:: Wild card playoffs a

http://www.thecfl.us/forum/

Wild card playoffs a http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1983	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Taco [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:06 am ]
Post subject:	Wild card playoffs a
New league file: http://www.thecfl.net/cfl.zip Live viewer for wild card games: http://www.thecfl.net/CAMViewer/ Upcoming schedule (all sims occur at 6am EDT) Sun, 11/20 - midweek Tue, 11/22 - divisional playoffs Thu, 11/24 - Thanksgiving Sun, 11/27 - midweek Mon, 11/28 - conference championships Tue, 11/29 - midweek Wed, 11/30 - CFL Bowl VI Live Chat, time TBD Fri, 12/2 - 2009 season begins, staff hiring 1

Author:	Taco [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:10 am ]
Post subject:
We won! I was very happy with the field position we gave New Orleans: their average drive started at their own 19 yard line, and three of their drives started inside their own 5. Meanwhile, two of our drives started inside their 35...resulting in 10 points...and that was difference, 20-10 Durham. Good game, Meatholes! While watching the game I saw the dreaded "This appears to be a serious injury" come up about my starting RT, Cope. Yeah, I'd say a compound leg fracture "appears" to be serious. Also, my starting WLB broke some ribs and won't play again this year. QB Kimber is now questionable with a sprained thumb, but there's no way he's missing this game. Up next, Atlantic Division champion Charleston. Our backups beat their backups in week 17, but in week 9 our starters played and they won 20-17. I think we have a shot in this one, if we can contain Hurst again. We held him to 0 TDs and 3 INTs in week 9. 2 of those INTs were by CB Mebane who is out with a separated shoulder. We need one of our young defensive backs to step up and make a couple big plays this time. Good luck, JJ, it should be a good one!

Author:	timmynausea [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:56 am ]
Post subject:
Some great games this week. I watched a couple on the viewer. Congrats to all the winners.

Author:	Joe [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:11 am ]
Post subject:
Good game, Fonzie. I really thought you had me, and then your WR fumbled inside your own 30, giving Rounds an extremely short field to work with. I'd cut that WR's ass if I were you.

Author:	MrBug708 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:27 am ]
Post subject:
Congrats on the win Tulsa. I just dont have the horses to win much these days

Author:	JJ Smitty [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:49 am ]
Post subject:
Great games, congrats to the winners... Next up is my main rival Durham/Taco, this could end up being a very good game. I predict us winning a close one because we are at home. Good Luck Taco, it should be a good one.

Author:	fantastic flying froggies [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:07 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, we won! The game was close to savage at times, with a lot of penalties and many injuries (I lost both starting WRs). I am happy that my gameplanning kinda worked, I thought NY was vulnerable to the run and so I knew I had to run the ball and finally managed to do so, 44 carries for 170 yds, giving me very good time of possession. I also knew I had to stop Cowley, but that part didn't work so well. He had 8 catches for 104 yds and 1 TD, and also got 223 return yards, including a 91 yd kickoff return for a TD. The guy even recovered a damn fumble! Fortunately for me, Manos stepped up and had a similar kind of day, 6 catches for 115 yds and 1 TD. Defense and special teams also had good games, with 2 interceptions and a blocked punt? Now, we face a Hartford team we managed to beat during the regular season, but I have very little confidence we can do it again...

Author:	Noisaddct [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:16 am ]
Post subject:
Congrats Detroit...good luck in the playoffs

Author:	Fonzie [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote53e738f="Joe"]Good game, Fonzie. I really thought you had me, and then your WR fumbled inside your own 30, giving Rounds an extremely short field to work with. I'd cut that WR's ass if I were you.[/quote53e738f] Good game Joe - I'm extremely disappointed we lost this one, as I think the our defense did quite a good job on Rounds and Barre and I thought that would be the key victory. Your guys took advantage of every opening we gave you and took the game away. I don't blame that WR (Higginbotham) who fumbled - he hadn't fumbled in two whole seasons before today. In fact, I put more of the blame on our so-called #1 WR, Carl Markey, who had this stat line: thrown to 16 times, 5 catches, 3 drops, 49 yards, 1 TD. That's pretty terrible, and he'll be hitting the FA market this offseason. Good luck to whoever gets him, as he's got some of the worst hands in the league and may have tipped the balance of this playoff game toward Sacramento. Best wishes in the playoffs, Joe!

Author:	Fonzie [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Dola- Despite poor performances from my wideouts, I put much more of the blame for this loss on my head coach for calling a passing play in the situation when Higginbotham fumbled (1st & 10 from our own 19 with 6:47 left in the game with us leading 13-10). Which brings me to this rant (which is not intended to sound like sour grapes - we didn't deserve to win this game): Today we had a gameplan aimed at a 65-35 run-pass distribution, and what did we get? We threw the ball 47 times compared to just 24 runs. If we were behind that might be sensible, but [i377d396]we were ahead for almost the entire game![/i377d396] I've complained about gameplanning problems before, but this is about as bad an implementation of a gameplan as I've seen. I'm at the point of thinking that I shouldn't bother gameplanning anymore. What's the point in setting a gameplan that dictates a 65-35 run-pass distribution if you're going to end up with the opposite? What's more, we were set up to run heavily to the right in every single game situation, and what kind of run distribution did we get? 7 runs to the left, 14 to the middle, 3 to the right. I'm sure that one contributing factor is that my coach is just "Average" at offensive playcalling, but since when did being "average" translate into "doing exactly the opposite of what's in the gameplan?"[/end rant] Somebody explain this to me. Please. Okay, I feel better now that I've gotten that off my chest. Still, seeing this kind of thing does suck some of the fun out of this game for me.

Author:	TurfToe [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:
[quotebe7e035="JJ Smitty"]Great games, congrats to the winners... Next up is my main rival Durham/Taco, this could end up being a very good game. I predict us winning a close one because we are at home. Good Luck Taco, it should be a good one.[/quotebe7e035] Smitty, we both know why you'll win this one...I'm thinking solid play from the TE.

Author:	TurfToe [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote19e602b="Fonzie"]Dola- Despite poor performances from my wideouts, I put much more of the blame for this loss on my head coach for calling a passing play in the situation when Higginbotham fumbled (1st & 10 from our own 19 with 6:47 left in the game with us leading 13-10). Which brings me to this rant (which is not intended to sound like sour grapes - we didn't deserve to win this game): Today we had a gameplan aimed at a 65-35 run-pass distribution, and what did we get? We threw the ball 47 times compared to just 24 runs. If we were behind that might be sensible, but [i19e602b]we were ahead for almost the entire game![/i19e602b] I've complained about gameplanning problems before, but this is about as bad an implementation of a gameplan as I've seen. I'm at the point of thinking that I shouldn't bother gameplanning anymore. What's the point in setting a gameplan that dictates a 65-35 run-pass distribution if you're going to end up with the opposite? What's more, we were set up to run heavily to the right in every single game situation, and what kind of run distribution did we get? 7 runs to the left, 14 to the middle, 3 to the right. I'm sure that one contributing factor is that my coach is just "Average" at offensive playcalling, but since when did being "average" translate into "doing exactly the opposite of what's in the gameplan?"[/end rant] Somebody explain this to me. Please. Okay, I feel better now that I've gotten that off my chest. Still, seeing this kind of thing does suck some of the fun out of this game for me.[/quote19e602b] I don't have the software handy, but what does your coaches stats look like? I'd can his ass. More importantly, can bad coach stats impact the gameplan this much? This has been a problem for you all year and a front office clean up appears to be in order, whether it's bad stats or not.

Author:	MrBug708 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:
This play killed me 3-05-TUL24 (02:22) TUL 9 Lowe pass fell incomplete, intended for 39 Welton. HON 93 Schwirzke defended the pass. Penalty: HON - Defensive Holding.

Author:	Fonzie [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:17 am ]
Post subject:
[quote9a4ff89="TurfToe"]I don't have the software handy, but what does your coaches stats look like? I'd can his ass. More importantly, can bad coach stats impact the gameplan this much? This has been a problem for you all year and a front office clean up appears to be in order, whether it's bad stats or not.[/quote9a4ff89] Here's Ken Wickes' profile: Motivation: Very Good Discipline: Very Good Offensive Playcalling: Average Defensive Playcalling: Good Injury Avoidance: Good He's 45 and under contract for 4 more years. Career record of 47-23-1. I'm gonna have a tough time replacing him in the offseason for several reasons: 1) he's young and under contract for several more years; 2) despite his questionable playcalling this season he's still won over twice as many games as he's lost; and 3) I'm not sure my "ownership" will allow me to spend much more than this on a coach, as we've been hemorrhaging money since day 1 (Tucson was one of the franchises stuck with an ancient/shitty stadium when the league was created). With regard to your other question, I honestly don't know if coaches can have this drastic of an impact on a game. I've been assuming the coach had something to do with the oddities I've seen this season, but that's just my guess. Jim's vague enough on the functioning of his sim engine that anything is possible, but I'm hard pressed to come up with another explanation.

Author:	fantastic flying froggies [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:32 am ]
Post subject:
[quote19e602b]we were set up to run heavily to the right in every single game situation, and what kind of run distribution did we get? 7 runs to the left, 14 to the middle, 3 to the right.[/quote19e602b] Fonz, when you say this, what do your % look like exactly? Keep in mind that runs inside the RG or between the RG and RT will also count in the runs to the middle. I'm pretty sure only runs outside the tackles are counted in the left/right split.[/quote]

Author:	JeeberD [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:44 am ]
Post subject:
Way to go Tulsa! I'm hoping to see an all Cavalry Division conference championship game...

Author:	Fonzie [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteed12811="fantastic flying froggies"]Fonz, when you say this, what do your % look like exactly? Keep in mind that runs inside the RG or between the RG and RT will also count in the runs to the middle. I'm pretty sure only runs outside the tackles are counted in the left/right split.[/quoteed12811] My runs outside left tackle and around left end combined to 20%. My runs outside right tackle and around right end combined to 29.1%. So, according to the gameplan 60% of my outside runs should have gone to the right, but in execution 70% went to the left.

Author:	TurfToe [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:12 am ]
Post subject:
I think the 'Average' in offensive playcalling is consistent with the problems your having. As far as how much, the rest of your explanation explains that. Somewhat. I'd be interested in seeing a coach with 'Average' defensive playcalling and see how much he veers from the submitted gameplan of the owner.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote40d70fc="TurfToe"]I think the 'Average' in offensive playcalling is consistent with the problems your having. As far as how much, the rest of your explanation explains that. Somewhat. I'd be interested in seeing a coach with 'Average' defensive playcalling and see how much he veers from the submitted gameplan of the owner.[/quote40d70fc] That makes me wonder - if an "Average" playcalling coach essentially does the opposite of what is listed in the gameplan, then what does a "Very Poor" playcaller do? Call for punts on 1st and 10?

Author:	Joe [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:
i think its time to face the fact that you lost to a better team

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote1426e27="Joe"]i think its time to face the fact that you lost to a better team [/quote1426e27] I never disputed that.

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:32 am ]
Post subject:
[quote4c518f6="Fonzie"][quote4c518f6="TurfToe"]I think the 'Average' in offensive playcalling is consistent with the problems your having. As far as how much, the rest of your explanation explains that. Somewhat. I'd be interested in seeing a coach with 'Average' defensive playcalling and see how much he veers from the submitted gameplan of the owner.[/quote4c518f6] That makes me wonder - if an "Average" playcalling coach essentially does the opposite of what is listed in the gameplan, then what does a "Very Poor" playcaller do? Call for punts on 1st and 10? [/quote4c518f6] Or maybe it relates to how strictly he follows the submitted game plan, as in: E = 100% of the time VG = 85% G = 70% A = 55% F = 40% P = 25% Joe, This is not one of fonzie's lame excuses, he has plenty of other ones to use. This has happened to Fonzie in all games, including the ones he has won. It's also nothing new this year and is an alarming trend. While I enjoy the fact that his coach wears his ass for a hat, I'm very interested in identifying the cause in order to avoid the opportunity to experience it myself.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/