[Gameplan] Opening up Gameplanning Options

[Soluna]

Currently you can have a secondary scheme up to 3 schemes away (not including 2RB options) from your primary one via the NFLHC Gameplan seen here:

I want to propose a new system for this. My initial thought was just making it 4 instead of 3 but I think that can end up with weird schemes that don't really make any sense and might be hard to use.

 

So in this case I'd like to have an open floor for how you would like to see primary and secondary schemes handled. Someone a few weeks ago suggested to me having a primary scheme and then a list of "correct" secondary schemes for each one that's completely custom. So if you chose Pro Style as your primary your secondary could be:

 

• Run-Focused 1RB
• Run-Focused 2RB
• Pass-Focused Shallow
• Pass-Focused Intermediate
• Pass-Focused Deep

 

Or something like that.

 

If we can come up with something and pass it I would work this into the new gameplan for 2026.

 

Thanks for any input you have!

[Rome]

I've been kicking this idea around to others to get them to propose, so I'm all for it.

 

I'd love to see the change from 3 to 4 if we stick with the current system. I would even support a total freeform system as long as Soluna can get it to work. If you think you have the personnel to run West Coast/Flexbone, screw it, why not let'em try?

 

For the new suggestion, I am also strongly in favor. I like the idea of scheme subtypes or specializations. I'm just curious how it would apply to the ends of the spectrum, where the variations might be less interesting. Would a a more general list be more suitable? Or maybe a lot of overlap so that the option type offenses have similar concepts and the passing ones have more?

 

Can we do anything fresh on defense?

[cmcgill]

Personally I'm a big fan of the types of options in the OP. Pro style is a great example of a scheme that I struggle with finding a run focused secondary on because the personnel in the schemes more towards passing are all very different and don't facilitate a power running game in the same way pro personnel does.

[Hagan]

Hagan intends to co-sponsor this resolution.

 

I think some sort of change/update is due so I'm open to seeing whatever that ends up being. I really find myself running into similar problems that your proposed system would solve.

 

[Soluna]

43 minutes ago, Hagan said:

Hagan intends to co-sponsor this resolution.

 

I think some sort of change/update is due so I'm open to seeing whatever that ends up being. I really find myself running into similar problems that your proposed system would solve.

 

 

Agreed on my gameplanning as well. Thanks for the co-sponsor!

[Todd]

Not an owner, but I know Bubada would tend to agree. I'm not in favor of expanding from 3-4 gameplanning options (for reasons stated by others), but I am in favor of something like Soluna has proposed. Currently, it is difficult to have a run-heavy pro style or spread offense, and it is difficult to get a 50/50 pass/run offense without a scrambling QB (again expanding from 3 to 4 gameplanning options doesn't solve the problem of running more with non-scrambling QBs). I think it would be cool to be able to dictate your pass/rush balance by %, and then let the flow of the game decide how much variance you get from that. 

[pumph]

I agree with (The)Todd on having an ideal percentage of run/pass balance that you set, if that is possible.  I may want to throw more against a certain team and run more against another team, but in using the same offensive sets.  Then, of course, the game dictates how much you stick to that, where you are not airing it out, up 38-3 in the fourth quarter just because you said 70% pass, or grinding it out on the ground when you are down 27-6 at halftime and it hasn't been working, just because you were supposed to run 2/3 of the time.

 

 

[cmcgill]

I do like the defensive option as is though. Just wanted to throw that out there

[alienufo]

I really like this idea

[cultur3]

Pls pls pls

[Soluna]

Okay assuming we go with my proposed option. Can you please help fill this out by copying the previously edited schemes and changing what you think should be added or removed and why.

 

Schemes:

Smash Mouth:

Wing T:

Wishbone:

Triple Option:

Flexbone:

Option:

Pistol:

Spread:

Pro Style: Run Focused 1RB; Run-Focused 2RB; Pass-Focused Short; Pass-Focused Medium; Pass-Focused Long

Trick Plays:

Vertical Offense:

Air Raid:

West Coast:

Empty Backfield/5 Wide:

 

Two questions:

1) How do you want to integrate passing/running percentages.

2) How do we handle scheme change penalty? Keep it at 3 between the primary schemes? I think it should be lowered to 2 since it can get tailored more at this point.

[pumph]

I would remove trick plays as a scheme, but potentially add more types of them into the additional game plan add-ons, allowing teams to add specific trick plays into their weekly gameplan.

[smackemz]

I love the idea - I think this helps teams to really build a roster to a specific scheme. 

 

I would also remove trick plays as scheme, since a lot of trip plays are included in the expanded gameplan options.  I doubt anyone would ever choose trick plays as a scheme if you're only picking one. 

[Soluna]

27 minutes ago, pumph said:

I would remove trick plays as a scheme, but potentially add more types of them into the additional game plan add-ons, allowing teams to add specific trick plays into their weekly gameplan.

 

I think we should keep a dedicated trick plays/wildcat scheme AND add them into the others. I don't want it to become too formulaic if you want to try weird shit.

[acewulf]

I love this being addressed.  I need to think about some of the other questions and get back to you on some of the specifics.

 

I think in general a lot of this could be implemented by a more robust gameplanning options section: Trick plays, passing focus target, etc.

 

We could even get into more formation type things, but that might be a bit much for this specific conversation.

[cmcgill]

Smash Mouth: Slightly more passing 1RB/2RB, Rushing inside 1RB/2RB, Rushing outside 1RB/2RB

Wing T: Slightly more passing, triple option QB run, Triple option WR motion, triple option QB pass

Wishbone: Slightly more passing, Outside rushing, inside rushing

Triple Option: QB run option, QB pass option, WR motion focused

Flexbone: outside run focused 1/2, inside power focused

Option: handoff-qb run focused 1/2 RB, handoff-pass focused 1/2 RB, Pre-snap motion run focused, Pre-snap motion pass focused

Pistol: 

Spread: Pre-snap motion run focused 1/2 RB, Pre-snap motion pass focused 1/2 RB, Run focused single back, Run focused 2 RB sets, pass focused short/medium/long

Pro Style: Run Focused 1RB; Run-Focused 2RB; Pass-Focused Short; Pass-Focused Medium; Pass-Focused Long

Trick Plays: 

Vertical Offense: Slightly more runs, medium pass depth focused, deep pass focused

Air Raid: short/medium/long pass, inside hash focused, outside hash focused

West Coast: short/medium pass, inside hash focused, outside hash focused

Empty Backfield/5 Wide: short/medium/long focused, inside/outside hash focused, 

[cultur3]

I think Trick Plays should be stand alone and allowed as a secondary scheme for any gameplan

[Rome]

Okay, I wanna address a few things:

 

1) Should this become the whole gameplan overhaul discussion? It was suggested to me to bring expanded gameplan options up here for discussion as well, but I don't want to veer off-topic.

 

2) I like the distinction between Trick Plays the scheme and having some trick plays enabled. The latter feels more like "rainy day bag of tricks" while the scheme represents that these plays were baked into the gameplan all week. That being said, I'd like to see more options for trick plays, like onside kick attempts.

 

3) So I've spent almost an hour now on this post, trying to best express why I'm ultimately unsatisfied with the ideas proposed so far. McGill's list provides a wonderful starting base that covers a lot of territory, but it also feels like a lot of it is route depth combined with inside/outside rushing and a little run/pass slider kicked in. But that doesn't really feel like it represents what an offense really tries to do. And in discussing it, again with McGill, I think we've come up with a good way to summarize it.

 

When I think of offense, or defense, I tend to think in personnel and focus. How am I going to get the best players on the field and what are they going to try to do while there on it. When I look at the scheme list, I see a lot of the same general personnels with different focuses. Air Raid wants to spread your defense out and make you cover a lot of space in the passing game. Spread Option wants to spread your defense out and make you play disciplined football in the run game. And Spread just wants to spread you out and take advantage of the holes that exist. They're all the same overarching personnel strategy (athletes in space) but they have different playcalling focuses (PASS PASS PASS, Yeet, take what you're given).

 

But I also think in terms of play sequencing or concept sequencing. I think of teams like the Goff Rams that ran ran ran, play action. Or us Bengals who'd like to come out firing the ball and run when we've got teams in smaller packages. But in both instances, you might want to stay as relatively balanced as possible, it just comes down to which you're focusing on out of the gate (or on first downs, etc).

 

What do y'all think?

[Rome]

To give an example that doesn't try to be as deep, here's a concept of Pro Style, Air Raid, and Spread Option (which seems missing?):

 

Pro Style: Fullback Focused; Singleback 1RB/2RB; Two Tight End Focused; Passing Focused

• Fullback Focused  - This is your dad's pro style, with the fullback as a primary feature of the run game and the occasional pass play.
• Singleback - Pro Style that forgoes the fullback for a tight end or another wide receiver. More modern pro style. 2RB option to rotate backs.
• Two Tight End Focused - Tries to feature both tight ends in the offense.
• Passing Focused - Pro Style that's more pass heavy and tries to utilize WR3 in most formations and WR4 more frequently over heavy use of a TE.

 

Air Raid: Running Focused (RB1); Motion Focused; Run-Pass Option Focused; Chunk Passing Focused

• Running Focused (RB1) - What it says on the tin, these are Air Raids that don't totally spit on rushing. They hand the ball off more.
• Motion Focused - Utilizes pre-snap motion for sweeps, jets, and shovel passes as a primary running-game substitute. Does not necessarily run more.
• Run-Pass Option Focused - 'Modern Pro-Style Spread' offenses are basically just RPO central and that extends to Air Raid. You try to utilize a smart QB to make the read and/or an athletic QB to run it. Does not necessarily run more.
• Chunk Passing Focused - These are the Air Raids that throw a lot and throw it down field. They believe that 1-3 yard passes are a rushing attempt and are big fans of 4 verticals.

 

Spread Option: Heavy Set Focused; 2RB Focused; Run-Pass Option Focused; Run and Shoot

• Heavy Set Focused - Utilizes multiple tight ends, sometimes as a H-back. May use 6th OL as an inline tight end instead.
• 2RB Focused - Utilizes multiple running backs as main feature of offense. Triple option from the spread shotgun.
• Run-Pass Option Focused - Could also be called 'Read Option Focused' as the bread and butter is a read option with a passing outlet as well.
• Run and Shoot - Spread Option that tries to throw over top of your defense when you try to contain the run. More frequently features WR3 or even WR4.

[acewulf]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:38 PM, Rome said:

1) Should this become the whole gameplan overhaul discussion? It was suggested to me to bring expanded gameplan options up here for discussion as well, but I don't want to veer off-topic.

I would like to discuss this more.  I personally feel that some of the conversation of what people would want in an expanded gameplan revolves around people wanting to have a better grasp and control over what they can and can't do.  I wouldn't be opposed to a larger conversation on potential overhaul ideas.  I plan on listing one below.

 

On 10/12/2021 at 3:38 PM, Rome said:

3) So I've spent almost an hour now on this post, trying to best express while I'm ultimately unsatisfied with the ideas proposed so far.

I would like to second this notion.  Not out of dislike of what people have brought to the table, but to where I think we could take this.

An idea I have been floating around in my head is more defined formations as the "primary scheme"  [i.e.: I formation, Ace formation, Pistol]

 

These formations would have set personnel groupings that help narrow down what said formation would need player wise to run specifically.  But is more refined than "Spread"  Because in my eyes, Spread and Pro are incredibly general and need more refining to get a better sense of what they can do.

Pairing with this formation discussion would be options of passing and running expanded gameplan toggles. (Passing could include specific routes.  Running would include toggles like Read Option, Speed Option, Counter, Inside Zone, etc.)  Required would be 3 options selected for both Pass and Run toggles.  The existing expanded gameplan would still be included with RPO, Flea Flicker and such.  I would also put the Run/Pass ratio in this section. 

TL;DR - Current definitions of schemes is a bit vague at times, update to more formations specific with more defined personnel definitions and allow for a second level of options be available to more specifically tailor it to your preferred playing style.  This way you can reasonably get Spreads that look incredibly different without it being more of a guessing game on secondary scheme.
 

Would something like this idea work a bit better to address this?

 

Edit: @Soluna wondering your thoughts on this thread after a bit of time to let it breathe.

[Soluna]

Any more ideas for this? I want to see what else people come up with before I summarize and compile

[cultur3]

1 hour ago, Soluna said:

Any more ideas for this? I want to see what else people come up with before I summarize and compile

An option to focus on a certain player. I would like the option to throw at someone like Nathaniel Jeffries for example or Teddy Walker. 
 

Unless that would be game breaking?

[cmcgill]

After a little more thought I think the primary should be more of a concept and maybe the secondary as a formation or vice versa. Which may help with some of the overlap since I feel like some schemes are formations (wishbone, empty) and most are more like concepts

 

Concepts - Spread, triple option, west coast, balance, verticals, smash mouth, air raid pistol, misdirection, crossing routes

 

Formations - 5 wide, 11 flex (being multiple in 11 personnel), 11, pro sets, flexbone, wishbone, heavy, 12, pistol, 21, etc.

 

I know there is a lot to that so I feel like I'm my head the idea is the game plan is dictated mostly by the concepts but usually you would be in the base formation for 50%+ of snaps in a given game. One team might change concepts week to week and keep the formation the same (e.g. using misdirection against younger or less disciplined teams). While others might keep their concepts the same week to week but change formations (e.g. having 4 WR against a team weak at CB).

 

The biggest problem I see is it doesn't do a good job of dictating a run / pass ratio inherently. Misdirection would be a lot of pre snap motion, counters in the run game, and double moves in the pass game, but the ratio of each could be wildly different.

[Todd]

I just thought of specifying different running styles for 2 RB systems. For example you could have a one two punch where the #1 guy is primarily a bruiser between the tackles and the #2 guy is an outside speed guy. So you would be able to differentiate different gameplan sliders for your #1 RB and your #2RB in two RB systems. 

[pumph]

1 hour ago, Todd said:

I just thought of specifying different running styles for 2 RB systems. For example you could have a one two punch where the #1 guy is primarily a bruiser between the tackles and the #2 guy is an outside speed guy. So you would be able to differentiate different gameplan sliders for your #1 RB and your #2RB in two RB systems. 

I really like that.  There are times where I'd want to feature a speed guy and times that I'd want to feed a power guy.  And also times where I really would want to split my carries more than usual, and times I want to load up the primary back.  Of course, things like this go out the window when you're down 3 scores early, but in theory, the more control we have over things like this, the better.

 

Same goes with attacking or avoiding a certain defender.  Not saying you'd never throw at an elite CB, but I might want to attack his much weaker #2 and make that a focal point.  Now, when facing a team like Washington, for example, who have both Teddy Walker and Tom Wyman in their CB depth chart, but you don't dare attack their corners because Dikes will steal your lunch money.  I'd want to attack the weaker corners by featuring the WR2,3,4 instead of the 1.  A slider or set of %s for different receivers being the primary receiver would definitely help accomplish this.  And defensively, the ability to make sure the other team does not put their top WR as WR2 just to exploit this, you get an option to have the CBs "travel" to cover a specific receiver, or just stay on their "side" of the field, covering whoever lines up against them.  It can become a chess match between coaches.