mdjseymour wrote: so, if speed isnt 'that' important... should i stop training it in my 17 speed (uncapped obviously) CB's lol?

For CB speed seems to be the most important, again a guess. When the WR overruns the CB there is no tackle chance for him, if it is done in this way

I've also noticed little to no difference in play with a speed increase. the only position I can actually say has consistently improved with speed is KR.

My WR core has catching way out in front of the other attributes. The secondary skills are:

Footwork
Carrying
Positioning
Agility

in that order. My guys don't seem to catch it too much more than anyone else's receivers but my good opponents always seem amazed by the YAC I get. The footwork, carrying, and agility virtually guarantees at least one broken tackle per catch. I started building my core this way when I realized that completion percentage will always suck so it makes more sense to spend time training WR to make plays after the catch. So far so good. My QB now has 1500 yards passing in 5 games, 3 of which were human opponents.

iMan24 wrote: wait how do you know the YAC?

Way back when I was part of the research group, I did an independent study on passing routes. This study was actually part of the reasons I quit since I soon realized it was easier to determine things with the same team controlled then by meshing together groups of varying data. I published a summary of my results on that forum but I kept some good stuff just for me . You guys may scout but the research and number crunching is where I put in the time. Let's just say I can more or less tell where each pass thrown flies to on the field. There are a very limited number of routes so it isn't too hard if you are willing to catalog a lot of data.

But to make it easy on you guys, you can simply assume that any yardage after 20 yards is pure YAC. None of the routes I studied seem to have more than 20 yards before the ball hits. Thus if a 80 yard passing TD happens, you can safely assume that about 60 yards of it (at least) were YAC. If you want to get really specific you can look at who missed the tackles in order to determine the earliest point at which a receiver caught the ball. It's mostly guesswork but it's about the only area of GI where my data has consistently matched up no matter what the situation.

If you put in the time, you can figure a lot of things out about the game that aren't out in the open anywhere yet. It's just a matter of doing constant controlled studies. I'd definitely attribute a lot of my success simply to knowing things about the game that almost nobody else does. I'd like to think Merc and Pstimpel are successful partly for the same reasons (though they not admit it). If you ever sit down and talk with one of those guys, you'll soon realize that they have far more advanced theories and ideas about the game engines s well as a few tips you won't find anywhere else.

pstimpel wrote: Squish wrote: I'd like to think Merc and Pstimpel are successful partly for the same reasons (though they not admit it). If you ever sit down and talk with one of those guys, you'll soon realize that they have far more advanced theories and ideas about the game engines s well as a few tips you won't find anywhere else. Have to add some things: Merc and me had many hours of conversation during this year. Combined with the results from the lab rats research and a good portion of "wild guesses" you come to a point, where you can answer many question by doing what Squish did too: looking into game stats, collect the information, sort them out and try to put statistical approaches "over" this data. Of course this consumes time, but it pays back with success or at least with knowledge/ideas what was wrong in a special situation. And to make one thing clear: We both don't have any knowledge for the game engine itself that is not public / can be found in community. So this success is not due cheating - if you believe it or not. The other part of "success" is scouting our opponents - Merc is a real genius in that. And I dont mean "use the scout button". I mean look into the last games of the opp and try to find holes, check if he plays the same settings again and again, and so on...Again this consumes time, but this is the way grid-iron is: spend time for having success, and more time = more success. Of course you can beat teams by pure power (means outleveling them by skills), but this will not work for ever. And we both beat some guys during the last seasons that were much stronger - again by spent time, IMO.

well put... i know i scout opponents etc, and its resulted in a few wins this season i really did not expect to get.. while having a team of higher skilled players will usually win you the game, not taking account of your opponent will possibly loose you it...

Squish wrote: I rarely scout so I must be way ahead of you guys on research or something

lol... that must be the case lol