BDL 2018 Week 3 - Berlin Blitzkrieg @ Oklahoma City EF5s

[Whicker]

11 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

OKC looking for two deep safeties

 

Huh?

[Whicker]

Nevermind. Please don't answer that. I don't want to argue 

[ny92mike]

 

5 minutes ago, Whicker said:

Huh?

"Seam routes are the classic counter to a 2 deep safety look, and this should put a lot of pressure on a group that's still missing their best player" - "With our deep routes keeping the safeties deep,"

 

[Whicker]

2 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

 

"Seam routes are the classic counter to a 2 deep safety look, and this should put a lot of pressure on a group that's still missing their best player" - "With our deep routes keeping the safeties deep,"

 

Lol. Okay. I said I didn't want to get into an argument, so I won't. But please... don't leave out things when you quote someone.

[ny92mike]

Just now, Whicker said:

Lol. Okay. I said I didn't want to get into an argument, so I won't. But please... don't leave out things when you quote someone.

Okay....please don't act like I'm being shady by leaving things out of a quote.

 

[Whicker]

8 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Okay....please don't act like I'm being shady by leaving things out of a quote.

 

 

On 9/21/2018 at 7:11 PM, ny92mike said:

@Ragnarok

 

@Whicker

 

Seam routes are the classic counter to a 2 deep safety look, and this should put a lot of pressure on a group that's still missing their best player. If Berlin tries to use a single high safety, we should have a lot of success with our deep passing game.

With our deep routes keeping the safeties deep

 

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, Whicker said:

 

 

lol...was waiting for it.  Glad you quoted it all.  

When you mention something twice, with the first quote nearing the end of a paragraph and the last one starting it, this is the verbiage I'm talking about.  You obviously were thinking he'd be playing two deep safeties.  So no I didn't see the need in posting the statement of, "IF" Berlin "TRIES" to use a single high safety, we should have a lot of success with our deep passing game.  It doesn't change the fact that you're expecting two high safeties.

I'm not trying to argue about this and I really don't think you are either.  Simply disagree in the wording or whatever, but going on about isn't something I care to do.   

[Ragnarok]

Our secondary isn't missing Bouye.  

 

[Whicker]

8 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

lol...was waiting for it.  Glad you quoted it all.  

When you mention something twice, with the first quote nearing the end of a paragraph and the last one starting it, this is the verbiage I'm talking about.  You obviously were thinking he'd be playing two deep safeties.  So no I didn't see the need in posting the statement of, "IF" Berlin "TRIES" to use a single high safety, we should have a lot of success with our deep passing game.  It doesn't change the fact that you're expecting two high safeties.

I'm not trying to argue about this and I really don't think you are either.  Simply disagree in the wording or whatever, but going on about isn't something I care to do.   

"Seam routes are the classic counter to a 2 deep safety look" I guess I shouldn't have included this. This was meant to stress the point that 3 deep receivers puts stress on safeties, not that I was looking to counter specifically a 2 deep safety look. If your 2 deep safeties aren't enough, then the solution isn't to go 1 safety.

"With the deep routes keeping the safeties deep" I guess this should have been an if. Deep passing against a single high safety look was our priority with it shifting to underneath against more deep safeties.

It wasn't about expecting or looking for anything. It was a simple "attack deep until the underneath becomes available to us" gameplan. I guess you're right and I just need to be a lot more specific with my verbiage. Will lead to longer gameplans.

[Whicker]

4 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Our secondary isn't missing Bouye.  

 

Man I really do need to be way more specific. Put pressure on a safety group that's still missing its best player.

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, Whicker said:

It wasn't about expecting or looking for anything. It was a simple: attack deep until the underneath becomes available to us" gameplan. I guess you're right and I just need to be a lot more specific with my verbiage. Will lead to longer gameplans.

I understand I'm the new guy, but some of these games plans are difficult to wrap the head around.  I really wish that they were simplified.  Run heavy / Pass heavy or on defense stop the run / limit the pass.  Well perhaps not that simple but you get my point.  

Game plans that are filled with counter after counter of what the opponent may or may not do just clouds up what the plan is and puts doubt, at least in my mind that they weren't really sure what their opponent was doing so they planned for everything. 

It isn't hard to spit out a game plan that has a scenario for everything, so when I get these types of game plans,  I have to pick it apart word by word, its tedious really and I probably do miss something because in one paragraph the safety or linebacker is covering x player and in another they are stuffing the rush.  At least in my point of view the shorter game plan shows me that they have a game plan and are willing to stick by it.  Whether that be stopping the run or pass or a bit of both, to me when the game plan is simplified and you nail what your opponent is looking to do it is so much more rewarding than posting a game plan that seems to cover every possible scenario, when the shorter to the point game plan ultimately gives the bigger picture.  When you leave it up to the reader to decipher the game plan and how the multitude of counter and if statements, you can't blame the reader for the way they interpret it.  So I beg you not to create longer gameplans. 

[Whicker]

43 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

I understand I'm the new guy, but some of these games plans are difficult to wrap the head around.  I really wish that they were simplified.  Run heavy / Pass heavy or on defense stop the run / limit the pass.  Well perhaps not that simple but you get my point.  

Game plans that are filled with counter after counter of what the opponent may or may not do just clouds up what the plan is and puts doubt, at least in my mind that they weren't really sure what their opponent was doing so they planned for everything. 

It isn't hard to spit out a game plan that has a scenario for everything, so when I get these types of game plans,  I have to pick it apart word by word, its tedious really and I probably do miss something because in one paragraph the safety or linebacker is covering x player and in another they are stuffing the rush.  At least in my point of view the shorter game plan shows me that they have a game plan and are willing to stick by it.  Whether that be stopping the run or pass or a bit of both, to me when the game plan is simplified and you nail what your opponent is looking to do it is so much more rewarding than posting a game plan that seems to cover every possible scenario, when the shorter to the point game plan ultimately gives the bigger picture.  When you leave it up to the reader to decipher the game plan and how the multitude of counter and if statements, you can't blame the reader for the way they interpret it.  So I beg you not to create longer gameplans. 

I will try to limit the word count on my gameplans, but I disagree with your sentiment overall.

I agree with your point about countering everything in principle, but I really don't think that's going on here at all. On offense I described my general goal, my outside receivers, my inside receivers, my running game, and my protection. That's very typical essay format. Yes, I should have made it more clear that my priority was to hit deep against single high and underneath against two deep, but I feel like having two levels to your offense is typical and certainly not heading towards countering everything.
On defense, the nature of the voting process here is you must show how you are going to defend different formations. If you put your starting lineup as a 3-4 with 2 CBs and your opponent runs out 3 WRs and you don't mention in your gameplan about bringing in a 3rd CB, you will absolutely be dinged for having "An LB on a WR" or something along those lines. On defense I described my pressure (something that I feel has gone unnoticed by I digress), my plan against Berlin's base offense and a variation of it, and then my plan against Berlin's Blitz Offense which I was expecting and IMO takes a different defense to defend. I could cut some of the fluff, but all of my paragraphs in my gameplan were necessary.

I really, really disagree with you about it being easy to spit out specific gameplans. I literally took an 8x11.5 sheet of paper and drew a diagram of Berlin's base offense on one side and their Blitz offense on the other in order to make sure I had to correct personnel and assignments on each one. I also pride myself with being able to come out with small wrinkles (or big wrinkles such as Smashmouth Spread or my plan against Louisiana last year) such as the over technique to scheme Von open to give my opponent's unique looks. I spend a ton of time creating and writing my gameplans and I don't do that because it's easy.

Another problem with simplified gameplans is that vague gameplan vs vague gameplan comes down solely to player evaluation. This may seem like it's great, but it's not. Argumentation over player evaluation is a complete headache of PFF said this, stats say that, advanced statistics say another, this one super specific stat I found makes my guy seem good, etc. I'm one of the biggest arguer in BDL, but I try to stay away from arguments about player evaluations. I would much much rather talk/argue gameplan specifics all day on Tuesdays than anything about how good your rotational player is.

 

[ny92mike]

18 minutes ago, Whicker said:

I will try to limit the word count on my gameplans, but I disagree with your sentiment overall.

I agree with your point about countering everything in principle, but I really don't think that's going on here at all. On offense I described my general goal, my outside receivers, my inside receivers, my running game, and my protection. That's very typical essay format. Yes, I should have made it more clear that my priority was to hit deep against single high and underneath against two deep, but I feel like having two levels to your offense is typical and certainly not heading towards countering everything.
On defense, the nature of the voting process here is you must show how you are going to defend different formations. If you put your starting lineup as a 3-4 with 2 CBs and your opponent runs out 3 WRs and you don't mention in your gameplan about bringing in a 3rd CB, you will absolutely be dinged for having "An LB on a WR" or something along those lines. On defense I described my pressure (something that I feel has gone unnoticed by I digress), my plan against Berlin's base offense and a variation of it, and then my plan against Berlin's Blitz Offense which I was expecting and IMO takes a different defense to defend. I could cut some of the fluff, but all of my paragraphs in my gameplan were necessary.

I really, really disagree with you about it being easy to spit out specific gameplans. I literally took an 8x11.5 sheet of paper and drew a diagram of Berlin's base offense on one side and their Blitz offense on the other in order to make sure I had to correct personnel and assignments on each one. I also pride myself with being able to come out with small wrinkles (or big wrinkles such as Smashmouth Spread or my plan against Louisiana last year) such as the over technique to scheme Von open to give my opponent's unique looks. I spend a ton of time creating and writing my gameplans and I don't do that because it's easy.

Another problem with simplified gameplans is that vague gameplan vs vague gameplan comes down solely to player evaluation. This may seem like it's great, but it's not. Argumentation over player evaluation is a complete headache of PFF said this, stats say that, advanced statistics say another, this one super specific stat I found makes my guy seem good, etc. I'm one of the biggest arguer in BDL, but I try to stay away from arguments about player evaluations. I would much much rather talk/argue gameplan specifics all day on Tuesdays than anything about how good your rotational player is.

 

You're right, I shouldn't have said it was easy to create a game plan.  It isn't at all easy,  I'm sure you did take time to create the game plan.  When I said that I wasn't clear, apologies.  I never meant to have it read that it was easy to create the game plan .  I'm saying that to create a game plan, loaded with counters and if so's, is easier to put out over a game plan that doesn't have all these things because the room for error is removed.  

I don't think that you did a lot of this with your game plan, the if statements as I pointed out in my first post was from @Ragnarok (tagged you so you didn't think I was fingering you behind your back...lol).  

 

  

[SirA1]

Tornados

[pheltzbahr]

I like the EF5s here.