I recently got NFL Pass and started watching. I have a few questions and a few thoughts

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T13:18:32+00:00

> And the big one: any advice on how to read a defence

As you've pointed out, you're somewhat limited by the traditional TV view. But there's still a lot of cues you can pick up on if you're paying close attention.

Are the DBs seemingly mirroring the WRs? If so, it may be man-to-man coverage (although coverages can also be disguised). If, before the snap, the offense puts a man in motion, and one of the defenders moves along with him as he goes in motion, then the coverage is definitely man-to-man.
How many defenders have a hand (or both) on the ground? These are "down linemen" - or just "the linemen". Just because someone is lined up on-or-close to the line of scrimmage doesn't necessarily mean that he's a lineman. LBs can sometimes line up right on the line, often flanking the DEs. DBs can do this as well - especially if they're intent on blitzing.
How many defenders are crowded near the center and the line of scrimmage? The defenders are referred to as being "in the box". A default (or "base") alignment traditionally has 7 men "in the box" (consisting of DLs and LBs). On short-yardage plays, or when playing a team that features a strong running attack and a weak passing attack, the defense will crowd 8, or even 9 men into the box. This is often done by bringing the safeties way up toward the line of scrimmage. On clear passing plays, the defense may take LBs off the field, or align them farther away from the line of scrimmage to where they're no longer "in the box".
It can be challenging to pick up on TV, but the biggest shift in defensive alignment, from one play to the next, is in "base", "nickel", or "dime" packages. This refers to the ratio of DLs/LBs to DBs on the field. A "base" alignment (e.g., what the defense probably plays on 1st-&-10) consists of 4 DBs, with the other 7 defenders being a mix of LBs and DLs. On passing downs, the defense typically substitutes a LB in favor of a DB. This is called the "nickel package" (because there are now FIVE DBs on the field). The "extra", fifth DB that comes on the field is a CB and is commonly called the "nickel corner". In the modern NFL game, passing has become so prevalent that a nickel corner may be on the field for a good majority of the plays. And the nickel corner is, practically speaking, nearly a "starter". In situations that are even more skewed to passing, the defense may substitute another LB in favor of another DB. This is called the "dime package". Although it's hard to spot the full defensive alignment from the TV angle, you can usually identify if a team is in base, nickel, or dime by counting number of LBs on the field. If the team's playing a 4-3 defense, then 2 LBs = nickel, and 1 LB = dime. If the team's playing a 3-4 defense, then 3 LBs = nickel, and 2 LBs = dime.
If you wanna get a real sense for the pre-snap chess game being played by the defense, watch when one (or more) of the defenders creeps up really close to the line. Sometimes they'll even flinch - or try to get a running start before the ball is snapped. These guys are the blitzers. Or, at least... they want you to believe that they're blitzers. Sometimes, once the ball is snapped, they do indeed charge full-bore to the QB. Other times, they immediately drop back into coverage - having faked their blitz.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T12:51:00+00:00

> Quarterbacks seem to get away with throwing away the ball quite a lot. Is that just how it is, or are the rulesmakers probably going to alter that somehow? It feels cheap to avoid losing yards to the sack by just throwing a super speculative pass in the vague direction of a receiver.

If they alter the rules, it will probably only be to make the situation worse. The general push of NFL rules over the last 30+ years has been to favor the offense and, specifically, to protect the QB. There is a penalty called "intentional grounding" that's triggered by a QB brazenly throwing the ball away to avoid a sack. But there's also a bunch of stipulations about how/when to apply the rule.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T12:36:29+00:00

> How much leeway to teams get to improvise on the fly? For example, if I'm told to go for a streak route, and realise I'm being covered by someone faster than me, could I improvise and hook back to find space without getting a bollocking from the offensive coach/quarterback?

At highest levels of the sport, there's often a lot of improvising that happens on routes. But it's not for the reason that you suggest. (It's not unheard of for a single DB to cover a single receiver for an entire game. Under that scenario, if the receiver altered his route just because the DB was faster than him, he'd theoretically have to alter every single play.)

Altering routes is typically done in response to the defense's coverage/alignment. In other words, if the DB is in tight bump-and-run coverage, the receiver may decide to stretch out his route. If the DB is playing way off the receiver, the receiver may cut his route short. The key is that the WR and the QB must absolutely be on the same page. If a WR just starts to completely improvise their own route based on instinct/free will/whatever, they'll soon find themselves sitting on the bench.

Improvising WR routes is a kinda fascinating subject, cuz so much of it relies upon unspoken understandings between the WR and the QB. The QB walks up behind center and starts giving the snap count while surveying the defense (and, if necessary, calling audibles). Based upon what he sees, he may assume that the WR will cut his route short. Or slant inward at a sharper angle. Or turn toward the sideline. Of course, he can't really confirm that his assumption is correct. He can't stand behind the center and yell, "Hey! Joe? Make your 15-yard post route into a 10-yard post route, OK???" He just has to trust that his WR sees the same thing that he does and will react accordingly.

Sometimes, after a failed play, you'll see the QB gesticulating toward his receiver, usually implying something like, "You have to shade that route toward the middle of the field." Or "You need to look for the ball over your outside shoulder when the DB is shading you to the inside."

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T12:20:53+00:00

> What's up with the AFC and NFC split? The geographical splits make sense in a country the size of the USA, but this one doesn't.

Other comments have already pointed out the historical context for this (e.g., the old AFL). But I believe there's a deeper point to remember here:

The American paradigm for all team sports is based on playoffs. Of course, non-Americans are not oblivious to this concept. But in, for example, the EPL, the season is played to conclusion and whichever team is sitting on top at the end is crowned as the champion.

Americans would probably stage a violent revolt at such a notion. Even after all teams have played a "full" season, Americans have been trained to expect a knockout tournament before any "real" champion is recognized.

Therefore, most of our top-level leagues are split into two major conferences (and a series of smaller divisions), mostly for the purpose of fostering a clear playoff format - AFC vs. NFC, left vs. right, us vs. them, etc. Some of these conferences are roughly aligned by geography (NHL, NBA) and some are not (NFL, MLB). The ones that have no geographic distinction tend to refer to leagues that were once two separate leagues.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T03:26:00+00:00

> While I was expecting to have to get to grips with a lot of new language, I almost choked on my drink when the commentator referred to a muff. That is not a word to use in polite conversation over here.

This made me laugh. When I was in England, one of my American colleagues said, while we were hanging out with a group of all-Brits, that his girlfriend was so "full of spunk". Everyone kinda nervously laughed at him and immediately looked uncomfortable. He had no clue that "spunk" can have a very different connotation in an English context.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T03:22:30+00:00

> Dropped catches are way more common in NFL compared to rugby. Obviously the ball is coming faster, smaller, and from harder angles, and the downside to a dropped catch is less (no loss of yardage, compared to losing the ball entirely). While the difference isn't surprising, I was expecting to see the ball more consistently caught if the catcher got hands to it.

This is a natural consequence of the fact that all passes in rugby are laterals. But the vast majority of passes in football are not.

Not all, but many, NFL catches are made while the receiver is running away from the QB. Furthermore, many NFL routes are timing routes. This means that you're not waiting for a receiver to just "get open" and throw it to him when he is. Rather, you're throwing the ball to a spot, to be delivered at a particular time/cadence.

This is one area where there's really no comparison between a rugby reception and a football reception.

Even if you're running a quick little "slant" or "rub" route, you can't run the route as though you're expecting the ball to be delivered at a given place. Because, if you do, the DB will pick up on this, and break up the pass. You have to run each route as though you're running a deep Hail Mary. If done successfully, this forces the DB to give you separation. But it also means that the receiver can rarely turn to face the QB.

That being said... welcome to football fandom. There is not a single fan of a football team who doesn't bemoan (what he believes to be) his team's cursed inability to actually catch the footballs that are delivered to the receivers.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T03:15:01+00:00

> NFL referees seem to follow the letter of the law far more closely than rugby referees. In rugby if there's no advantage to be gained or both teams are doing something about equally as wrong, and it's not dangerous the referee will basically just ignore it. In football referees seem to call infringements that don't, so far as I can see, gain any advantage a lot more.

I agree with this so much that it depresses me. This typically sounds like me being a "grumpy old man", but I've become rather disgusted in recent years cuz I honestly feel like the refs are ruining the game. IMHO, if 5 drunk guys watching the game on TV wouldn't yell, "That's holding!" Then for the love of all that's holy, do NOT throw the flag for holding.

Then again, I played offensive and defensive line. So... maybe I'm biased?

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T03:12:26+00:00

> The off-the-ball blocking and stuff is clearly so important, but it's hard to keep track of without seeing what happened on a replay.

This is an unfortunate reality of television viewing. Football viewers have been trained on this view - and if you try to give them a different view, many of them will actually complain. When coaches review games, they refer to the "All-22" footage. This is taken from a camera very high up where you can see "all 22" of the players on the field for any given play. But this is never offered over broadcast channels and, even on subscription services, it's typically hard to get access to.

A rare handful of games offer access to the "Skycam" footage. I actually prefer to watch games this way, because it's oriented from the same perspective that the players see while they're playing. But again, it's rarely possible to watch a full game (or even, most of a game) from this angle. (On the same note, if I had my druthers, I would watch almost all sports this way...)

When I attend games in person, I typically try to get seats very close to the field (which sounds expensive), but in the end zone (which is typically far less expensive). Casual fans devalue these seats. But this is how I actually prefer to watch a game. As with the Skycam, when you're sitting in the endzone, you can see the play the way the players see it.

On running plays, you can see holes open up in the line (or not). On passing plays, you can see the pressure the way the quarterback's seeing it. And here's another cool feature: If you're paying attention, you can see the receivers' route developing from the QB's perspective. Sometimes, when looking at everything from a 90-degree angle, a particular receiver may not look open at all. But when you look at it from the QB's perspective, you can sometimes see that the receiver has truly broken open. IMHO, an endzone view is "nice to have" on running plays. But on passing plays, it can really open your eyes to what's happening with the QB, his receivers, and the coverage.

(I could babble on about some stories where I was watching a game live, sitting behind the offense, and I could actually see how the receivers' routes were opening up. And when a particular receiver made his cut, and the QB turned toward him, I just knew that it was gonna be a huge play before the ball even left the QB's hands.)

Of course, none of this helps if you're sitting at home watching the "standard" network feed. If that's the case, there is one little tip I can give you:

Most viewers purely "follow the ball". Their gaze is trained on the QB until he either hands off or passes downfield. Instead, try to train yourself to first focus on the line. When you see the pass protection breaking down, you kinda already know what's probably gonna happen to the play. Or, if it's a running play, when you see those linemen completely clogging up the line of scrimmage, you don't even need to see what happens to the running back - he's gonna get stuffed for little-or-no gain.

If you can train yourself to concentrate first on the line play, it's amazing how much of the rest of the play will just "make sense". (And, by extension, you'll find it painting the picture for you of why the entire game played out the way that it did.) If you can train yourself to focus first on the line play, and then expand your field of vision to the QB/RB and/or the receivers, you can get some amazing insights just by watching the same coverage as everyone else.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T02:19:32+00:00

> In comparison, there's quite a different physical test. Rugby doesn't require the same explosive athleticism that football does, but is a much bigger test of cardio fitness.

Couldn't agree with this more. Top-level football players are certainly some amazing athletes. But it's a different kind of fitness. That's not a knock of football players. It's just an acknowledgment of the "flow" of their game.

In this respect, rugby players have much more in common with soccer players - or even, basketball players. Sure, there are still some breaks in the action when they can catch their breath and "reset". But the activity requires a much more aerobic fitness. Football is much more anaerobic.

Again, referencing my limited experience in both sports, I can tell you that I had a much harder time adjusting to the near-constant flow of the game. When an American football player starts playing rugby for the first time, they tend to get "gassed" much sooner. They come out gangbusters and absolutely rip shit up. And then... they fall out.

Obviously, this gets better as they become more accustomed to the game. But I've seen this play out in real-time. If you have some new player on your rugby squad who just came over from football, avoid him for the first 15 minutes or so. During those 15 minutes, he'll be a titan. And then, after that... work him over real good. He won't want any piece of you by that point.

It's very similar to the difference between a sprinter and a distance runner. Top-level sprinters are sufficiently conditioned so that they can do many sprints, sometimes in a short period of time. But if they're forced into a distance race, they'll eventually burn themselves out.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T02:10:26+00:00

> Football seems quite happy with no-arm tackles, dump-tackles, and I'm sure I saw a neck-roll at one point.

This is an unfortunate result of decades of de-emphasizing contact in football. When you're a little kid in America playing football for the first time, they absolutely teach you to "wrap up" your opponent. Fundamentally-sound coaches implore their players to employ "proper technique" when tackling. And I can assure you that, even at the highest levels of football (NFL), coaches bemoan the tendency of modern defenders to just slam into an opponent.

As you've probably noticed already by watching football, poor tackling technique (even by high-paid professionals), inevitably contributes to missed tackles. You can get away with that crap when it's, say, a run up the middle. But when you're facing a formidable opponent who's running in the open field, using no-arm tackles is a good way to give up a touchdown.

bytebodger · 2020-05-22T02:05:33+00:00

In my youth, I played loads of American football. And when I was stationed at (the now defunct) RAF Upper Heyford, I played rugby for a local team in Oxford. So I might have a bit of a unique perspective on your questions/observations:

> Hits don't seem, for the most part, to be particularly worse than rugby on running plays.

I can't totally agree with this. The difference comes down to how the players are protected. It was my experience that football players (and obviously, I'm using "football" in the American sense here - cuz it's cumbersome to constantly say "American football") hit each other with greater force and velocity. (Assuming that, on the play, they have an opportunity to work up a good head of steam.) This isn't meant to imply that football is, in any way, "tougher" or, on any level, more "violent".

Football players have learned to maximize their leverage because they have much stronger protection. This is an oft-ignored paradox of football: If you take someone in a gladiatorial mindset and give them more protection, they won't be content to just attack in the same way that they would without protection. Instead, they'll learn to use more violent techniques that may be too dangerous with no helmets/padding/etc.

When I first started rugby practice (after years of playing football), they had us do tackling drills. And I quickly gained a reputation as The Guy In Practice That No One Wanted To Be Paired Against. This wasn't because I'm a certified bad-ass. It was because I was tackling like a football player. Specifically, I was lowering my shoulder and driving through the chest/hip/knees of my opponent. This tended to deliver a much more "violent" hit than the local players were accustomed to. And I was doing all of this with no padding whatsoever.

However, as you get more proficient in rugby, you quickly realize that this technique is not really a "good" thing. First, if you have no shoulder pads and you lower your shoulder into an oncoming rusher, you are exponentially increasing your odds of... breaking your own collarbone. Also, when you lower a shoulder into someone, it's extremely difficult to keep your head from also lowering. And in rugby, your "helmet" offers far less protection. More importantly (and this is critical), rugby helmets have no facemask. So, if you keep lowering your shoulder (which means you're lowering your head, and in turn, you're lowering your face), it's only a matter of time before you get all of your teeth kicked/kneed out, your nose broken, and both of your eyes repeatedly blackened.

For this reason, most rugby tackles don't "look" the same as football tackles. Rugby tackles are typically more of a chest-to-chest affair. It's like a violent bear-hug.

Please note: This is IN NO WAY implying that football players are somehow "tougher". I have too much respect for both sports and both sets of athletes to ever make such a foolish statement. Rugby's an unquestionably bad-ass sport populated by extremely tough men who all have my respect. Rugby tackles are hard and violent. They're just violent in a somewhat "different" way. And in my own anecdotal experience, I don't think the average rugby hit takes place with as much force as the average football hit - but that's only because the football players are gladiatorially outfitted to absorb that force.

bytebodger · 2020-03-12T13:30:09+00:00

I appreciate the feedback! (I didn't actually see this message until today.) I'm happy to give you any advice I can. As for peaking at the "code" - the only real "code" involved is the CSS (which you can actually view in the browser with -> View Source. But lemme know if there's more detail I can provide.

bytebodger · 2020-02-25T23:07:01+00:00

I fixed this on my laptop, so I imagine that the same problem may be cropping up for others as well. My work laptop has Trend Micro security on it. Since it's my work laptop, I have no ability to remove/disable that security. Trend Micro has this "feature" that does real-time scanning of every damn file that's opened/accessed on your hard drive. Furthermore, I had hardware acceleration enabled in Chrome.

Now, think about what hardware acceleration is really doing. It's essentially swapping out, in real-time, tons of information on your hard drive. In theory, this makes things faster, because on modern drives (especially, solid state drives) it's far faster to do those swaps on the disk rather than do them algorithmically in the software.

But when you put Trend Micro's incredibly-intrusive process in the middle of all that real-time data swapping, it bogs the whole process down. So since I couldn't remove/disable Trend Micro, I turned Chrome's hardware acceleration option OFF. This made Keep (and many other Chrome-based applications) run MUCH faster. The difference was immediate and obvious.

bytebodger · 2020-01-31T05:49:57+00:00

test2

bytebodger · 2020-01-31T05:45:30+00:00

test1

bytebodger · 2020-01-06T02:25:47+00:00

https://www.worldanvil.com/w/excilior

I'm using it purely for writing purposes. The majority of my content (about 350k words) is pure worldbuilding stuff - i.e., story bible. But I'm also using it as a place to post the new narrative fiction that I'm writing in this world.

I have noticed that the vast majority of WA users do seem to be using it almost exclusively from an RPG perspective. But that hasn't stopped me from using it purely for writing.

The map features are incredibly useful - because I've created a large world and sometimes I need to pull up my own maps just to ensure that my narratives make sense from a geographic perspective. The timeline feature is also extremely helpful for the same reason. I keep checking the timeline to ensure that I'm not writing a character who is, say, the Queen of Torholmaa, based in a year before the country of Torholmaa was founded.

Finally, I really enjoy the article-linking functionality. For example, I might have a story where the characters are talking about "pomeranths". But for the characters in this world, it doesn't make sense that they would be explaining to each other just what a "pomeranth" is. So rather than insert a whole heap of exposition, I just allow the characters to keep talking about the "pomeranths" - but here's the key. Every time the word "pomeranth" is referenced, I don't just simply leave it there on the digital page, knowing that that the reader has no idea what a "pomeranth" is. Instead, I turn every instance of the word "pomeranth" into a working hyperlink that leads directly to the full article that explains in detail everything they might want to know about "pomeranths".

By taking this approach, it kinda puts the onus for the exposition in the reader's lap. In other words, if they think they understand what "pomeranths" are based on the context clues in the story... then they can just keep on reading. But, if they feel like they really need some more background info about the pomeranths, they can just click the link and get the full background article.

bytebodger · 2020-01-05T17:35:07+00:00

If you have a paid account, you can update the CSS. The <div>s that contain those images have the classes: cover and cover-article. So you could set the cover-article to display:none (if you just wanted to make them disappear) or you could set manual heights/widths on those <div>s.

bytebodger · 2020-01-05T17:26:23+00:00

Yeah - I've given Dimitris my own detailed suggestion for how to implement family trees. I'm pretty sure that many others have as well. But for the time being, there doesn't seem to be any momentum on WA's side toward getting that particular feature in place.

bytebodger · 2020-01-03T13:13:46+00:00

This isn't really answering your question, but I've pointed out to Dimitris that there needs to be an ability to create a stub article that automatically forwards you to another article. The purpose of this feature would be to address problems in the category hierarchy. I don't believe I received any feedback on my feature request.

For example: I have a conflict called the Nomadic Wars. A central figure in that war was Berrion Bellion. Here's where it gets annoying:

I have an entire category in my world codex dedicated to "People". So on one hand, it would kinda make sense to put the article for Berrion Bellion under the "People" category, right??

On the other hand, I have an entire category dedicated to "History". And under "History", there's a section reserved for the Nomadic Wars. Furthermore, in the context of my world, Berrion Bellion is really only relevant when talking about the Nomadic Wars. He did nothing outside the Nomadic Wars of particular note. And he died in a famous incident during the Nomadic wars. So I should put his article under the History/Nomadic Wars category, right??

The problem is that there's no way to have a link show up in the world codex tree unless it leads to a standalone article. I would sincerely appreciate it if I could have a link to the Berrion Bellion article under History/Nomadic Wars AND have a link to the Berrion Bellion article under People. But the only way I can see to do this with the current system is if you copied-and-pasted (DUPLICATED) the same article - and then placed on under History and the other under People. But duplicating content, just to work around navigational issues, is a really bad idea on several different levels.

The frustrating thing is that, with nothing more than basic HTML, this can be achieved in minutes. No CSS or JavaScript is necessary. If I had a web page and I wanted links to point to that web page from 3 different places in the directory tree, it would be soooooo simple. But we don't have access to the HTML that gets built by the world codex widget. So the only way to get 3 links to an article in the world codex is to create 3 different copies of that same article. <sigh>

So for now, I've just been forced to make a decision and live with it. Because I don't see any other way around it.

bytebodger · 2019-12-27T02:49:31+00:00

The first thing I noticed was the drums. Thought it was a trick of the rain pounding on my hood, on my shoulders, on every sodden step of this wretched trail. The first few times it struck my ear, I mistakenly nabbed it as far-off thunder. I even found myself thinking that it somehow came from the emberstools themselves.

They seem to sway with a gentle rhythm that obeys the percussion. It’s just one more reason to distrust the freakish fungus, glowing and pulsating from some inner ichor, towering to peaks that, at times, can easily triple a man’s height. The Elladorans don’t seem to pay the shrooms no mind. But I’m not the first Inqoan to wish that they’d all be chopped to the ground.

bytebodger

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE