Now that the current season is in the PO rounds, and looking at the players season stats, I dont see a major problem related to the speed attribute factor, as has been thoroughly addressed by warrior and jdb above.

On offense, the Bronco passing game improved slightly, finished 2nd in yardage, 8th in completions per game, and 7th in TDs per game.

On defense, Bronco's were 2nd in completion allowed %, yet only 27th in interceptions. 1st in TD passes allowed per game. The position fatigue setting Im currently using for the secondary is 40, linebackers also 40. I have also used 30 for both, depending on the level of subs.

Overall, I have not noticed a difference in fast, high rated corners getting beat deep than before. Same for LBs.

My CB1,CB2, and CB3 stats are very similar to their previous season.
My CB1, who was cut by the auto manager, had an outstanding 28% catch allowed.
My MLB also had an extraordinary season, with 25% catch allowed.
We did not get many interceptions, as noted above.

I will be more aware, based on what has been discussed and posted about, and if I see a play that warrants a look and concern, I will post it. I would suggest sticky threads dedicated to questionable plays, both offense and defense. Where players did not perform near what they should have based on attributes, such as speed and acceleration. Without knowing the fatigue involved at the time of the play, it makes it more difficult to evaluate and analyze. Why a much slower offensive player can outrun a much faster defensive player is relative, and it does happen in RL NFL. How much? I dont know, most, if not all, of the skill players are all sub 4.5-6 40 yd dash speed.

How the offense and defense ranked is a reflection on how the team did in won - loss record, which led the league at 15-2. I currently own 9 teams, 1 is RO only. I agree with some of what has been stated about game performance and results. I have lost 3 games in the last 2 weeks to AI teams, which is more than usual. Including the last regular season game in TEST, a 24-21 loss to Kansas City, very unexpected. But, no complaint, I would rather see the AI teams become more of a challenge than less, especially since there are fewer human team owners in the game.

I agree with JDB - can't fix everything in one release, it just introduces way too many potential problems.

Can I suggest each release just focuses on a small, defined area - something that means les working parts need to change, so less chance of introducing more issues, and keeping a single pinned thread for that planned release?

Other comments, observations should then be moved to another thread so they are preserved and visible - but need to avoid a scattergun approach of introducing other things into planned release sticky?

re Grandad's post.

I think it would be more productive for "questionable" plays that if you spot something, then look across the league games to see if it's something that is a regular occurance. If you can find a number of similar players, the create a post in a "questionable plays" thread with a defined heading and brief detail of the issue.

It would help JDB immensely to have a brief description of the issue, with a decent number of examples. I'm as guilty as anyone of overwriting in posts...

One of my big issues atm is the Play Overuse "penalty". Just played a game in a different league, where my opponent used 1 defensive play 80%+ of the time, no overuse. Same thing in another league, where the owner uses one defense more than 90%. Why are there a few very successful defensive plays totally unaffected by overuse??

Here are two of the defensive plays.....

1.,Defensive Play: 4-3 Under Double LB Blitz
Pass Key

from souting in another league, upcoming game.........

Double LB Blitz

DBs: Man
LBs: Blitz 2
Avg Per Call: 1.5
Times Called: 11
Familiarity: bar was at approx 25%

2. from scouting for the upcoming game in a different league........

Man QB Spy

DBs: 1-Deep Man
LBs: Zone In
Avg Per Call: 4.6
Times Called: 54 ( previous game)

The team/owner using this def scheme is currently 8-0.

when "details" were clicked on for the QB Spy play, it shows zero use of the play. there is also zero familiarity with the play by my defense. This occurs with several defensive plays that are extensively used. These def plays have an unfair advantage with the current game engine and code. I will start doing so In TEST, to show the problem. When scouting these particular defenses, they are always at or near the top for yards allowed per play, there is no familiarity, and no overuse penalty during the game.

As has been mentioned, blitzing all the time with 1 and 2 has a significant advantage compared to normal type defensive gameplans with a variable mix of coverages. Even moreso when there is no overuse penalty. The 43 Under Double LB Blitz completely shut down a running game ranked #2 in the league (after 11 games) that was averaging over 175 yds per game to 8 yds on 18 attempts.

In my opinion, and Im pretty sure than Im not alone, this is not the intent of the game design and simulation. RO goes to the opposite end of the extreme, where there is zero control over the play selection and useage. Would like to see a middle ground between the two extremes, which can only be accomplished with auto control coach. Coach settings would be great, similar to coach preferences, only with more impact. Where you could have a more aggressive coach offensively (going for it in certain 4th down situation for example) or one that blitzes more frequently, or a conservative coach style. Making coaches more important to the game has always been something that has been asked for by many. I'm not concerned about coaches ratings for player improvement, thats nice but I havnt experienced a significant difference in player development yet in over 7 years of playing this game. Ive had 50 rated coaches do just as well as 90 rated. That would be another item to TEST and confirm.

Just finished Div round PO game. Browns vs Broncos. final score Broncos 24-9

Browns offense: rushing - 25 atts/only 40 yards, passing - 32/18/3int - 218 yds

Def plays used and avgs.

1. Play: Man Cover 1....Formation: 3-4 Normal, used 17 times, 6.9 avg, d
Off Familiarity: 0%
Def Familiarity: 81%

2. 4-3 Under, Crash Right, used 13 times, 1.8 avg (best defense result)
Off Familiarity: 88% Def Fam: 13% (if count and avg are correct, this means that the offenses familiarity with the def play did not provide any increase in their performance)

3. 4-3 Under, Double Blitz, used 7 times, 4.3 avg.
Off Familiarity: 88%...... Def Familiarity: 16%

the other two defensive plays were minimally used, once each.

There was only one play overuse penalty, at start of the 4th qtr .... 2-8-CLE 41 (15:00) 9-Stanley Chandler pass complete to 84-Clint Thomas to DEN 38 for 20 yards. Tackle by 36-Kenneth Tomasini . 84-Clint Thomas did some fancy footwork there. You can tell that the offense is starting to figure out how to beat that defensive play.
Offensive Play: Strong I Big TE Post
Defensive Play: 4-3 Under Crash Right
Pass Key
Rule: Normal Defense vs 122, 221 offense (to prevent auto GL defense)

So, no matter how many times used, the Man Cover 1 does not get any overuse penalty. The Crash Right did. Which confirms my statement about the inequality of the overuse penalty. In addition, the Man Cover 1 is a commonly used defense, but the Brown offense had zero familiarity with it.

Play: Man Cover 1
Formation: 3-4 Normal
LB: Zone In
Sec: 1-Deep Man

Did you mean this play above? It is not penalized because there’s no blitz. On the same note, I found a zone play that brings a cb that is not penalized as well.

Second, the verbiage in the play by play text indicates that the outcome was changed. Offensively the same play counts are tallied while the penalty occurring is actually a boost to the other teams players skill ratings.

Defensively, GL is not penalized either, correct? One reason I want to try an all GL defense.

Yes on the play above. And I believe so Ray, GL does not get overuse penalty, and there have been those who have used it exclusively also. I heard it worked pretty well, but never tried it. As I remember, Seth posted in Gen Forum about how to beat it.

So what are the options for addressing the problem?

1. Introduce overuse penalties for GL defences
2. Enforce GL defences can only be used vs GL offences (23,31)?

2 would mean no using op defence vs other formations, BUT that then takes away from owners choice. Ideally, if an owner wants to select GL defence 100% of the time, then that's their right - BUT it would be ineffective as a tactic.

I'd add that imo part of the problem is that blitzing is simply too good within the game. That's why a GL defence can be effective, but can also be beaten because it fails to cover all 5 eligible receivers.

Not everyone wants more simulation to RL football. Which is why any controls for minimum active play selection and maximum use of a play per game should be a league decision and controllable by the league admin, same as injury rate.

Back when we had three to four times the number who were playing MFN, 2-3 yrs ago, I had two leagues with rules for a full 40/30 active plays with max use of 6 X per game. There were many who shared the same interest in creating more RL simulation of NFL football. Both leagues were full, all teams taken and 90% plus compliance with the rules. There were a few who could just not get their gameplans and rules squared away, whether or not intentional. Those two leagues were the only ones at the time where a long pass play might work occasionally without getting blitzed and sacked 90% of the time. Where 2 & 3 deep zone coverages would be used. I let both leagues go after we had lost more than half the owners who did not want to subscribe, did not want to see ads interfering with the game, and/or had lost interest in the game due to non-improvement to the game engine. It verified that there were more than enough MFN players who wanted that type of game.

So, back to the question at hand, the best option to me is to put the controls in for the auto manager and coach to add plays if there is a deficiency, same as for the roster, and to have the AI coach change a play (other than using a GL out of realistic situation, like 3rd and 10), along with a QB "audible" function based on the QBs ability to read a defense and recognize a blitz if overused by a defense. Blitzing should be based on the NFL % of blitz. "The average blitz rate in the NFL is approximately 26% to 29% of defensive snaps, varying by season and analytical tracking". Again, only way to get that simulation or anywhere close to it is by use of the AI Coach and code, and league admin control/settings. Any other way?

Add, here is the AI search/answer to the question of "How many times is a play used in an NFL game?"

An exact specific play is typically repeated 4 to 10 times per game, though core concepts and specific blocking schemes can be run much more often.
Frequency of Play Calling -Core Concepts: Coaches often reuse a specific play design or passing concept 4 or more times in a single game to get a return on the time spent practicing it.
Back-to-Back Repetitions: Running the exact same play consecutively is rare, but teams have famously run the same play up to 10 or 12 times in a row when it proves unstoppable against a specific defense.
Variation over Identity: Playbooks feature 75 to 100 pass plays and 15 to 20 run plays, but offenses disguise identical core plays using different formations, pre-snap motions, and personnel groupings.

Well, thats the general overview, it will vary by team and coaches preference, which is another thing I'd like to see developed in MFN, the influence of the coaches, both on player development and on the play selection and use, based on their individual preferences and rating. I think it would be great if, as in real life NFL, the coaches made a significatnt difference in MFN. Or again, have that choice as a league control for those who want more realism.