If my guy doesn't throw 6 pick 6's, I'm rioting.

It was better, but I'm going to tune it up a bit higher for the week 11 games.

I am massively concerned that changes have broken the passing game entirely in certain ways. One shocking thing I found after yet another headscratching debacle today:

My three RB's that have played significant time this season and last:
Last season: 54 targets, 33 receptions, 4 drops
This season (thus far): 24 targets, ZERO receptions, 5 drops

All of my receivers have also suffered massive performance drops. Catch percentages:
Gomez:77.6 down to 66.2
Stine:83.9 down to 50.9
McIlvain:60 down to 33.3
Beyer:63.6 down to 44.4

QB Denault:
Year Team Att CompPct Yds Yds/Att Sk/Yd TDs Lng Int Rat
2077 Carolina 185 79 42.7 914 4.94 34/267 4 34 3 58.70
2076 Carolina 481 322 66.9 3,535 7.35 35/214 31 72 3 107.38

All of this is extremely concerning. It feels to me like I am not playing the same game that I have been playing for years, not even close. I don't have any answers for what is actually happening.

Looking at the result today, we yet again statistically dominated an opponent and lost. It is shocking how frequently this happens in MFN. When you are running for 8.45 yards per carry to your opponents 2.92, you win. However, when you throw in an absolutely insane 4 INT's to none their way, on top of a ridiculous 0/3 on fourth down conversions (with an 8.45 y/c average, go figure), that's SEVEN wasted offensive possessions, and you end up losing a game that you dominated.

If player attributes mean anything, looking at the players involved here, and knowing the 4 to 0 INT's result, only the most unbelievably mentally deficient would guess that would go against us. It is a shockingly nonsensical result, and I am getting so sick of seeing this kind of thing. The most critical plays often tend to entirely and completely ignore player attributes in how or why they happen.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21496#3928278

I'd love to know a bit more about what happened here. As far as I can tell, one of my CB's should have been in man coverage on this RB, and should also have had an incredibly easy time with the assignment. How is it that he was entirely left to run free completely uncovered. I don't recall having ever seen such an egregious blown coverage in all of my MFN history.

I believe no one is assigned to that receiver. He’s technically a FB target which is a wr5 in the defensive assignment. That defensive play leaves him uncovered.

This is what I thought was once a bug. But now I see it as a counter balance to the defensive play you called. This keeps the defensive guessing and it’s the only pass play out of that formation available in my book.

There are a few defensive plays that depending on the offensive formation that just leave guys open. This is one of those scenarios. 6 times, under this code, I have seen similar situations. Definitely up some from previous codes where the qb would mostly throw short.

As Ray said, your opponent picked a specific offensive play.

You picked a defensive play against that formation which leaves an eligible receiver uncovered.

That's not a game bug, that's your playcalling. Mantra Seth always had was to pick defensive plays that ensure receivers 1-5 are covered.

Your opponent had a play selected in his playbook and rules that can work well - as it did - when in a favourable matchup.

i don't think that's something to complain about.

Now if you'd said that one or more of your players should've recognised and broken off their assignment, then that's a fair enough argument, but one for a diff sim iteration I guess. For me there's a parallel to zone vs run - lbs didn't break off zone quickly enough, in this case, too busy blitzing to notice eligible receiver running that route. Even if they'd stopped blitzing would they have responded quickly enough? Doubt it.

PA TE Drag
Details
Diagram
Assignments
QB: Running Play/Play Action
RB: Pass Block
FB: 5 Yards (Right)
FB: Drag Right
TE: Drag Left
TE: 5 Yards (Right)
LT: Pass Block
LG: Pass Block
C: Pass Block
RG: Pass Block
RT: Pass Block
Attack #2
Details
Diagram
Assignments
LDE: Blitz Right
LDE: Blitz Middle
DT: Blitz Right
DT: Blitz Left
RDE: Blitz Middle
SLB: Blitz Left
MLB: Blitz Middle
WLB: Man WR-4
CB: Man WR-2
CB: Man WR-1
SS: Man WR-3

The way I read it, there are 4 receivers running routes, one eligible player blocking, and my defense has 4 receivers that should be covered. Am I really missing something here?

If the answer is "well you clearly can't use a goal line defense against a goal line offensive formation", then this raises even deeper issues. I don't see how anybody could say that and be ok with it.

Slowed it down to x.2. The receiver definitely wasn't the RB so it's not the case that the play was wrong.

My big bugbear is we know WR1-5 are defined for defensive plays, but would be good to know exactly which offensive player is defined as which WR number.

What I'm going to throw out there is that if the play you picked covers WR1-4, then WR5 isn't covered. So if that guy, the TE out wide is regarded as WR5 by the game engine, then your formation doesn't cover him.

Looking into it that way, can see your confusion - traditionally isn't the back WR5?

EDIT: And assuming the TE was WR1-4, so should've been covered then it's not something like a low intelligence thing leading to a busted coverage?

Pause play, before snap look where 20 and 48(?) are lined up - in neutral zone. 20 is lined ahead of the LB/DE.
Set speed to x0.2 and play, we see lineman instablocks the 20.

I suspect he was the player to cover the TE - lined up where he was, insta blocked, meaning TE wide open to run route.

Now is that a bug? If you click on the defensive play from the log, you see the CBs out wide - presumably as if covering WRs. As there aren't any, facing a tight goal line formation, makes sense they'd be closer in rather than towards the boundary.

I think the game engine is correct on this - linemen able to block before CB able to start coverage due to where the CB is. Maybe it's a graphical bug showing him closer to the LoS than he really was... but looking from that perspective, it's highly plausible the linemen engaged before he could cover, which would explain the seeming blown coverage.

Ultimately, it's one play and I don't want this to bury the prior and far more important post.

The existence of this play opens up a deep rabbit hole of issues. Can you use goal line defenses or not? Either way, you are leaving an opening to get screwed over, simply because this one offensive play exists.