Jump to content

Titans win Super Bowl XII

Tennessee wins its first title after a victory over Chicago.
  • Shoutbox

    Shoutbox

    You don't have permission to chat.

    [Gameplan] Opening up Gameplanning Options


    Recommended Posts

    8 hours 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. 

     

    Yeah I like this a lot

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    While I'm around, I'll drop another post of theory/concept:

     

    Playbook/Gameplan complexity. As many can probably guess, my personality is quite chaotic and my football game playbooks are similar. I can best summarize it as Multiple taken to it's logical extremes.

     

    Offensively I utilize everything from 00 to 32 in small batches, and defensively I'll run 3-4 4-3 4-2-5 3-3-5 5-2 and 4-4 fronts depending on what my opponent is feeding me.

     

    Now, these sorts of playbooks would be a complete nightmare to feed new players. So what I'm proposing is some sort of system that allows players to retain scheme/gameplan bonuses a bit so that teams can build more complex gameplans. Instead of primary/secondary schemes, teams can have multiple different schemes, but the more, the harder it is to run properly.

     

    An example:

     

    Week 1, I run Pro Style. This is my base.

     

    Week 3, I add Air Raid to attack a poor secondary. Now my players are learning both Pro and Raid, so they retain slower.

     

    Week 7, I pull Pro Style and add Spread. This allows the team to learn spread faster.

     

    Week 9, I add Pro Style back.

     

    Week 12, I add Spread Option.

     

    By the end of the year, I have a team that can run Pro Style well, Air Raid well, some Spread, and a hint of Spread Option.

     

    I have no idea how much work this would be or if scheme change just does this. But I've been thinking about it for weeks, so I wanted to share.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, Rome said:

    While I'm around, I'll drop another post of theory/concept:

     

    Playbook/Gameplan complexity. As many can probably guess, my personality is quite chaotic and my football game playbooks are similar. I can best summarize it as Multiple taken to it's logical extremes.

     

    Offensively I utilize everything from 00 to 32 in small batches, and defensively I'll run 3-4 4-3 4-2-5 3-3-5 5-2 and 4-4 fronts depending on what my opponent is feeding me.

     

    Now, these sorts of playbooks would be a complete nightmare to feed new players. So what I'm proposing is some sort of system that allows players to retain scheme/gameplan bonuses a bit so that teams can build more complex gameplans. Instead of primary/secondary schemes, teams can have multiple different schemes, but the more, the harder it is to run properly.

     

    An example:

     

    Week 1, I run Pro Style. This is my base.

     

    Week 3, I add Air Raid to attack a poor secondary. Now my players are learning both Pro and Raid, so they retain slower.

     

    Week 7, I pull Pro Style and add Spread. This allows the team to learn spread faster.

     

    Week 9, I add Pro Style back.

     

    Week 12, I add Spread Option.

     

    By the end of the year, I have a team that can run Pro Style well, Air Raid well, some Spread, and a hint of Spread Option.

     

    I have no idea how much work this would be or if scheme change just does this. But I've been thinking about it for weeks, so I wanted to share.


     

    Just spitballing, but my mind has me thinking of this 2 different ways:

     

    1. this would need to be something like offseason driven, like you pick some schemes and they work on them in the offseason and get some sorta bonus etc. during the season if you use those schemes. That way you can’t just like learn every offense during the regular season. 
     

    2. Practices would have to somehow come into play into how you learn, and like learning a new scheme should like take up almost all of your practice selections for the week(s). And say you’d need to practice it for like 3/4 weeks for it to have an impact on chemistry etc. but by focusing on the new scheme you will have less time to do walkthroughs, player meetings etc. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    58 minutes ago, jmjacobs said:


     

    Just spitballing, but my mind has me thinking of this 2 different ways:

     

    1. this would need to be something like offseason driven, like you pick some schemes and they work on them in the offseason and get some sorta bonus etc. during the season if you use those schemes. That way you can’t just like learn every offense during the regular season. 
     

    2. Practices would have to somehow come into play into how you learn, and like learning a new scheme should like take up almost all of your practice selections for the week(s). And say you’d need to practice it for like 3/4 weeks for it to have an impact on chemistry etc. but by focusing on the new scheme you will have less time to do walkthroughs, player meetings etc. 

     

    Definitely. I think you should get a big bonus to one scheme as your training camp focus. Then it becomes a zero sum game: if you focus on one scheme it gets better faster. If you focus on two, they improve slowly. Three keeps them from regressing. Learning 1 regresses the rest slower, learning two faster, and learning 3 even faster.

     

    Memory and attention is a finite resource. And they shouldn't be good at everything, no. A team who runs only pro style should be great at pro style and make few if any scheme mistakes. But jack of all trades, chaotic/protean/amoeba teams are my bread and butter. We need hybrid, balanced players and really rely on knowing what weaknesses to attack, so the floor and ceiling are way farther for the gameplan than just one scheme.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 hours ago, cultur3 said:

    Yeah I like it, I would like to get away from 99.999% of teams using Spread/Pro or Pro/Spread

     

    This is a pet peeve of mine too. I understand finding the best for your current situation, but I was always a big big pusher of "build to a specific play style". With Caesari and Tazer they knew I wanted to go Raid, although I didn't intend for it to happen immediately like it did.

     

    If I built a gameplan from scratch, here is how I think the weekly stuff would look.

     

    Primary Offensive Personnel: [11, 21]

    Primary Offensive Concepts: [Spread, Wing-T]

    Secondary Offensive Personnel: [00, 10, 20, 01, 22]

    Secondary Offensive Concepts: [Read Option, Triple Option, Air Raid]

     

    Primary Defensive Personnel: [4-2-5, 3-4]

    Primary Defensive Concepts: [Cover 1 Man, Cover 2 Press Man]

    Secondary Defensive Personnel: [3-3-5, 4-3 Nickle, 4-3 Dime]

    Secondary Defensive Concepts: [Cover 2 Man, Cover 2 Man, Cover 6 Press, Cover 0]

     

    Offensive Playcalling: Aggressive

    Offensive Play Sequencing: Run to Pass

    Offensive Tempo: Hurry up after 1st Down/10+ gain

    Defensive Playcalling: Aggressive

    Physicality: Neutral

     

    QB Depth: Shotgun

    Offensive Line Blocking: Zone

    Receiver Routes: Group Assign

    Route Timing: Predetermined Location

    Running Back Lanes: [Inside, Outside] ##RB1 is option 1, RB2 is 2, etc.

    Running Back Timing: [Follow Lead Blocker, Wait for Hole]

     

    Blitz Timing: Any time (vs only passing downs vs only run downs, the run blitz is a thing)

    Blitzers: [Outside Linebackers, Mike Linebacker, Bandit Lineback, Slot Corner]

    Coverage Rotation: Follow (adjusts who gets what area in zone; compare to stay which adjusts who gets who in man)

    QB Spy: No

    Option Defense: Focus pitch man

     

     

    I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but this is what jumped to mind working a few hours this morning

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I like the general direction of playbook diversity. I really love the ability to specify personnel and formations. But I don't really see the idea of incorporating different schemes throughout the season as realistic. In general although modern NFL offenses are built upon air raid/pro style/west coast/spread concepts, they are generally quite diverse and multiple. And the base scheme should be set before the season. Modern offenses are less about the scheme as we define them here, and more about confusing the defense by building multiple concepts and plays out of the same formation, using pre snap motion, built in constraint plays, play action, etc. I think the direction we should head in is less, allowing you to run air raid one week and option the next (which would be sort of disastrous if implemented irl), and more specifying personnel packages and concepts to attack the defense. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, Todd said:

    I like the general direction of playbook diversity. I really love the ability to specify personnel and formations. But I don't really see the idea of incorporating different schemes throughout the season as realistic. In general although modern NFL offenses are built upon air raid/pro style/west coast/spread concepts, they are generally quite diverse and multiple. And the base scheme should be set before the season. Modern offenses are less about the scheme as we define them here, and more about confusing the defense by building multiple concepts and plays out of the same formation, using pre snap motion, built in constraint plays, play action, etc. I think the direction we should head in is less, allowing you to run air raid one week and option the next (which would be sort of disastrous if implemented irl), and more specifying personnel packages and concepts to attack the defense. 

    This is true especially when you consider how many NFL coaches come from the same philosophy… the Packers/49ers/Chargers/Bengals/Rams all run the same base offense but they all have slight variations because their coaches tweak things that they want. Like the 49ers and Packers are different personnel groups that fit their players. 
    https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nfl-playoffs/2022/1/13/22881785/nfl-offenses-scheme-wars-kyle-shanahan-kliff-kingsbury-bruce-arians-andy-reid

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Another idea:

     

    At the beginning of the season (maybe after TC so you get some insight from players) you publicly set a base offensive concept. Weekly game planning you can indicate primary formations and a secondary concept with virtually no penalty for changing from week to week but the primary offensive concept stays the same.

    If at some point in the season you want/need to change your primary offensive scheme you do so publicly and at a severe chemistry/efficacy hit

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Less than helpful, I know, but I want to see AS MUCH individual game manipulation as possibly can be added easily for the game engine. I want (in no particular order):

        * ability to attack SPECIFIC players on the defense, not just whole position groups (I think Pumph said something like this above) in both the passing game AND the running game

        * ability to change personnel groupings to a reasonable extent WITHIN games and each week. Not crazy, but I'd like to go from 2-TE single back sets to 4 wides singleback to traditional I in the same game. If that is best accomplished with a Primary list of personnel groupings built on a Primary Concept, that's great! If there's options for Secondary Personnel/Concept also, even better, as long as I trust that the percentages the Primary is used vs. the Secondary are well-known. 

         * I love the Inside the Hash vs. Outside the Hash variable (maybe McGill said that), because that is much more understandable than attacking certain position groups. 

        * ability to isolate a particular WR/TE on a particular defensive player, in particular slot WRs and TEs. I think good game plans are able to take advantage of those matchups in a unique way. 

        

    HOW to get there is trickier, but I'm liking the Personnel vs. Concept debate, and some of the suggestions that McGill and The Todd have put forward. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not sure if it fits in the context of this discussion, but I would really like to have the aggression slider broken out by offense and defense.  

     

    I find myself oftentimes wanting to have an aggressive defense and a neutral/conservative offense or vice versa.  I think it would open up flexibility in roster creation and gameplanning.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, smackemz said:

    I'm not sure if it fits in the context of this discussion, but I would really like to have the aggression slider broken out by offense and defense.  

     

    I find myself oftentimes wanting to have an aggressive defense and a neutral/conservative offense or vice versa.  I think it would open up flexibility in roster creation and gameplanning.  

    I like this 

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 2 weeks later...

    I do just want to toss in, I really would love to open up more receiving back options.  Players akin to James White, Cordarelle Patterson, JD McKissic, Theo Riddick type roles.  Maybe a set Receiving RB role, akin to how 3rd down RB is used.  I'm not entirely sure of an easy way to put this in, but I just have always wanted to see the RB role get more of a passing game help.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 hours ago, Dean said:

    I do just want to toss in, I really would love to open up more receiving back options.  Players akin to James White, Cordarelle Patterson, JD McKissic, Theo Riddick type roles.  Maybe a set Receiving RB role, akin to how 3rd down RB is used.  I'm not entirely sure of an easy way to put this in, but I just have always wanted to see the RB role get more of a passing game help.

    To piggy back off of this, I would also like to see more options at more extended RBBC type schemes that don't require full Triple Option scheme types.  Our plan at the beginning of the season was to run Akili, Suggs, Branch, and Cooley in a 4 headed monster type system.  The idea was if Akili got 15 carries, Branch and Cooley would get 6-8 and Suggs would get 4-5.  for a total of ~30-35 carries a game.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...
     Share

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...