Offensive Passing Play Rule Change Recomendation

[Charlie-49ers]

Below is Offensive Passing Play Rule P05 pertaining to potential receivers throwing a "Fake".

P05: Throw Fakes

1. Any skill Player at or past the LOS (RBs/WRs/TEs) may not throw a Fake within 5 yards of any other skill Player.
2. Fakes may not be thrown, by anyone, behind the LOS.

Since we have really been void of effective offensive Medium pass plays in all categories the last few seasons (arguably longer) I would like to recommend that we eliminate P05-1 to see if we get some innovative new plays that work. In reality, there are always busted coverages in the NFL and defenders get faked out in every game. In theory, if the PNFL defenders have sufficient IN & DI they will not usually go for the fake. However, we might see some faked-out coverages for some good gains. If I can get an agreement from more than half the owners before this weekend, I will allow new custom plays for this weekend. I see no reason to keep the rule since it is not a suggestion or recommendation in the FBPro98 handbook.

Please post your opinion ASAP.

[Shawn-Giants]

Charlie, interesting concept.

In my humble opinion, the defensive backs are already at what -1 from Max Speed deficit from a Max reciever, -3 Max acceleration from a Max WR and -5 agility from a Max WR not to mention lower EN from any WR.

The defensive player attributes are already at a -9 in attribute totals versus even a mediocre WR. Not sure if WR's need any further assistance defeating a DB and at what point are the DB's just bodies on the field not really there to stop anything?

Putting stop and wait in reciever route logic, provides that separation or fake you are looking to achieve, because the DB's covering M2M will stop when the reciever does and when the reciever begins to run the route again the DB is already trailing with no chance of catching up due to the -9 disadvantage in attribute total.

Don't believe the WR's need any more additional assistance getting open with the already inherent attribute advantage over a DB.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I decline removing a rule that was likely put into place to reduce AI busting plays.

I recommend continue to to expand the ratings differenial of players. Pass Medium plays will start being more productive when more DBs are not close to MAX ratings.

[Justin-Chicago]

I like Charlie's idea for a rule modification.

Mitch, I don't recall this being an issue in other leagues that did not have this rule.

Shawn, I understand the optics of the ratings but the game cripples the player with the ball to limit run after catch so there has to be an attempt to balance with higher offensive ratings. The DBs still catch up to the WRs.

I say go for it!

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I'm a "prove it" kind of guy. Mitch can you run some sims to see what we get with and without?

[Tim-Colts]

I personally don't like any play that uses AI busters to get an advantage. While I agree with Charlie's thoughts that NFL players get deceived 1 or more times per game with well designed route concepts. I still vote no to this type of change.

I have not focused too much on play design rules yet. I'm not sure if I can even edit plays due to the micro size of the game on my hi-res monitor (seemed like a good idea at the time ). So if there are limitations to things like timing pass plays or other such limitations for Pass Medium, maybe we should visit those limitations to help the category.

At this point I'm not sure what length a Pass Medium is for this league, but I would guess in the 5 - 15 yard range. You can design some really nice bullet timed passes and this might help the problem. I know back when Peyton and Marvin were donning the horse shoe, you could not stop the timed slant play. Peyton could probably point out this is where the ball is going and they still completed it better than 90% at a 5+ yard gain. It was a go to play on 3rd and short or goal to go situations.

What would be really nice is if the game did not have bad programming that alerted every DB within a 2 state radius on the ball landing spot as soon as the QB releases. This gives the DB's an advantage even if they are not in coverage on the intended receiver. That is obviously not even close to how it works in real life, but I assume testing must have proven it was needed...

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think I'm with Mitch on this one. Most leagues I have been in eliminated fakes completely, which is our more lenient rule. I believe it will become a game of passing and faking every pattern and hitting the open receiver enough to become more like Madden. There is a reason the rule existed in most leagues

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I believe the creators of FBPRO knew what they were doing when they created 'throw a fake' logic and it's just the end users trying to over-control it out of some kind of unfounded fear that it contributes to AI busting.

Back when I was co-commishing the XFL, we started rolling back rules like this because we fully believed that anything you create offensively in FBPRO can be countered by creative defenses and good play calling. This falls within that IMHO.

I say let coaches be creative. Kill the rule. If you don't like it, get DBs with better IN or make plays that will stop it once you have access to the play in the playpool. Doesn't matter how fast DBs are - that's too much M2M think - plenty of well designed zones and reads kill a lot of good passing plays.

If you really feel it needs to be controlled because you think it will cause too many AI busters, then partially enforce. Maybe allow full unhindered use of 'throw a fake' in PLR, PRD and enforce the current rule for PMs and PSs only. We can even think about it situationally. When would 'throw a fake' typically happen in a game? Third and long? Second and short? If we approach its enforcement situationally, we could say all third down play types (PSR, PMR, PLR) and PRD are exempt from the rule.

[Dean-Atlanta]

On a few occasions I experimented and creating plays that used fakes to try to get a receiver open to see if this is effective, but never submitted any of them. I found ion short passing this can be effective in getting receivers open for 5-7 yard quick passes, where the fake by the WR1 very briefly freezes out the M2M coverage guys of both the WR1 and the WR2, and on a short pass, throwing to the WR2 for a 5-7 yard gain can get well over an 80 percent completion rates. On longer passes, medium and long, I found the DBs had some catch up ability, and the increased effectiveness of this is marginal in value. As a result of these experiments, I never pushed for this change in the rule. When I've created plays with the WR2 faking exactly 5 yards from the WR1, the results have been no more effective than using a .2 second by the WR2 to get the desired effect of faking the DBs.

I see only small gains in allowing this, mostly in short passing, and small risks of allowing AI busting plays.

I vote for trying the rule change Charlie suggests.

If we find this doesn't work, we can put the rule back in and edit the plays. For easier use of these plays (and maybe limiting them like we do timed passes and rollouts) they should have capital F in the play name.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I believe the creators of FBPRO knew what they were doing when they created 'throw a fake' logic and it's just the end users trying to over-control it out of some kind of unfounded fear that it contributes to AI busting.

Steve is right about this. As someone who played extensively in the days of the 95 and 96 versions of the game, we had a LOT of play design rules regarding AI busters because the game back then allowed and rewarded some really egregiously effective and unrealistic results from AI busters. The developers eliminated most of those AI busters from the 98 version that we now use.