Has anyone switched from a 3-4 to a 4-3

[Mattanite]

As mentioned above, it is known that to change the defensive scheme presentation to an offensive playbook of a team that matches your defensive scheme. E.g. Vikings playbook will show 4-3 on D, Jets playbook will show 3-4 on D.


This is a problem with the coaching carousel bug too, as CPU generated coaches might use the offensive playbook of a 4-3 team but run a 3-4 defensive playbook but player scheme stays on 4-3... so the Defensive presentation in this case will show the right players for the player schemes but the wrong players for the playbook... confusing right? :s

[SteelD34KC]

From a 3-4 to a 4-3 is no problem as long as you have at least two DTs you can count on.

Move your pass rushing 3-4 LB's to DE. Get your two fastest LBs at OLB and your best tackler at MLB.

Should work just fine.

[sccavs64]

It depends on what mode you'e in, I noticed in Owner Mode you have to actually hire a head coach that runs a 4-3 scheme in order for the switch to occur in the main menu/cut scenes in-game. Simply switching your playbook to a 4-3 doesn't do it.

I think if you're a coach in CFM though, switching your playbook will change everything in the menus.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by SteelD34KC

From a 3-4 to a 4-3 is no problem as long as you have at least two DTs you can count on. Move your pass rushing 3-4 LB's to DE. Get your two fastest LBs at OLB and your best tackler at MLB. Should work just fine.

I think body types and player make-ups are important, though.

In my SF CFM, Buckner and Armstead are incredible weapons as 34 DE, but they lose quite a bit of their impact factor if you put them inside as DT in a 43 or put them outside as anchors in a 43. I even tried splitting the difference and putting the power guy (Armstead) inside in the 43 and the better rusher (Buckner) at strong-side end.

They just didn't have the build. Armstead has the strength of an under tackle but not the explosion to 1-gap. He might be passable as a strong-side end, but he wouldn't be able to generate any pass rush from that position. Buckner might be able to thrive as an under tackle because of his rush ability, but he comes up just short on closing speed when applying the rush from the strong-side end spot.

I wound up having to abort the experiment to switch to a 43 and return to the 34 simply because the player archetypes for the systems are so different.

I think this year's game did better ratings-wise do differentiate players so not every player can play proficiently in every scheme. My inability to switch seamlessly could mean that I simply don't have a ton of super-versatile players, but it's also really hard to switch schemes in the NFL. The Patriots can do it, but the Raiders, but most other teams can't.

That was my experience, anyway.

[ajra21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Geodude

As mentioned above, it is known that to change the defensive scheme presentation to an offensive playbook of a team that matches your defensive scheme. E.g. Vikings playbook will show 4-3 on D, Jets playbook will show 3-4 on D. This is a problem with the coaching carousel bug too, as CPU generated coaches might use the offensive playbook of a 4-3 team but run a 3-4 defensive playbook but player scheme stays on 4-3... so the Defensive presentation in this case will show the right players for the player schemes but the wrong players for the playbook... confusing right? :s

i've discovered you can edit the CPU team's D schemes. for instance, TB moved to a 34 but their player types remained for a 43, so i became the TB HC and changed the D scheme to a 43 and it stuck.

[Mattanite]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajra21

i've discovered you can edit the CPU team's D schemes. for instance, TB moved to a 34 but their player types remained for a 43, so i became the TB HC and changed the D scheme to a 43 and it stuck.

Did you keep the HC or retire them though? Does it stick after retiring? Might tips sheet might need an update if so

[SteelD34KC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trojan Man

I think body types and player make-ups are important, though. In my SF CFM, Buckner and Armstead are incredible weapons as 34 DE, but they lose quite a bit of their impact factor if you put them inside as DT in a 43 or put them outside as anchors in a 43. I even tried splitting the difference and putting the power guy (Armstead) inside in the 43 and the better rusher (Buckner) at strong-side end. They just didn't have the build. Armstead has the strength of an under tackle but not the explosion to 1-gap. He might be passable as a strong-side end, but he wouldn't be able to generate any pass rush from that position. Buckner might be able to thrive as an under tackle because of his rush ability, but he comes up just short on closing speed when applying the rush from the strong-side end spot. I wound up having to abort the experiment to switch to a 43 and return to the 34 simply because the player archetypes for the systems are so different. I think this year's game did better ratings-wise do differentiate players so not every player can play proficiently in every scheme. My inability to switch seamlessly could mean that I simply don't have a ton of super-versatile players, but it's also really hard to switch schemes in the NFL. The Patriots can do it, but the Raiders, but most other teams can't. That was my experience, anyway.

That is why I mentioned two DT's you can count on to play that position. Id trade Armstead and Buckner if I REALLY wanted to move to a 4-3. Those two should net you some nice young DTs. Move your 3-4 OLB to DE and you should be fine as long as there at least 265+ LBs with decent block shedding and power/finesse moves.

For example the Jets could easily move to a 3-4 because they have huge OLB's along with Leonard Williams and one other cant remember name, who could play DT at a high level.

Whereas you talk about say my Steelers. Probably not at all. Our OLB are 245lbs or so, and most havent taken a snap from a stance. Add to that we have 2 guys who COULD play DT, but are much, much better at 34 DE.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by SteelD34KC

That is why I mentioned two DT's you can count on to play that position. Id trade Armstead and Buckner if I REALLY wanted to move to a 4-3. Those two should net you some nice young DTs. Move your 3-4 OLB to DE and you should be fine as long as there at least 265+ LBs with decent block shedding and power/finesse moves. For example the Jets could easily move to a 3-4 because they have huge OLB's along with Leonard Williams and one other cant remember name, who could play DT at a high level. Whereas you talk about say my Steelers. Probably not at all. Our OLB are 245lbs or so, and most havent taken a snap from a stance. Add to that we have 2 guys who COULD play DT, but are much, much better at 34 DE.

Word. I can see the Jets being able to do it, but you're right that other teams are kid of locked in if they keep their current core talent. I re-signed Buckner to a $50M deal, so we're a 34 team till he croaks .

PIT is similarly stuck because you guys have gone for more athletic players and can't likely convert a guy like Dupree to a rush end. I kind of like that there are some player types in this year's game that really are scheme-dependent.