Warrior General Games

Didn't change my offense at all, also tried a 3-3-5, which failed terrible (the near-identical 3-4 did OK though)

Originally posted by Aeir
(IMO)Probably the lack of diversity in play calling, gets stagnant... Every team runs the same plays.
If you run, you call a,b,c.
If you pass, you call x,y,z.

I think people think there are great plays.

In some instances that's true, but really it's about finding great plays for your team.

Or building a team to run a few plays great.

Originally posted by Aeir
(IMO)Probably the lack of diversity in play calling, gets stagnant... Every team runs the same plays.
If you run, you call a,b,c.
If you pass, you call x,y,z.

It'd definitely be nice if they added some more plays this off-season. They need to keep it interesting.

Originally posted by Xars
I think people think there are great plays.

In some instances that's true, but really it's about finding great plays for your team.

Or building a team to run a few plays great.



You know as well as I do there are plays that just work better than others, and thus are easier to build a team around. Whether it be design flaws, or mechanics that just do/don't work for it.

There's a reason you use the same 6 plays over and over. I do it too.

Agree...they should add a play or 2 to every formation each season.

Originally posted by Aeir
You know as well as I do there are plays that just work better than others, and thus are easier to build a team around. Whether it be design flaws, or mechanics that just do/don't work for it.

There's a reason you use the same 6 plays over and over. I do it too.

There are obvious plays that work better than other, but like all things you have to have builds that at least compliment those plays.

Originally posted by Stobie
There are obvious plays that work better than other, but like all things you have to have builds that at least compliment those plays.

Oh of course, and I'm not saying that's not the case, just that the amount of play diversity people are seeing is the reason people are quitting.

How many teams DON'T have Corner Threat in their playbook? (of those that pass)

They need to make plays specifically to combat it (not necessarily beat it, just have a good chance, if built correctly)... That's how you keep the meta changing and keep people interested. (again, IMO)

Same with QB Rollouts... make some D plays that target QB Rollout type teams (this coming from a rollerouter only team) so it makes people change things up a little. Keeps things fresh and interesting.

(Edit: Or even fix the ones that are supposed to do it now...)

Originally posted by Aeir
How many teams DON'T have Corner Threat in their playbook? (of those that pass)

I don't, but I've definitely thought about adding it in.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
I don't, but I've definitely thought about adding it in.

Or TE Post, TE Drive, those're also "must haves".

There are running plays too (I'm not biased, just tossing out the obvious ones that I know of)

Originally posted by Aeir
How many teams DON'T have Corner Threat in their playbook? (of those that pass)

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
I don't, but I've definitely thought about adding it in.

LOL and I'm close to taking it out at this point.

It's great in Rookie, but as coverage builds get better it leads to a lot of dump offs.

Gal is right.

But yes, I think too many teams run too many Offensive plays and that's really their problem.

Now that Stobie's tool is out, I scout, etc. a lot of teams just to see what they do. I find head-scratching play calling all the time.

I see many teams running 3, even 4, WR sets as part of their regular playbook. You can't build a roster to optimize play calling around 4 different WR sets. Someone is being under-utilized on every play. People run Big I with 2 Blocking TEs and then run 4WR Unders on passing downs. Using multiple WR sets only works if you factor it in and use the different WR sets as rest vehicles for your players.

Q: Where are your TEs in the 4WR set? A: On the bench.
Q: Where are your WRs in Big I? A: A bunch are on the bench.

That's a lot of wasted SP and salary dollars that can't help you.

The best offenses are simple offenses were every roster slot and every dollar of salary cap provides maximum value on every play.

Originally posted by Xars
But yes, I think too many teams run too many Offensive plays and that's really their problem.

Now that Stobie's tool is out, I scout, etc. a lot of teams just to see what they do. I find head-scratching play calling all the time.

I see many teams running 3, even 4, WR sets as part of their regular playbook. You can't build a roster to optimize play calling around 4 different WR sets. Someone is being under-utilized on every play. People run Big I with 2 Blocking TEs and then run 4WR Unders on passing downs.

Q: Where are your TEs in the 4WR set? A: On the bench.
Q: Where are your WRs in Big I? A: A bunch are on the bench.

That's a lot of wasted SP and salary dollars that can't help you.

The best offenses are simple offenses were every roster slot and every dollar of salary cap provides maximum value on every play.


So I'm not sure how good defenses or gameplanning can get later on. But I want a run/pass threat out of every formation. In theory, that makes it harder to gameplan against.

Dollar for dollar, building a roster and playbook designed around 1 formation (like you do) is the most efficient use of salary. But shouldn't that also make it easier to gameplan against? So it's all about, is the salary efficiency greater than the most capable defensive game plan?

I'm curious if a Ground Assault defense built around 1 formation, could achieve the same effect that offenses built around 1 formation have. If we take a look at NFL defenses, the top ones are generally REALLY good at 1 thing, and they might tweak it a little with base to nickel, but by and large they aim to do one thing the entire game. '12 to '14 Seattle Seahawks with a 4-3 or 4-2-5 Cover 1 to Cover 3. '05 to '12 Chicago Bears with a 4-3 or 4-2-5 Cover 2. Pittsburgh Steelers (for like a decade) with their Fire Zone's and Cover 4 out of 3-4 or 2-4-5.

Could that be the next wave of the future? A defense that's so amazing it forces teams to avoid certain concepts completely? Then offenses who are built around 1 formation, would have to adapt?

I hope Ground Assault ages well.

Originally posted by Xars


The best offenses are simple offenses were every roster slot and every dollar of salary cap provides maximum value on every play.

Congratulations Xars, you've won the game

In a nutshell, just because there are all these different formations does not mean you should use all these different formations. Nor should you construct your roster in a way to provide the flexibility to use all the different formations.

It's much better to focus on doing a small handful of things really, really well. This lets you get away with a smaller roster, and thus more superstars, which further enhances your ability to really hammer away at a specific strategy.

The same thing applies on defense. Just because there's a whole bunch of formations you can use, doesn't mean you should. It's way better to build your roster to do something really well, and trust your builds, than to have defenders doing stuff they're not built to do. Nor is it a good idea to try and build your defender to do everything. They'll just suck at everything. Figure out the skills you can ignore based on some specific type of scheme by your defensive coordinator, and go build to do that, and coordinate to do that, and your team will be much better for it.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero

So I'm not sure how good defenses or gameplanning can get later on. But I want a run/pass threat out of every formation. In theory, that makes it harder to gameplan against.

I don't think it does.

If you build multiple options into one set, you can attack a Defense and don't really need to add multiple sets.

For example, at Creek Valley Beast this past season one of our S* WR quit. We used to run a lot of 3WR and 4WR sets, using TEs in the 4WR so we could run outside.

With one less S*, we've moved to a 2TE and 3WR set team. We run inside, outside and throw out of each set. Our overall average gain for each set is significant and quite frankly their are plenty of builds that could be improved on if we built the team to run the Offense and Defense to operate they way they do now.

The other advantage a focus Offense gives you is that you need less players on O allowing you to add players to the D side so that you can prepare for multiple offenses. This is a significant advantage that's not really noticed when people spend roster slots on O trying to run everything.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero

So I'm not sure how good defenses or gameplanning can get later on. But I want a run/pass threat out of every formation. In theory, that makes it harder to gameplan against.

Dollar for dollar, building a roster and playbook designed around 1 formation (like you do) is the most efficient use of salary. But shouldn't that also make it easier to gameplan against? So it's all about, is the salary efficiency greater than the most capable defensive game plan?


Consider Air Raid. I run 3WR, and 4WR, with Singleback Big for double TEs sometimes. That's it on offense. Frankly though, I could get away with never running 4WR or SB Big if I wanted, and just only use the 3WR formations probably. There's only a few plays I actually use from 4WR and SB Big. It's more to give my backup TE some additonal chances in SB Big, and to rest WRs on those plays. I go 4WR to give my TEs the occasional breather.

We use passing plays now at Veteran that'd I'd have never considered at sophomore. receivers aren't capable of executing certain routes nearly as well at lower levels. Also, plays that work better at lower levels get weaker at higher levels. Defenders get better able to handle them.

Corner Threat and TE Post used to be staples in our offense during Sophomore/Seasoned. Now, they're in my short yardage playbook, where the quick in/out routes for 2-5 yards are very, very relevant routes. Those are terrible routes on a 1st and 10 at Veteran. The Posts and Corners on those plays provide Cleveland deep options if the defense gives it to him. They're not being counted upon though in 3rd and 2 situations. Those plays are better at lower levels because defenders are hopeless to cover them. That changes when a Safety and CB can handle the route, and suddenly you only have two double covered targets downfield. They're not nearly as useful for every down type plays at that point. But maybe they would be, if I also had a running game and 2nd and 7 weren't basically as useful as 2nd and 10 due to my team design.

Originally posted by Xars


The other advantage a focus Offense gives you is that you need less players on O allowing you to add players to the D side so that you can prepare for multiple offenses. This is a significant advantage that's not really noticed when people spend roster slots on O trying to run everything.



Now you're just sharing too much

Summary of all the above discussion: Roster design and how you cull the playbook down to fit that roster is very, very important.