Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurF
Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.
I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.
|
I think the decisions made in semifinals about "who to play and who not to" were difficult, nuanced decisions, and giving up the firepower of any of the offensive robots on that alliance was a difficult decision to make.
I've been thinking quite a bit about how we could have played that differently. However I think the reason we lost has a lot more to do with our autonomous deficit and smart defense placements from our opponents than anything else.
5254 had been having some weird issues with our ramparts auto routine on the practice field, so placing the Sallyport in 3, the CDF in 4, and the Ramparts in 5 forced us to run our autonomous from position 2, where we wouldn't make the autonomous shot. 67 and 3620 were also inconsistently making autonomous, and 195 was making their 2 ball look like it was easy.
In addition, the CDF in 4 forced 5254 to take an extra few seconds to get into position to shoot every time we cycled over the ramparts. We regularly came out of autonomous 30-40 points behind, and even if we matched the #2 alliance in teleoperated scoring, and we got all three of our climbs up, we would lose based on auto alone.
I think our #3 alliance had a high ceiling- in that if we all made auto and climbed and hit our teleop shots, we could have matched that #2 alliance or exceeded them, but we were too inconsistent.
3683 might have been able to shut down 1114, and maybe even slow 195, but then we're still about even in teleop scoring and down after autonomous.
Thanks to 3620, 67, and 3683 for selecting us. The QF4 matches were some of the most exciting matches I've ever been a part of.