Switching from a 4-3 to 3-4 defense

[gadorg]

Hey guys,

I'm at the draft portion of the offseason (just finished free agency), and wanted to know if it was too late for me to change from a 4-3 to 3-4 defense. If so, when's the best time to change?

[Firefly]

Nah. As long as you switch before training camp you'll be all right.

[gadorg]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Nah. As long as you switch before training camp you'll be all right.

Fantastic! Where would I make this switch?

[Ben E Lou]

You can switch any time...between Week 3 and Week 4 if you want, and back and forth as many times as you want in a season. All you do is switch your defensive game plan on the Game Plan--Miscellaneous Settings screen from 3-4 to 4-3.

[gadorg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You can switch any time...between Week 3 and Week 4 if you want, and back and forth as many times as you want in a season. All you do is switch your defensive game plan on the Game Plan--Miscellaneous Settings screen from 3-4 to 4-3.

Thanks Ben!

[Epi_862]

Wait, what?

Changing to a totally different defence has no penalty, AT ALL? The lack of football logic in this game sometimes, i swear...

[Nugget699]

Epi brings up a valid point. Surely changing tactics in any sport will take a couple of weeks before the players 'gel' to the new formation etc. Even though these are professional athletes they still have to adapt to a new system.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, I never said there's no penalty. It's possible that there isn't, but that's assuming two things:

1. Your players who change roles have full positional experience in both areas (MLB/SILB/WILB and LDT/RDT/NT).
2. That there's not a significant penalty for playing a guy slightly out of position.

#1 can be observed in-game. Most veteran ILBs and DTs would fit the bill there, but for many young DTs/ILBs, it would be problematic. For example, I'm looking at a young DT now who would drop three levels of positional experience if moved from his current LDT role into a NT role. You might argue that the team could use their other DT, who is a veteran, as the NT. However, I say again that it probably isn't a good idea to sit a young DT who is near full development just to switch to the 3-4 for a few games.

As for #2, after playing a while, I would say that if there's any penalty at all for (as an example) playing a guy at WILB who is listed at MLB but has full positional experience at WILB, it's a minimal one. But there may well be one, and you are limited in the number of position switches per season.

As far as the rant about the game having a lack of football logic. There's a point where the developer can't anticipate every single out-there thing that we might do, especially when said idea isn't really a good strategy to begin with. In putting a defense together, it doesn't make much sense to build a team to run the 3-4 *and* the 4-3 in the same season. You'd have to carry at least two starting-quality DTs who can switch between NT and LDT/RDT, and at least two starting-quality ILBs who can switch between MLB and SILB/WLB. In most cases, your team would suffer elsewhere from you using the cap room and roster spots to do something like this.

All that being said, there's a decent bit of evidence that the 3-4 in FOF is pretty much the 4-3 with a coat of paint added.

[Epi_862]

For all the things FOF does extremely well, and i must say i love the game... The fact that you cant use football logic in a football simulator is sometimes EXTREMELY frustrating. This 3-4 thing is just one of them... I mean, you can go from a west coast offense to a run-n-gun to a damn A11 for all i know in three consecutive weeks, and only the QB has to learn it (formations). Not cool.

edit: Ben, to add to your second-to-last paragraph, i do agree that everything can never be covered, but i would also claim that learning and playing a certain system is one of the most basic things in football, and it isnt simulated in FOF, it seems, at all.

[Ben E Lou]

What we call "systems" in FOF aren't really systems, but just combinations of plays. And apart from specialty systems that require on-the-fly decisions and specialized training like West Woast and A11, I would argue that the same is basically true in real life. Think about it like this: it's not so much that an NFL team couldn't switch from throwing a bunch of short passes to heavy running and downfield passing in a given week; they have rehearsed *plenty* of plays of all sorts of variety. All they'd have to do would be to call them. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the Falcons called something like 45 runs and 20 passes in the opener. Could they call 20 runs and 45 passes next week without ever using the same play more than once or twice in the game? Of course. Even with a rookie at QB, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that Ryan has well over that many pass plays at his disposal.

Even though Atlanta is a running team, they certainly have *plenty* of short, medium and long passes in their arsenal. The reason they didn't use them last week, and probably won't use them unless they are behind, is because of the talent of the personnel, not because they don't know those plays. And *that* is why many FOF teams can change systems so easily. Look at the ratings of my five starting MP QBs:

	ECFL	FOFL	IHOF	OSFL	WOOF
Screen	69	95	72	96	86
Short	43	84	96	76	89
Medium	73	96	47	57	30
Long	53	39	95	89	54
Deep	78	77	88	71	76
Accuracy	34	96	96	90	69

(Remember that a 50 rating is above average in FOF, and the range of 33-49 is average.) So with the ECFL guy, I avoid Short passing a bit, since he's on the low end of "average" in that. I slightly lower Long in FOFL. IHOF? OSFL? Those guys can throw it well at any distance. The WOOF guy struggles some at Medium, so I take that into account. In all five cases, I have receivers who are above average anywhere on the field. So really, all of these teams can call pretty much whatever plays they want whenever they want. From tests I've run on players with talent only in certain areas, it's pretty clear that FOF does a good job of using the talent ratings. The issue I see is that there are just too many skill position players who can do nearly everything well.

Back to the Falcons: Matt Ryan's Long and Deep passing are considered suspect, and all indications are that we're not going to see the Falcons do terribly much of that in all likelihood. Do they have enough "Long" and "Deep" plays in the arsenal to surprise someone with a Vertical Passing attack one week? Sure. Would Ryan be able to execute it? Probably not, but that's probably not as much because of lack of familiarity with the system as just plain lack of ability to run it well.

I suspect that if you look at teams in MP leagues who successfully switch game plans in a big way from week to week, you'll find that they are the teams with QBs and WRs with the talent to do anything. I'd be very curious to see a team with mediocre and/or specialized talent that can make big changes consistently and successfully.

[Epi_862]

I see what your saying Ben, and i think we're pulling on two ends of the same rope.

But, i must say, a team philosophy is NOT about the plays that are trained, of course teams have a bunch of them for all purposes and plays imaginable, BUT... Are you saying that going from west coast to a high passing offense doesn't change the whole complexion of the whole team? The way OL blocks, the way WR's run the routes, the backs emphasis on blocking, the QB's read progression and timing...

There's a system in place for every football team, which has a much greater emphasis on the personnel than an conceptual amount of different plays. A west coast system CAN run 100% deep passes, sure, and sometimes they really favor the deep ball, but the system is still the system. Everything that everyone learns in that team is tied to the system. A WR in college spread versus a WR in a WCO run TOTALLY different routes. Yes, they run a different slant, a different post, you name it it's different.

So, in the end, i'm merely saying that is a very basic side of football that FOF doesn't simulate, seemingly at all. And going by football logic, while playing, one would assume that. Thats all i'm saying.

[Ben E Lou]

Right...I'd agree with the statement that there aren't really "systems" in FOF. I'm pretty sure that Jim did mention somewhere that he wanted to implement playbooks in a future version of FOF. I would assume that would be a way to bring in systems.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

As far as the rant about the game having a lack of football logic. There's a point where the developer can't anticipate every single out-there thing that we might do, especially when said idea isn't really a good strategy to begin with. In putting a defense together, it doesn't make much sense to build a team to run the 3-4 *and* the 4-3 in the same season. You'd have to carry at least two starting-quality DTs who can switch between NT and LDT/RDT, and at least two starting-quality ILBs who can switch between MLB and SILB/WLB. In most cases, your team would suffer elsewhere from you using the cap room and roster spots to do something like this.

All that being said, there's a decent bit of evidence that the 3-4 in FOF is pretty much the 4-3 with a coat of paint added.

I've switched back and forth within a season before in IHOF. Dictated by injury, I believe when I started in a 3-4 and ran out of healthy ILB. Though it could have also been a case where I had a few DE/DT out and had to go the other way. I can't really remember it being too detrimental, but that's so hard to gauge anyway.

[Firefly]

I remember reading maybe in the help file that you shouldn't take changing defensive alignment too lightly, as it will take your players time to adjust to the new scheme, or something of the sort. Then again, I've never experimented with that at all.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I remember reading maybe in the help file that you shouldn't take changing defensive alignment too lightly, as it will take your players time to adjust to the new scheme, or something of the sort. Then again, I've never experimented with that at all.

"The Choose Defensive Front section selects the basic defensive front your team will employ. Don't change this setting too often, as players need time to learn new positions, and a change here means that there are new roles for your defensive tackles and inside linebackers. When you change this selection, the positions you need to fill in the depth charts are changed to reflect the new defensive front."

I see new roles and new positions mentioned, but nothing about a new scheme. And it mentions DT and ILB specifically, I assume for the RDT/NT/LDT and SILB/MLB/WILB issues that Ben alluded to above. Assuming you have a veteran squad, I'm not sure this is an issue. Take my current IHOF team - I am considering a switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3, as we have absolutely SUCKED ON ICE the first three games. Our three DT are 10/9/10, 10/10/10, 10/10/10 at the three DT positions. Our starting ILB are 10/10/10 and 7/8/8 (the second is also 8 at WLB, and may play there though we have other vet options). So I don't see a real problem.

[FFL Buffalo Bills]

The switching of the 4-3 to the 3-4 after training camp is NOT advised.

I was considering doing this . I'm in week 4 of the regular season and have a very talented front 7 playing 4-3 but they are not playing well at all...Very frustrating to see my team 0-3