I don't have that issue, but I agree that there are not enough passing plays that work. We built a SQL database to prove that...

Your stellar passing figures, as the foremost authority on passing efficiency and proficiency:
55% completions, 5.4 ypa and 63.54 rating

I expected that against your team. I threw 300 yards without having access to ANY long passes because they would have been dropped.

Really the two problems I have with 4.5 are

1) Nerfed long passes. Can I get better than 5% chance of my WR more than 10 yards down field making a catch?

2) Broken slants.

If those two things were fixed, then 4.5 would have been all that it was promised to be.

I still think it should be easier to complete passes (slants excluded), but I understand your point. There's still too much noise in the equation for me to understand what the problem is. But I also maintain that we can't adequately assess anything until speed is normalized across positions.

Agreed. My problem isn't that you can complete slant passes >70% of the time because you should. My problem when the CB falls down for no reason.

The only reason you didn't score 4 TDs on those passes was my CB2 has 96 SP. (He has that SP on purpose.)

MFN 1 has #1) out. 200 drops in 4 games so far . Most are by poor receiving backs. #2) is still effective cause guys in zone jump routes bad and whiff at making a play. Putting them yards behind at the catch.

I still think little ratings matter for that play. Its like 5yards and a cut then a sprint again. At those ranges every small guy is similar speed and with bump slowing routes QBs cant find anyone before the pressure comes.

The timing of passes and the fact a slant is a shorter throw makes a great pLay 4.5 and on. Theres really no difference except the yards after the catch. Drop speed in to 40s and not 80+ and who knows what will happen. But my bets are they are good for really short routes but little else.

We could have zone stay back more but the muddled reads and tight man coverage are more of a root cause for slants being over powered. Reads have never been my favorite but they been way off since 4.4 . Or who the passes end up going to...that part has bugged me the most, and qbs dont run.

At least the slant acts like a hot read vs. blitzes. Its a real life counter that wiil be over powered here till speed is looked at .

I like playing heavy CBs , but what's the point. HE will get beat due to the weight penalty. Not any ratings matter cause the fastest he can be is slower than the small guy if hes decent. Theres things to tweak but making slower speeds and heavier weights produce faster 40 times will help the whole game.

I feel this will open things back up. Everyone will be in a better position to make plays on either side of the ball. Its another can of worms, but the foundation will be better.

Look how DBs are effective DL agian. Regular DEs have been nerfed because of it. We knew speed caused sacks then and it still does now. Just a smaller window of success. YEah, they will get pushed around now but the speed difference was then and is now the root cause of sacks and inaccurate throws due to pressure.

Those slants slipped through to normalize stats but I woud really like to see the whole game with speed done right

Passing is down in general. I would like to see coverage loosened up a bit.

My QB is the lowest default rating i have ever used. He throws alot of errant passes and more of them as he fatigues late in games. He also misses many reads and scrambling opportunities, but those are his weak points along with sub 50 accuracy. Yet he remains competitive by hitting backs deep in the flats or catching that occasional slant or fly. My skill players are above 80 speed and pretty skilled technically.

Defending the run or pass is quite easy with a faster defense. Too many passes into tight window resulting in too many contested *****. Something has to change the reads....... just too many to the covered TE.

In general rushing is way down but thats probably due to speed and weight gaps of players. Sacks are higher but still low in general. If qbs ran pressure could be upped, but smaller will be better till that wieght thing is adjusted.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10792#1971749

I used this wr at CB and on this play he was cited for poor coverage but in the game veiwer it was extremely tight coverage and a catch over. His 79 speed and 83 acc. @198 pounds overidded any skill rating for a visually pleasant looking play. Good or bad this is why wrs can be used or a low cover skill guy and some speed.

The best part is he was clearly beat for a td but the stats had no catch allowed for him?

message deleted - I was looking at the wrong stats.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/player/15868

Actually, it was this wr with 88sp 32 ac, 5 man 10 bump. At least He should have lost the bump roll. 88 to 10....is that even working correctly?. Same with route.... 72 was enought to draw a target into tight coverage but it wasnt enough to lose him at the break in the post?

This really makes little sense and the 100 zone FS running himself right out of the play is worse.

Also, is familiarity gained carried over when facing the same plays but playing on the other side of the ball?

If not that would be a good thing to make harder for out of postion players to learn. As my wr is a seasoned vet with decent play familiarity. It just doesn't make sense he knows that play the same at wr and cb.

I am not against this type of play as Julio Jones would make for a nice safety. If he wasn't playing so much wr and spent more years at that position learning it