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

[niftyjets]

So I am going into my 4th year of my franchise. Thinking of switching my team to a 4-3 even though the Jets are a default 3-4. Has anyone done this and got it to show up correctly in the opening lineups??

I am currently in offseason year 3 stage 1

thanks

[seasprite]

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

So I am going into my 4th year of my franchise. Thinking of switching my team to a 4-3 even though the Jets are a default 3-4. Has anyone done this and got it to show up correctly in the opening lineups??

I am currently in offseason year 3 stage 1

thanks

As long as you correctly position change your DEs, DTs, and OLBs, it will show up correctly......also make sure you change your scheme along with playbook. I did it in CFM in season 3 and it has been a disaster though lol. Switching back next season

[Sprattee]

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

So I am going into my 4th year of my franchise. Thinking of switching my team to a 4-3 even though the Jets are a default 3-4. Has anyone done this and got it to show up correctly in the opening lineups??

I am currently in offseason year 3 stage 1

thanks

Started my CFM by switching the 49ers scheme to 4-3.

Was an absolute disaster the first year because I didn't account for position changes, etc. and had the worst defense in the league.

I've slowly rebuilt it over my 3 and a half seasons, but my offense has taken the hit because of it with all my resources being focused on rebuilding the D.

Make sure you have a plan in place before you do so I guess is my advice.

[JoshC1977]

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

So I am going into my 4th year of my franchise. Thinking of switching my team to a 4-3 even though the Jets are a default 3-4. Has anyone done this and got it to show up correctly in the opening lineups??

I am currently in offseason year 3 stage 1

thanks

Regarding the bold, I don't think that the presentation element in-game will change, irrespective of how you change the scheme within the coach menu.

Otherwise, switching schemes can work well. But really account for your LB style; if you have 'pass rush' style LBs playing in a 43, it is going to be tough. You can see their style in the player card where it lists all their traits...this is not to be confused with the LB type that shows up on the main player card panel.

[ajra21]

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

the presentation of your D during the game intros is connected to your O playbook.

yes, that is weird.

for instance, a WCO playbook will turn your D presentation into a 43 even if you're running a 34.

the way to get around this is to setup you playbooks in the last week before the draft. the following season, you will have the correct presentations.

[Splice]

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

the presentation of your D during the game intros is connected to your O playbook.

yes, that is weird.

for instance, a WCO playbook will turn your D presentation into a 43 even if you're running a 34.

the way to get around this is to setup you playbooks in the last week before the draft. the following season, you will have the correct presentations.

I run West Coast playbook and it shows 3-4 for me. I changed the Saints to 3-4. I changed my playbook to 3-4 and scheme to Attacking 3-4. One of those seemed to do it.

[ajra21]

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

I run West Coast playbook and it shows 3-4 for me. I changed the Saints to 3-4. I changed my playbook to 3-4 and scheme to Attacking 3-4. One of those seemed to do it.

there are lots of combination that knock it into showing the right presentation.

[catcher_0_3]

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

Going from a 34 (usually odd front) to a 43 even or normal (even front) will take some time to adjust to. If you wanted to play more 43 odd or under your first year to ease into the transition, you can probably mask some of the inherent deficiencies you will face with your personnel, which will mostly come in your linebacking core.

[Mattanite]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.