I agree with your take on the inconsistencies relative to how the game simulates realism of pro or NFL football. My post was more directed at the complaints about inconsistencies of game results and performance, such as the most maligned of all, QB play. Most of the complaints that I had seen about it were relative to whether or not it had cost the manager a loss. As far as heavy or total blitzing by a manager, myself included, that is also based on the "realism factor" where the secondary coverages match or exceed the inconsistency of QB play. Getting an offense into a 3rd and long situation is supposed to be a major advantage based on the pro/NFL game trying to be simulated here. That is not the case in MFN, as coverage defenses get burned at a rate much higher than the "real" game on 3rd & long and in general, on any down versus a passing offense with above average rated players. Overuse of specific plays and types of plays, like blitzes and/or 113 Counter Weak, HB Flare, Post/Flags, etc. has been posted about profusely, and until there is an "offset" or change, like adding effective counter plays such as screens, coverages that have high efficiencies per down/situation, and defensive plays that provide an advantage when the manager guesses or anticipates the offensive play call correctly, or a significant penalty of overuse of a play/tactic, then you will have a an "unrealistic" imbalance between the play selection and calling in MFN vs the pro game. The averages on play results drive selection for those who take the time to review them, in both the scouting and playbook.

And as JDB works with the guys in MFN-1 along with the rest of us, I have faith he will smooth this simulator out. :)

In the meantime we work with what we have. It just gets annoying at times.