[2024] Spring/Preseason Games NewSim Feedback

[TuscanSota]

I do want to point out that the Punter kicking FGs bug is known and should be fixed in the next round of games. These should've been punts.

[Bingo415]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:36 PM, SageBow said:

Same thing happened in CU-SOCAR game - I believe these are SACKS, and the read out is printing it as "Incomplete, intended for the QB."  Our QB was sacked 5 times, and that particular 'outcome' was listed 5 times in the play-by-play. 

On 3/30/2024 at 12:36 PM, SageBow said:

Play 87 is a weirdo. Incomplete pass, but treated as a -11 yard loss. Also a self pass. Similar error occurs again at Play 145 and 164. 

 

[Rocketcan]

I am going to use this post to confirm, as of now, what is fixed and what is not.

On 3/29/2024 at 12:13 AM, subsequent said:

In the Week 1 NIU vs Michigan Spring Game, it looks like towards the end of the game, Michigan passed the ball a lot despite winning and NIU ran the ball a lot despite losing.

In Michigan's final possesion, they were winning by 7 points with 5:55 remaining in the 4th quarter and threw the ball 7 times while rushing 3 times, resulting in a touchdown with 1:27 remaining.

In NIU's final possession, they were losing by 14 points with 1:15 remaining in the 4th quarter and threw the ball 1 time while rushing 3 times.

Additionally, Michigan's gameplan looked like the following:

Run to Pass ratio was 20:80 and there are no points allocated to Option or RPO.

Michigan dropped back to pass 35 times and ran the ball 34 times in the game against NIU.

I don't believe that the AI had the 4 minute offense trigger for you late because of when the drive started and ended. Only the last couple plays would have been affected by it. As for the overall weight, I would have expected more passes and fewer runs overall, but also you have to take into account 3rd down and so on. I am not sure, but I will look into this further.

On 3/29/2024 at 5:10 PM, PoopyRhinoPickle said:

From Week 1 Spring Game between Bowling Green and SMU:

Kickoff is caught at the 1 and returned 16 yards then the next play takes place at the 23 yard line.

The next kickoff appears to be off as well:

 

Tackles recorded and yards lost/gained on incomplete passes:

 

Offensive holding call results in replaying the down:

This was likely issues with how the plays were categorized, so the play by play was looking the numbers it was given incorrectly. This should be fixed.

 

 

On 3/29/2024 at 7:22 PM, Wahoo said:

Homie tried to throw it to himself. Also ended up losing a yard on the incomplete pass (PRP noted this above).

FG yardage is off. 52 yard attempt from 17 yard line (should be 34 yard attempt). Note that TEMP had a later FG attempt where the yardage was correct. Also the blurb is missing the word "yard". Temple then took over at TEMP 43 LOS after this. Guessing that is tied to field goal/punt/yardage issues though.

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, I think there are LOS issues. I would've expected to take over at UVA 26 after Temple missed the FG, but instead it switches to TEMP 26.

Temple scored a safety while they were on offense, and then UVA kicked off after they scored. Could be tied to LOS stuff.

 

After looking through it, it seems like we were both trying to score on same side of the field? For example, Temple would be at UVA 3 and then score a touchdown (normal), but when UVA got the ball, they would start at TEMP yard lines and progress to UVA yard lines and score from UVA 3 (seems weird).

 

2 point conversions worked correctly (very cool!) and UVA went for 4th downs in 4th quarter when they were losing (awesome!). Also really enjoyed being able to see the formations used. I was very curious what the AI would set up.

The throwing to one's self issue should be resolved. Again it was a data interpretation thing, the QB wasn't actually throwing to themselves. Yardage and LOS on FGs should be fixed as plays should be reported as the proper type now. I am not sure why the safety didn't work properly. I haven't been able to replicate it. Again, the yardline issue was due to the way plays were reported (punts were reported as FGs).

 

 

On 3/30/2024 at 1:36 PM, SageBow said:

Illinois vs Utah

Despite having my Kicker line up set, my punter took a field goal in the 1st quarter

Additionally, this was on the 43 yard line, would have been a 60 yard field goal, not a 23 yard attempt. There were other special teams and yardage issues associated with those plays, but I'm assuming these will all get fixed together.

 

Post Penalty Yardage - Holden throws a 35 yard piss missile and it looks like we take the gain correctly over a 15 yard penalty, but it's a move of 22 yards to the 23 yard line instead of down to the 10

 

Play 87 is a weirdo. Incomplete pass, but treated as a -11 yard loss. Also a self pass. Similar error occurs again at Play 145 and 164. 

The punter taking a FG was just a punt getting reported as a FG I believe. The yardline issues were due to the reporting of plays incorrectly.

I do want to address this: Penalty yardage vs. play yardage optimization will not make it in this season. It seems simple at first, but there are half a dozen things to consider and several edge cases. As the sim currently stands, all penalties are automatically accepted. There are no declined penalties.

Plays 87, 145, and 164 should be mostly fixed. It appears there is still a very rare issue where that happens. I have test seasons running nearly constantly trying to replicate a very specific case that Tuscan showed me happening once and I have yet to see it again.

 

On 3/30/2024 at 1:53 PM, smackemz said:

WVU - Washington State

I see that logic has been improved on when to take and when to not take a penalty. However there are still some examples where a 5 yard penalty is taken over a big gain. For example - this play. 

See above. No penalties are declined currently and that will not be updated this season.

On 3/30/2024 at 2:09 PM, smackemz said:

This is being discussed in Discord, but placing here just so it's tracked.  Teams have a lot of WRs with several rushing attempts.  The speculation is that RPO passes are being counted as runs by the WR and not a pass/catch. 

 

I think this was due to cases where no players that users had weight on were on the field, and the only people left were the people that weren't on the rushing list. I have attempted to reduce this, but I don't want to do too much more since that is something that happens realistically. Sometimes you don't have many great options to give the ball to. However it should more often than not be RBs rather than TEs from now on.

 

 

On 3/30/2024 at 2:33 PM, Ricky Campbell said:

I also have the punter kicking FGs error

See above. It is just punts being reported as FGs incorrectly.

 

 

On 3/30/2024 at 4:27 PM, kgreene829 said:

Tulane vs Purdue

DTs shouldn't have been playing for me but Trent Sale was.

 

Punt yards aren't displaying


Dashaun Knight and William Henry shouldn't have gotten any rushing attempts and Daniel Bell and J'Mon Marte shouldn't have gotten any targets since I set all of their distributions to 0.


Looks like I missed a FG but redid the down and punted it


Just like Wahoo my QB also tried to throw the ball to himself this was on the first play of the game

Just because you don't have DTs on the field for a formation and in your depth chart does not mean that there are zero cases were a DT can see the field. This was likely him filling in for stamina/injury, or a situational override (4 minute drill, etc.). I believe the interface has the punt yardage issue fixed. The carries should be better now as seen above (WR and TE carries), but as for targets, that is not so easy. To try to keep it short: sometimes the guy you put zero targets on is the only one open. Since a run play determines who the ball carrier is before the snap, it is much easier to control who gets the ball. But on a pass play, coverage could dictate that the guy you least want to throw to is the only viable option (in fact, many defenses are built on forcing you to do just that). Punt reported as FG plus a penalty reporting error I believe, should be fixed. And the QB throwing to himself was simply a presentation issue that should be fixed.

On 3/30/2024 at 4:33 PM, Curby4 said:

Same happened to me. 

Fixed.

 

On 3/30/2024 at 6:02 PM, JC. said:

Box score appears to be incorrect for quarters and final  - with actual score to the right hand side of these  

 

This was due to when the score was actually tabulated. By that point the quarter had been incremented, thus everything appears shifted to the right one quarter. Fixed.

On 3/30/2024 at 6:10 PM, Bundy said:

 

Kansas at Wisconsin, Spring Week 1

163	24	22	4	KANS	01:21		2 KANS	Run	Peek Inside Right	Splitback Gun	4-3 Over	Inside Right	Pass Defense	0	Zone	Zone	Zone	2	KANS RB Cody Casspi carries for 2 yards. The 2 Point Conversion is GOOD!
164	24	24	4	KANS	01:21		35 WISC	Kickoff	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0	Man	Man	Man	66	KANS K Jake Ramirez kicks for 66 yards. Fielded deep in the endzone by WISC WR Bryan Reed. Touchback. The 2 Point Conversion is NO GOOD!

didn't effect anything, but play 162 we score a TD, play 163 we do a 2pt conversion and make it, and then on the kickoff it's yelling about a 2 pt conversion being NO GOOD!, so Im wondering if it would have some sort of 2pt logic where it could say "the 2 point coversion is GOOD!" despite it being a kickoff and giving the team that just scored another 2 points.  

I believe the 2 pt presentation has been fixed.

On 3/30/2024 at 6:13 PM, Bundy said:

Wondering if we can eventually get some OT logic, Kansas scored a TD on 1st possession so Wisconsin needed a TD to match, and instead settled for a FG which ended the game

179	24	31	5	WISC	15:00	3rd and 9	24 KANS	Pass	Play Action Short	Pistol	4-2-5 Base	Short	Run Defense	0	Zone	Zone	Zone	5	WISC QB Adam Outman throws to WISC WR James Oreilly complete for 5 yards. Tackled by KANS SS Chance Johnson.
180	24	31	5	WISC	15:00	4th and 4	19 KANS	FG	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0	Man	Man	Man	56	WISC K Daniel McGowan's 36 field goal attempt is good.

I am attempting to figure out why this happened, as the logic was recently updated. Unfortunately this is a problem with several edge cases that I haven't been able to get to the bottom of just yet.

On 3/31/2024 at 10:19 AM, SageBow said:

 

Doing a deeper dive, I believe this is how the script is notating for sacks taken. hope this helps!

Partially correct! Also had to do with how the engine was reporting data to the interface.

On 3/31/2024 at 5:23 PM, tsweezy said:

 

Looking at the exported play by plays, I noticed that all coverage groups are set to the same man or zone scheme (see below). Both myself and Tulsa did not have these selected (I had zone/zone/man and Tulsa had Man/zone/zone). Looking at a few other games it also looks like none were set to different coverage schema between the groups. Not sure if this is an issue in reporting on the plays, or an issue with the actual groups running the "wrong" scheme in the actual game (would love to know which to see if it hurts my estimation of Savage's abilities)

 

This has been fixed on the interface side. I believe it was only reporting the LB coverage type. Your teams were actually running what you set, just the interface was presenting it funky.

On 3/31/2024 at 7:30 PM, Vivid said:

This is more conseptual than anything else. But when I did my defensive game planning it had listed the offence I was going against as "vertical". In the play-by-play that it looks like a wingT or double wing was used. This switches my defensive scheme from a bonus to a malus without any chance to reset or select formation matchups. With the added bonus/malus for scheme fit and the requirement to match defensive formation to offensive formation this puts teams at a deficit for game planning early in the week. I'm not even sure how the formation matchups would go with this change.

 

Potential solutions:

• Remove specific scheme/formation bonus/malus (e.g., speed getting malus against wing but bonus against vertical) as this should come into play already with positional bonus/malus and leveraging different players on the field
• (less ideal) Set certain timeframe for offensive gameplans to lock in order to be able to set defensive matchups (similar to how subbing works in real life). Otherwise the interface could show you are going against a spread (aligned with a nickle) but in fact its going against a double wing.

 

On 3/31/2024 at 9:07 PM, SageBow said:

I would support the following actions to address these items.

1. Clarity that defensive scheme changes also have a scheme change penalty

2. The opposing offensive scheme shown on the interface is whatever the team ran the previous game. They’ll suffer penalty with the offense if they attempt to change and it avoid meta gaming for gameplan switching all the way to midnight Wednesday

This is being discussed, and the likely outcome will be:

- Your defense will see the offense that your opponent used in their *last game played*. This is both fair (the other user can't change their offense constantly to make it impossible to gameplan) and realistic (you would only know what offense they run based on the film you get from their games).

- Since there is a severe (25%) penalty to changing your scheme (offense or defense) in the middle of the season, any scheme mismatch would be far outweighed by the scheme change penalty, making this a poor strategy. This is less the case after a BYE, (penalty is only 10%), but that is also a realistic time to change schemes, and there are only so many BYEs in a season.

On 3/31/2024 at 9:26 PM, alexfall862 said:

Wide Receivers are getting carries in traditional runs. I think it might be a distribution value issue. Sent the specific plays into the #sim-dev-and-qa-chat discord channel.

All plays with this issue seem to be traditional runs out of sets with RBs in the formation: 


Full example in the discord chat, but dropping here as well.

See above about WR and TE carries. Should be reduced now.

On 4/1/2024 at 9:57 AM, SageBow said:

Utah also experienced this bug, showing man/man/man for our team when we ran man/zone/zone

Fixed above.

On 4/1/2024 at 10:08 AM, smackemz said:

Same. It showed man/man/man for us when we ran man/zone/man

Fixed above.

On 4/1/2024 at 12:04 PM, alexfall862 said:

The field goal.... ran out of bounds?



This one is backwards? Dunno if that's wind or a block, but odd.

Punts being reported as FGs. This was likely a long punt return that brought the ball back to 12 yards behind the LOS where the play started. Fixed.

 

On 4/1/2024 at 4:33 PM, tsweezy said:

Suggestion: Output all players who are on the field each snap. Makes for easier debugging and especially on ST plays you can start to get a better sense for what supporting players are helping vs. hurting you

I know you posted this in the suggestions, which is where it is best so we can keep track of it long term, but I wanted to address that this is a good idea, but it is a bit of a lift. Thus, it will not be something we can do for this season.

On 4/2/2024 at 12:18 PM, Bingo415 said:

Same thing happened in CU-SOCAR game - I believe these are SACKS, and the read out is printing it as "Incomplete, intended for the QB."  Our QB was sacked 5 times, and that particular 'outcome' was listed 5 times in the play-by-play. 

 

Likely fixed, except in very rare circumstances.

[SageBow]

It looks like the punt return fixes have been addressed but the math is not adding up. 

 

 

29 yard punt from the UTAH 34 -> BUCK 37

49 yard return from BUCK 37 -> UTAH 14

Actual -> BUCK 48

happens on at least all of my punt returns. Just noticed because the return yardage was massive.

Additional example

61 yard punt from UTAH 23 -> BUCK 16

81 yard return from BUCK 16 -> UTAH  3

Actual -> UTAH 31

[Piercewise1]

Purely cosmetic, but the sim is reporting field position as going all in the same direction. Here FAU starts a drive at their 19, but it's displayed as being on the Temple side of the field and counting up as they gain yards. So it's correct when Temple has the ball, but backwards for FAU. I confirmed this as happening in other games as well. Again, I don't think it affected anything in the actual game result (play call, 4th down decisions, etc) it's just displaying backward.

 

 

Also, while looking for a good screenshot to reflect the above, I found this phantom pass in the Temple/FAU game. Declared incomplete, but for -1 yards with two tacklers. Maybe the sim couldn't find the receiver correctly, so it recorded the result but called it an incomplete pass.

 

[dearden]

Apologies if this one's already been addressed, though I couldn't find any thread about it and didn't notice this trend last week; it appears as though during Thursday night's Week 2 Spring Games that Quarterbacks were taking the field as two-way players for at least part of the game.

Within the "Defensive Stats" section of the Box Score, I'd noticed that my designated QB2, Geno Wimmers, made a solo tackle at some point during the game.  This was despite the fact that there was no indication that he had been on the field during an offensive turnover, as his "Passing Stats" indicated that he hadn't thrown an interception and our offense had not fumbled the ball.

Upon further investigation, I'd noticed within the "Play-by-Play" that he'd made the tackle in one of the last drives of the game on a 3rd and 10, indicating that he was probably just out there playing defense for whatever reason.  Being a relatively new coach, I'd figured that I'd messed up my Depth Chart somehow, but this pattern appears to have happened through all of Thursday night's matchups.  For example, within the other two games where a Quarterback did not throw an interception (Utah vs. Bucknell and Texas A&M vs. Northern Colorado), five Quarterbacks were listed under the "Defensive Stats" section of their respective Box Scores.  These were Utah QBs Jacob Dozier and Gerald Wright, Bucknell QB Jan Quinn, A&M QB Brian Bass, and Northern Colorado QB Orlando Dzubner.  While none of these Quarterbacks made a tackle, my immediate supposition is that, like my QB2, they were playing snaps on the defensive side of the ball for whatever reason at some point during the game.

Second round of apologies for how long-winded all-of-the-above was - not sure if I'm just misreading things or if there's a genuine goof somewhere, but I figured it was best to flag it ahead of the remaining games this weekend.

[smackemz]

Special Teams tackles are accounted for in the play by play, but aren't being tracked in the box score.  I think it would be cool to see those included in the box score. 

[JW1952TX]

 

 

In the SMU/Wisconsin game with 1 second left and SMU on the Wisconsin 7 yard line, SMU throws an incomplete pass which ends regulation time and the game goes into overtime.  I think the logic should be to go for the win by kicking the FG as the game was tied 17-17 at the time.  This is #192

[subsequent]

Some more data on kickoff issues. Seems the sim is not sure where to place the ball on some kickoffs (probably because the field flips?). This is resulting in incorrect LOS for the remainder of the drive, and possibly compounding to future drives due to where punts and turnovers take place.

[Vivid]

This may have been brought up but the play by play is showing plays that I have listed 0 on in my gameplan. 

[alexfall862]

Some inconsistency with touches here. FB Michael Carter is present on 40% of formations called up. It should result in about 8 or so touches given the logic as I understand it.

Formation% with FB in it * Play% with Trad Run * Running Distro % * Offensive Snaps = generalized expected carries for a player
Quick Maffs: 0.4 * 0.4 * 0.45 * 77 = 5.54

Since there's only 1 other player on the field with any weight in the FB formations (RB1) my math says Carter should be getting 7% of all plays converted into snaps.

Now, this may be something with starters being rested, but based on that math, Carter should be getting 4.5-5.5ish carries (or 2-4 if he sits the 4th). Yes it could be noise in the rng as far as what is picked, but given past issues manifesting in a similar manner regarding WR3, WR4, and WR5 in past versions of the engine it seems more likely than not is probably a similar issue.

The other thing I've considered is whether having 0 in weight as a RB and 4 as FB may be causing issues where it's returning a 0 when it should return a 4 somewhere?

This next week I'm setting Carter's weight to 10 at FB to lean into that. If not resolved by week 3 I'll removed him from RB carries entirely as well to see if that might be an issue.

(The QBs being 0 and getting touches makes sense because they ran some RPO.)






 

[alexfall862]

https://discord.com/channels/586207409681334522/1121552692871966760/1226599113886400524



Dropping this here, engine has it correctly ID'd as a play with a fumble, but discord text does not display that it was a fumble.

[alexfall862]

Looking further into the FB carries flagged a similar issue with RBs. 

I had Taylor and Khan on a 5/2 split for Trad Run RB touches. 

At first this seems plausibly accurate given their end of game touches, but 11 of Khan's 16 touches were actually in garbage time. 

Meaning that Taylor took 27 carries in the first 3 quarters to Khan's 5. That's closer to a 6:1 ratio than 5:2, or 85% Taylor compared to the idealized 70%. I have primary RB set to 100% because I don't know what that's supposed to do now with the new carry distribution feature.

Could it be that with Primary RB at 100% other carriers will not get RB touches unless the primary RB subs out due to fatigue? 

In effect, this would mean that the carry distribution for within the RB room is not effective and is actually dictated by the primary RB value in the special teams section.

But this would also raise further questions about FB carries as my backup FB and backup RB (Khan) should have a 1:2 split on carries if they're on the field and thus would have expected 1-2 carries in the 4th to go to my FB as he should have gotten 33% of 40% (he'd be on the field on 2/5th of formations all equally weighted) of my 4th quarter carries.

[Spoof]

Looks like the Safety Score logic isn't set quite right (or Punting/FG Logic is at fault)

 

 

I shouldn't be punting from there, and it called a blocked Punt that went -26 yards a Safety (would have been in GAST 40 range really) and instead of giving GAST 2 points it gave me 2 points and then Georgia State kicked off when they should have received the ball.

[tsweezy]

Something seems odd with the RTP ratios for defenses, but I haven't dug into that many games to see how widespread it was. I know Tulsa got boned super hard by this same thing, the evidence below in the NFL game, and then in my game vs. WVU he got way more "correct" defensive play calls than expected... but also input his RTP numbers reversed for defense. Anyways:

So I tallied up all the offensive plays run out of each formation. So for example Washington ran 8 run plays from Big Pistol. Cleveland had their RTP ratio at 55 against that formation, but on those 8 plays all 8 were called pass defenses. You'd "expect" 4.4 "correct" calls out of those 8 run plays (i.e. they call 4.4 run defenses when given 8 of those looks, to match the 55% run defense they input in the gameplan). Calling 0 of them seems extremely unlikely. As in, (.45^8) unlikely, which is .16% (pretty outside of chance, but technically possible). That's just one example though, as you can see, across all formations and plays the defense consistently guessed "wrong" way more often than you'd expect from just RNG rolls. Out of 171 plays run in this game, there was an expectation that 63 of them would be "correct" defensive play calls. Instead only 17 were. I'm not going to delve into the statistics but just this one game seems like a 1 in 100 million+ likelihood result. When paired with the other 2 games I've seen, it makes me suspect a bug or logic flaw somewhere. (actually, I just told chatGPT to do the P-tests for me, see appendix below):

 

I assumed that the offense would pick a formation, then the defense would "see" that formation, and a RNG would roll a number. If the number was above the RTP ratio set by the defense for that formation, the defense would play a pass defense, otherwise play run defense. However, these results seem to belie that, or indicate that we just saw a vanishingly tiny probability of a game. My only guess is that the formation is called, the pass/run defense is called, and then the offense decides to pass or run with information from the defense (picking which one the defense isn't playing). I can't really think of any other hypothesis to explain it.

Like I said, I only have a very small sample of games so I can't tell how widespread this issue is, but I think worth running a test season or something to check (I can't write anything myself as I have no idea what each team's inputs are for RTP defensive selections)

 

Appendix:

The binomial test results yield a series of p-values for each formation's decision to run or pass. Here are the p-values:
 

WAS	Pistol	Run
WAS	Spread Pistol	Run
WAS	Big Pistol	Run
WAS	Heavy Power Pistol	Run
WAS	Power Pistol	Run
CLE	Near/Far	Run
CLE	Singleback	Run
CLE	Spread	Run
WAS	Pistol	Pass
WAS	Spread Pistol	Pass
WAS	Big Pistol	Pass
WAS	Heavy Power Pistol	Pass
WAS	Power Pistol	Pass
CLE	Near/Far	Pass
CLE	Singleback	Pass
CLE	Spread	Pass

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.34×10−71.34×10−7

0.0

2.87×10−62.87×10−6

4.51×10−44.51×10−4

0.0

0.00437

0.0

0.65671

0.24504

0.29155

0.00968

0.00101

1.0

A p-value close to zero suggests that the actual number of correct calls is statistically significantly different from what would be expected based on the defensive gameplan run percent, assuming that the defensive plays are called at random according to those percentages. A p-value of 1.0 suggests there's no statistical difference between the actual and expected.

For many of these formations, the p-values are very close to zero, indicating that the actual number of correct calls is significantly lower than expected, which could be due to something other than chance, such as a flaw in the simulator's logic or an issue with the gameplan's execution.

Edited April 8 by tsweezy

[ATonOfLaw]

GT had a weird amount of runs in the Week 2 Spring Game against Tulane. I've attached the gameplay I had below. I had my pass set to 80%, traditional run set to 5%, and RPO set to 15%.

I counted the play-by-play by hand, so I may have slight human error here, but here's the break down of the actual game play.

I called a pass play 28.1% of the time. I called a traditional run 59.6% of the time. I ran RPO 12.3% of the time.

I don't think I did anything with my gameplay. I had others take a look to see if I had messed anything up. I have no idea why my team decided to run so often. I'm not sure if this is an actual issue or not, but I think something may be wrong.

In week 1 of Spring, I also had more rushes than passes even though I had the gameplan set to heavily favor passing. Thanks for taking a look at this!

[subsequent]

 

2pt conversion that is scored on a rush is counting as a rushing TD for the player who scores.

[Spoof]

 

Another example of the Special Teams/Punt logic awarding an erroneous 2 points, and then play after not making much sense

[smackemz]

Backups were in the game, but I don't really ever want a QB throwing to my kicker on 3rd down.  

 

 

[Sarge]

55 13 14 2 11:05 Carolina Panthers 0 0 3 Denver Broncos XP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Man Man Man 70385 0 0 0 40 K Michael Rogers's extra point attempt is good.   

56 14 14 2 11:05 Carolina Panthers 0 0 35 Carolina Panthers Kickoff N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Man Man Man 70385 69984 0 0 84 K Michael Rogers kicks for 64 yards. Fielded at the 1 yardline by RB Hue Khan. RB Hue Khan returns the ball 16 yards. TOUCHDOWN!   

57 14 20 2 10:57 Denver Broncos 0 0 3 Carolina Panthers XP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Man Man Man 4999 0 0 0 40 K Elih Obada's extra point attempt is good.   

58 14 21 2 10:57 Denver Broncos 0 0 35 Denver Broncos Kickoff N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Man Man Man 4999 62531 0 0 86 K Elih Obada kicks for 66 yards. Fielded deep in the endzone by WR Jose Maldonado. WR Jose Maldonado returns the ball 14 yards.   

 

 

Denver got a touchdown for a 16 yard return that started at the 1 in the 2nd Quarter.

[kgreene829]

In the 3 spring games Haloti Thomas has 290 yards and 14 catches on 17 targets and I feel like he shouldn't be that good. He is played at RB but this is him at WR to show that compared to WRs he should suck at catching and route running.

Edited April 13 by kgreene829

[alexfall862]

Richaun Alsadek is credited with 3 rushing TDs. The play by play data shows no fumbles, and no ints that lead to defensive scores. 

All of UGAs points are accounted for by offensive plays. Somewhere here Alsadek is getting either double credit for a score or a TD is being improperly counted.

EDIT:  This might be the same issue reported here.

M

[alexfall862]

Something funky is going on in passing game defense, and ran 100% against the pass this week to try and help ID what the issue was. 

If I'm at 100 pass, I would expect to run pass defense every play of the game. Instead, Broncos ran run defense 80% of the time. 



That's neither 100 or 0, so I don't know exactly what's causing this issue, but it is absolutely destroying any ability to have control over defensive gameplans or look into tuning since all the defensive calls are bunk.

 

EDIT: I may have had the input backwards and 100 is run and 0 is pass, but either way an 80/20 split is not reflecting the desired input.

[alexfall862]

Sacks are reflected in the box score, but not in the play by play.

Aside from needing to be fixed for legibility, this is a severe impediment to the scouting tool as there's not a good way to ID which plays were pass attempts and which were sacks,





It would appear they're showing up in this way: 

[alexfall862]

There are passes in the play by play listed as 'intended for .' with no intended receiver. (and show no tackler, so it wasn't a sack)  

Unclear what this is supposed to show or whether this is an error. Either way the text is unclear.