-o-matic had the same problem-because downed and OB weren't credited (some years ago) they were treated like the didn't happen, which resulted in there being roughly 50% more punt returns during a season than there should have been. Strat-o-matic had other problems rather more serious than just bouncing punts."

                      It's fantastic that the designers of these games are on the board and can explain the thought process behind their charts.

                      Thanks again Ron!

                      -WW




                      --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Pisarz, Jr." <RPisarzjr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Here is the response I shared with Wayne...
                      >
                      > Thanks for your feedback. I'm always open to suggestions on what can be improved. I'd like to add some insight to your comments under the "odd" section.
                      >
                      > 1) "Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse."
                      > This is probably more specific to NO/IND than the entire set. As a general statement 'A' will provide much better protection vs 7/8/9 than B/C (and the short pass for that matter). In NO's case I had two three formations to allocate large gains on: A,E,F... as you can see A and F were the formations. All three had multiple large gains, and to put a large ( # ) gain on E vs. 8 for a Super Bowl team is just not right.
                      >
                      > 2) Both defenses were comparable 4.3 (IND) vs 4.5 (NO). IND is below average vs 2/3/4 but well above average vs 1 and relative to other teams the IND defense faced a larger number of line plunges. NO is below avg. vs 2/3 but that is the bulk of rushes they faced. Play call distribution is the difference.
                      >
                      > 3) You are correct regarding the NO punt return chart. Downed and out of bounds punts were not returned, and statistically do not count as a punt return therefore they do NOT appear on the chart.
                      > Here are NO's punt return details:
                      > yards count
                      > -6 1
                      > -5 1
                      > -2 2
                      > -1 1
                      > 0 4
                      > 1 4
                      > 2 1
                      > 3 2
                      > 4 4
                      > 5 2
                      > 6 2
                      > 7 1
                      > 9 2
                      > 11 2
                      > 14 1
                      > 22 1
                      > 23 1
                      > FC 17
                      > F 0 1
                      > F 11 1
                      > OFF 10 8
                      > Here is NO's stats from NFL.com
                      > ret yds avg lng FC fums
                      > 33 152 4.6 23 0 2 0 17 2
                      > This is exactly what their punt return chart reflects. Punts that were downed or out of bounds are not reflected statistically. If a team punting to NO chooses coffin corner and kicks the ball out of bounds there is no return, and does not impact their average. 7 punts were downed and 7 went out of bounds. I can send you the play text for all their punts and punt returns if you are interested. If a team punts the ball inside the NO 10 yard line and the coach decides to let it roll and it is either downed or rolls into the end zone the punt return chart is not consulted which it shouldn't be.
                      >
                      > Regarding punts ONLY out of bounds punts are noted as such. The fact the returner 'lets the ball roll' IS based on the return team. A downed punt is downed because the return team chose NOT to return it, but the punt was returnable. The return team decided not to return (probably because they were near their own end zone), and had nothing to do with the New Orleans punting unit.
                      >
                      > Both charts properly reflect the events based on the rules of the game.
                      >
                      > 4/6) Valid point. My view did change on how to handle missed FGs from a long distance. I do give credit for a missed attempt (much LESS credit than a success. I do have a guideline)... otherwise a team would never try from that distance obviously not representing reality. Normally, I only apply the credit to missed FGs > 50, but I require at least 1 made FG from > 50 to earn the credit. That is why NO did not receive credit but IND did. After reviewing NO's data I agree that partial credit should be given for the missed 49 att. against MIA. I will adjust. Thank you for pointing that out.
                      >
                      > 5) This is a typo... the red '13' in the die roll column provides confirmation that it is indeed a lost fumble. I corrected the text and will post the update. Thank you again.
                      >
                      > Also, as a general statement the 'E' defense will generally give up yards vs. 5/6. It just so happens both IND and NO defend the screen well (ranked 8th/11th). Here is KC's pass D/E pass defense by contrast:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks for your diligence and comments... and thanks for trying my charts.
                      >
                      > Best Regards,
                      > Ron
                      >
                      >
                      > --------------------------------------------------
                      > From: "werderwayne" <ismith@...>
                      > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:42 PM
                      > To: <Paydirt@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Subject: [Paydirt] Notes on Super Bowl pre=plays
                      >
                      > > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
                      > >
                      > > Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
                      > > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
                      > > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
                      > > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
                      > > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
                      > >
                      > > Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
                      > > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
                      > > 2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
                      > > 3) Fumble return columns.
                      > > 4) Quarterback sneak play column.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
                      > > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
                      > > 2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
                      > > 3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
                      > > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
                      > > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
                      > > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
                      > >
                      > > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
                      > > 1) Fumble return columns.
                      > > 2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
                      > > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
                      > >
                      > > -WW
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • werderwayne
                      Thanks for the responses Darrin! I hope you re feeling better soon. OOPS! One thing I forgot to put into the Red Zone review: Things I particularly liked
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 7, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks for the responses Darrin! I hope you're feeling better soon.

                        OOPS! One thing I forgot to put into the Red Zone review:
                        Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
                        5) Having the ability to make a field goal longer than the team made during the regular season.

                        We, as a board, have discussed this design philosophy ad nauseam, and this isn't intended to start the whole debate over again.

                        As an historical review, just for anyone new to the board, there are two basic philosophies regarding this:
                        1) The longest play (field goal or play from scrimmage) on the chart should be the same as the team managed during the season in question and no longer.
                        2) The longest play on the chart should be a reasonable estimation of the longest play that the team was capable of during the season in question.

                        The original designers (Neft and Nicely) had interesting changes in their philosophies as they designed different sets of charts through the years.

                        -WW
                      • werderwayne
                        Thanks. I have my preference, but I certainly appreciate all efforts to make charts. I think that both RedZone and Data-Driven have brought great stuff to
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 7, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks. I have my preference, but I certainly appreciate all efforts to make charts. I think that both RedZone and Data-Driven have brought great stuff to the table. I have my favorite, but don't want to make it real obvious so readers can make up their own minds.

                          I really appreciate the designers' comments as they allow insight into the decisions they made as they created the charts.

                          -WW

                          --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "jojorody" <jojo349199@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Well written.
                          >
                          >
                          > Many of the "reviews" I have read contain "facts" that are presented as undeniably accurate without possibility of question. Yet, when I scratch the surface, I rarely find any usable information and mostly pablum-based opinion laced with diatribe.
                          >
                          >
                          > Your "mini-review' was actually readable and insightful. Now I have a flexible opinion of the two design engines (Red Zone and Data Driven).
                          >
                          >
                          > Kudos...
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "werderwayne" <ismith@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > After playing Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone and Data-Driven football these are things I noticed:
                          > >
                          > > Things that seemed odd to me while playing the two Super Bowl pre-plays with RedZone:
                          > > 1) Spread (C) is worse against short and medium passes than Short Yardage (B).
                          > > 2) Pass Prevent Short (D) was worse against long pass than Standard (A).
                          > > 3) Blitz (F) not being particularly bad against screen.
                          > > 4) The Colts' only good running play was Line Plunge. It isn't so much that that was the only good running play, but that I KNEW that "1" was the only good running play, thus allowing me to avoid other running plays.
                          > >
                          > > Things I particularly liked while playing RedZone:
                          > > 1) Having New Orleans forced to pay the piper with their poor punt and kickoff coverage with punt and KO coverage columns.
                          > > 2) Pass prevent long giving up sizable chunks of yardage against screen and short pass.
                          > > 3) Fumble return columns.
                          > > 4) Quarterback sneak play column.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Things that seemed odd to me as I played Data-Driven football:
                          > > 1) Standard (A) defense isn't (generally) substantially better against medium, long and sideline passes than short yardage (B), and in many cases, it's rather worse.
                          > > 2) The Saints running defense looks better (or less awful) than Indy's.
                          > > 3) What seemed like 90% of the non-returnable punts were on the punt return chart, not the punt chart. The Saints, for example, have exactly the % of FC on their punt return as the number of FC's/(FC's+returns). That is, punts that hit the ground or went out of bounds aren't included in the punt return column. Also, only 46% of Saints punts were returned (excluding TBs), but 90% of their punts on their chart are returnable. This means that all the punts that went out of bounds or hit the ground and were downed are ignored, instead of being included in the punt chart.
                          > > 4) Having the Saints on the Colts' 30 yard line with 10 seconds left in the half and NOT being able to try a field goal.
                          > > 5) If Indy fumbles and rolls a 13, it is listed as recovered AND lost.
                          > > 6) #28 on Indy's FG is "35." It seems out of place as the second longest, 31, is all over the chart, and equals the team's longest FG. The 35 goes against the Data-Driven philosophy, so I think it is a typo.
                          > >
                          > > Things I particularly liked while playing Data Driven Football:
                          > > 1) Fumble return columns.
                          > > 2) The (-) in front of numbers in red boxes, so if printed in black and white, the charts are still usable.
                          > > 3) Slightly fewer interceptions (compared to RedZone) on the defensive charts makes passing less terrifying.
                          > >
                          > > Thanks to Ron and Darrin for posting free samples of their charts for Super Bowl pre-plays!
                          > >
                          > > -WW
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.