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.