You guys have more success hitting recommend button for gameplans?

[jbmagic]

You guys have more success hitting recommend button for gameplans?

or you guys do better off tweaking the gameplans/and or doing your own gameplans?

[Izulde]

I'd like to know this one too. I've been just letting my head coach set the game plans, but I don't know if they accomodate the system to fit the type of players they're using or not.

For example, in my Buccaneers dynasty since I've been concentrating on bringing in Zone guys, will it start automatically writing up Zone Defenses more often?

[MrBigglesworth]

Computer gameplans are the first step to defeat.

[Warhammer]

I gotta agree with MrBigglesworth. In the long run, your own gameplan is better than the computer. However, you might want to still use the computer for blitz tendencies until you get comfortable with that page. Otherwise, it is much better if you can draw up your own.

[jeff061]

Yeah, when I started gameplanning my offense and defense my wins started to climb. I think it's pretty much a no brainer. At the very least you should set up your secondary, I think the computer does a worse part on that than anything else. It doesn't seem to take into account the ratings of your secondary at all.

[jbmagic]

yep

i notice if you hit the recommend button the cpu dont usually adjust the run % for offense and defense. it always the same.

i just notice it change the run direction % and pass % directions mainly and formation goalline, nickle and dime% and % for excepting run or pass just a little.

i agree it does a bad job with the secondary %.

i am starting to do my own gameplanning and getting better results.

i dont see the point in having the recommend button for gameplans, if its not going to adjust it much per game.

they are making a huge mistake if they use the recommend button.

[gstelmack]

I usually use the CPU recommendation on defense, because I'm a miserable failure when doing it myself (except my one season in the WigFL, where I had a playoff game vs. KC and went to a "stop the rush at all costs" D that worked great). I'd like to get better, but it's never worked out for me (and once I realised the computer will call a 4-deep zone on 3rd-and-1, I realised how little control I had over my defensive playcalling: I want to be able to call defensive formations based on my run/pass settings just like I can call offensive formations).

Offense is completely different. I've seen remarkable changes in offensive efficiency even with small tweaks. For example, I noticed my QB had low completion percentages because he was getting hurried all the time. I tweaked the pass distance numbers to throw short a bit more often, and completion percentage, yards-per-completion, passing yards per game, and points scored went up, while sacks, hurries, and interceptions went down. It wasn't even a major shift, just a few percentage points.

I've found it much easier to get my offense to do what I want than the defense.

[Warhammer]

Offense is completely different. I've seen remarkable changes in offensive efficiency even with small tweaks. For example, I noticed my QB had low completion percentages because he was getting hurried all the time. I tweaked the pass distance numbers to throw short a bit more often, and completion percentage, yards-per-completion, passing yards per game, and points scored went up, while sacks, hurries, and interceptions went down. It wasn't even a major shift, just a few percentage points.

I've found it much easier to get my offense to do what I want than the defense.

This is funny, because I have the opposite situation. I can gameplan defense all day long and turn castoffs into a top notch defense. My problem is on offense. I can gameplan a smashmouth running attack, but without great personnel, I have problems with running any other sort of attack. I can do it, but it is MUCH easier for me to get the defense clicking, whereas the offense takes several games to get it humming.

[Calabaza]

I find it very easy to Game Plan the Pass. Both on Offense and Defense my team is always top notch (after a lot of good advice from other people on these boards) against the pass, but I can't seem to put together a good run offense or a good run defense no matter what I do.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think the best example is I have a team with great zone secondary, and yet the recommend button always brings up more man2man coverage every time. Not to mention, hitting it for the next game doesn't change much even though you are playing a totally different team. You don't have to make big changes, but you should make some. Frankly, I would like to know what the gameplan AI does because I rarely see it match up with my player skills or the team I am playing.

[Icy]

I have problems setting the defense too as some you are posting, specially with the coverage %, now i have done some tweaks at the NAFL and won the last game but still can't master the defense.

[jbmagic]

I also would like to know what the gameplan AI does because I rarely see it match up with my player skills or the team I am playing. Its seems to move a little and it seems random.

i dont see the point in the recommend button for gameplans.

[Warhammer]

I have problems setting the defense too as some you are posting, specially with the coverage %, now i have done some tweaks at the NAFL and won the last game but still can't master the defense.

Get a feel for what coverages your players play best and go with that. I prefer to mix it up quite a bit, but there are those out there that are very successful just running one coverage.

[mhass]

I've noticed some really wretched play calling from my team. Do you still see poor decisions with custom gameplans, just with better performance overall?

[Eaglesfan27]

I think if you develop a "system" and tailor your gameplan to it as well as the players you acquire, you can greatly increase overall performance and you can limit poor decisions to an extent. I think using recommend for gameplans is a big step towards defeat, particularly in MP leagues.

[MIJB#19]

Get a feel for what coverages your players play best and go with that. I prefer to mix it up quite a bit, but there are those out there that are very successful just running one coverage.I agree with this. By Warhammer's advise I went to more of one system (in my case zone defense since that's where i had experts in) and it seems to work pretty well combined with a super DT and a very good LB trio. I'm not in championship winning mode yet, but that requires a bit more luck in the roll of the dice and having an offense for a change. :D

FWIW, in the IHOF the top teams all run one system 95% to 100% of the time. Incidentally all run bump and run by the way, but that's simply because BnR is easiest to get linebackers who master it and get young players with some experience at. The FA market always have 50/x BnR corners, at zone or M2M you're lucky if you find a 30/50 guy.

[Icy]

I agree with this. By Warhammer's advise I went to more of one system (in my case zone defense since that's where i had experts in) and it seems to work pretty well combined with a super DT and a very good LB trio. I'm not in championship winning mode yet, but that requires a bit more luck in the roll of the dice and having an offense for a change. :D

FWIW, in the IHOF the top teams all run one system 95% to 100% of the time. Incidentally all run bump and run by the way, but that's simply because BnR is easiest to get linebackers who master it and get young players with some experience at. The FA market always have 50/x BnR corners, at zone or M2M you're lucky if you find a 30/50 guy.

That is why i tried with success last week too, seems you get way better results bumping just one defense style. I'm not sure if the game is designed to work this way or not, but i guess a team plays different defenses during the match depending on the situation, not only one and never supossed i had to only choose one.

[jeff061]

I run 100% as well, with a good set of linebackers. Worked out fairly well for 3 or 4 seasons now.

[Passacaglia]

My quick-and-dirty way of gameplanning defense is to set all the run expectation percentages to close to 50% -- wavering a bit for situations, but keeping the run aggressive and pass aggressive percentages at 0 -- that way, I feel like I'm not committing too much to either the run or the pass, so it's not a big deal if I'm wrong. Then I set my coverage style to 100% bump&run (it's easiest to find guys with high ratings in that area), put my Top CB on the Top WR, and set the double-coverages to 50 each. Goal-line, nickel, and dime are mostly situational, but also depend on how confident I am in my 3rd or 4th CB (or my LBs). It seems to work pretty well, and I don't have to change much week-by-week.

[gstelmack]

Do you still see poor decisions with custom gameplans, just with better performance overall?
Oh yes. Our office league just had a GM lose his third Super Bowl (he's 0-3 right now), in part because his coach called 13 rushes vs. 41 passes with a run-heavy gameplan (game ended 20-17, so it's not like he was throwing to catch up). His starting RB had 8 attempts for 35 yards (4.3 average), so it's not like he wasn't moving the ball.

[Warhammer]

I agree with this. By Warhammer's advise I went to more of one system (in my case zone defense since that's where i had experts in) and it seems to work pretty well combined with a super DT and a very good LB trio. I'm not in championship winning mode yet, but that requires a bit more luck in the roll of the dice and having an offense for a change. :D

FWIW, in the IHOF the top teams all run one system 95% to 100% of the time. Incidentally all run bump and run by the way, but that's simply because BnR is easiest to get linebackers who master it and get young players with some experience at. The FA market always have 50/x BnR corners, at zone or M2M you're lucky if you find a 30/50 guy.

The down side to running one system all the time, and something I almost exploited in going up against NPL in the IHOF is that it is easier to game plan against.

I try to get DBs who are good at two systems, one of which should be zone. This allows me to mix coverages up a bit, while still having a solid defense. Zones are vulnerable short, where as BnR coverage can be vulnerable deep (if they miss the jam, lose a step, etc.), M2M is good short, but vulnerable deep, but not as much as BnR. If you play two systems well, and mix them up, you can give your opponent fits. Again, zone is preferable if I only DBs with one specialty are used because each of the zone coverages play so differently.

[jeff061]

Is that proven or speculation? I have not seen those effects after a few years of using the same coverage. Guess I'll found out now after this thread ;).

[cthomer5000]

The down side to running one system all the time, and something I almost exploited in going up against NPL in the IHOF is that it is easier to game plan against.

I try to get DBs who are good at two systems, one of which should be zone. This allows me to mix coverages up a bit, while still having a solid defense. Zones are vulnerable short, where as BnR coverage can be vulnerable deep (if they miss the jam, lose a step, etc.), M2M is good short, but vulnerable deep, but not as much as BnR. If you play two systems well, and mix them up, you can give your opponent fits. Again, zone is preferable if I only DBs with one specialty are used because each of the zone coverages play so differently.
Have you proven these results, or just thinking about it logically?

[Warhammer]

Have you proven these results, or just thinking about it logically?

I can't guarantee that it is completely true, but I have enough anecdotal evidence to stand behind it.

Regarding BNR, I have seen it in two different games where I specifically game planned as such on offense.

I have actually seen it happen more on defense where I was eaten alive by certain style of attacks in two different leagues. I have seen it happen against zone defense both in my favor and against me. M2M coverage I probably have the worst feel for, but it follows logically.

That is why I was so pumped about facing NPL this year, because I thought I would be able to bump you off with my game plan. I came close, and had no where near the talent level to really compete without a good game plan.

The call %s also weigh into the equation, which is why an identical game plan in regards to formation, passing zones, and run direction may fall apart with different run/pass %s.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Lots of what WH says is correct. I have used some of his tidbits in the past with good results. Thank him for me.

[jeff061]

Well I use zone with a good mix of 2,3 and 4 zone coverages, so maybe that protects me more than if I was using m2m. I decided to stick with zone because guys with high m2m are snapped up in FA with large contracts, while there seems to be more cb's and safeties available with high zone and no m2m for less.

[Warhammer]

The zone coverages change up quite a bit. For example, the 2 Deep Zone moves the safties back, and weakens the run d in the middle. However, you get superior short/middle zones since the CBs are playing up. This is the one coverage I am not clear on how FOF models it, as some teams put their CBs into M2M coverage (Tampa Bay Cover 2), and others go into the classic 2 Deep zone with the CBs playing shallow zones.

A 3 Deep Zone is the FS and the CBs taking the deep zones, the SS moves up which helps the run defense. The short zones are covered by the LBs who have to cover more ground than in 2 Deep coverage.

A 4 Deep Zone drops the DBs back into deep zones and lets the LBs and nickel and dime backs (if they are in) with the shallow zones. This is also weak against the run because the safeties are dropping back after the ball is snapped, however good play diagnosis helps this out a lot.

As I mentioned before, I prefer a 2 coverage type player, but if I can only find someone who can play one, I go with zone, because I can guard against more types of plays with a zone defense than I can with any other type.

[Eaglesfan27]

FWIW, I've had VERY successful defenses in both SP and MP using 90-95% of one coverage type (usually M2M) with just a small smattering of other coverages.

[cthomer5000]

The good thing about my NPL team is the fact that I actually do have the horses to run man-to-man when i want (sliding SS Shaun Steven to CB). I've done it 1-2 times over the last couple years.

And I wasn't doubting your experience. I've always felt the same way about BNR (more likely to give up the long ball), since it makes logical sense.

[jbmagic]

i also notice the gameplans goes my everyone on your roster and opponent roster including injuries.


so the recommend button can be misleading because its taking account injure players on the roster too.

[albionmoonlight]

Do it yourself.

Remember, you have the advantage of being able to practice things in single player to see if they work or not.

[Kodos]

Do it yourself.

Remember, you have the advantage of being able to practice things in single player to see if they work or not.


Then how come my record is better than SkyDogs? :p

[korme]

Well I have been in my first multiplayer for a month now, and gameplans just look overwhelming. I never bothered with them in solo play.. any tips for starters?

[Buzzbee]

My first suggestion would be to look at the formation usage screens to see what formations will be run in certain situations. Make sure your QB knows the formations, and make sure the %'s you specify match with what formations you want to run in those situations.

In other words, if you want to run mostly goalline on 3 and 1 and you have your running percentage set to 80%, make sure that in the Running Situations formation usage screen you have goalline listed, and that the percentage there is pretty high.

This way you are running plays that match the situation, and that your QB knows.