My opponent used the same play on defense 45 times in this game, and not once did my offense perform a hot read.

https://mfn63.myfootballnow.com/log/3190

The defensive play is Nickel Strong CB3 Blitz Man, which leaves WR5 uncovered. I can't remember if WR5 would be the TE or the RB, but one of them should be wide open and the offense, no matter their knowledge pre-game, should easily recognize the only nickel play the defense uses.

I wonder if it might be a good idea to add an even bigger penalty when the defense only uses one play out of a whole personnel grouping like the nickel package or base defense. I don't think something like that should be applied to dime or quarter though because there are so few plays available.

Cleveland Browns ( kicker10bog ) = https://mfn63.myfootballnow.com/team/12
Los Angeles (N) Rams ( RBParish ) = https://mfn63.myfootballnow.com/team/22


well did you scout that defensive play??

If you did then i would say it has something to do with your QB ( https://mfn63.myfootballnow.com/player/520 )

If you didnt then really it was because you didnt scout that defensive play they run as much as they .

I scouted it. My team had little prior knowledge of it, but now has 73% knowledge. Both of my QBs have 85 and 82 intelligence. They should EASILY recognize what is going on before they even step on the field in my opinion. It was their only nickel play. I even setup my offense to call a lot more 3 WR plays.

Personally, I just think any time you only have one nickel or base defense play, that play should get a huge penalty. Even a less intelligent QB should be able to recognize that the defense only has 1 nickel play and then exploit it.

Edit:
If I could have scouted it multiple times, I would have. He only used 9 plays in the last 5 games if I remember correctly.

If you have game plan that is designed to bait your opponent into overusing plays in order to get Hot Reads, YOUR team won't call them because it's an _unrealistic_ game plan. I know this is BS, but that's how it is. I tried to pull this off in MFN-1, which is how I found out. I'll have to dig up the thread later.

That seems crazy and sounds like something that should be changed in my opinion. If the defense intentionally only uses 1 play in a particular package, it should be penalized.

That was my argument.

Here's the thread: https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/forums/6/1327?page=1#8109