Positional Coaching Philosophies- and idea for 2010

[adembroski]

Okay, maybe this'll go over, may it wont, but I had to walk home from work today and my mind wandered to Madden and ways to give the user more control over his team.

I came up with philosophies. I call it this because different coaches have different dominant views on how a given unit should act in certain circumstances. You have your "Play smart and under control" Bill Walsh types, and you have your "Hit 'em so hard their girlfriend dies" Buddy Ryan types.

So I figured, each position could have it's "philosophy" instilled by the coach.

The aim is two fold- First, it forces the user to be a bit more intelligent about his acquisitions. You can't just go get the highest rated player on the team, you need players that fit not only your system, but your philosophy. Second- it creates more differentiation between opponents. No longer will each game be against a different jersey, but different teams will actually act differently.

So, let me break it down. I haven't really thought about every position yet, so I'll outline the ones I have, and maybe some others can give us ideas on other positions.

Defensive Line
The position that gave me the idea. I had always had a problem with the way draws worked... or didn't, as the case may be. A defensive lineman in Madden shifts from pass rush to run stop in the blink of an eye. There really isn't a transition because there's no difference, code wise. So, here's our philosophical scale.

* Kill the Quarterback: Typical 46, Buddy Ryan mentality... Swarm the quarterback, and run defense will take care of itself. These teams, given the right personnel and scheme, will give quarterbacks fits, but draws and screens, when executed, will kill them.

*Play the Run on the Way to the Quarterback: Typified by the Monte Kiffen Bucs. The run is a secondary concern. With great talent at linebacker, they can still deal with the run, but their first and foremost concern is pressure. More balanced than above, but still very pass orientated.

* Balanced: This team values balance, but tends to lack the aggression to dominate in either phase. While they'll never destroy opponents with either the pass rush or stopping the run, they'll be ready for anything, and rarely give up big plays from things like play action and draws.

* Typical: This is the philosophy of most NFL teams-- the run comes first, but rushing the passer is absolutely necessary. This team will be able to handle most types of plays, but tend to have problems against good play action teams.

* Brick Wall: Ted Washington... brick wall defense. Rushing the passer isn't a concern until all draw threats have left the backfield... holding position, tying up blockers, and occupying gaps is the #1 concern, to the detriment of anything else.

This can be accomplished by increasing the depth of the line play. By allowing for different attitudes in pass rush... i.e. occupying ground vs. pushing up field... and having the players respond to coach orders will help this. Of course, if you try to play a guy in the wrong philosophy... for instance, a Ted Washington type in the 46, or putting Andre Carter in a 3-4... you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Running backs
For runningback, I only have a bit of a start, but I looked at 2 different schools of thought... the old-school, trap/dive/sweep system, which asks a runningback to stay within the framework of the play until 4 yards are gained, vs. the Colts-style stretch system, which asks a runningback to use his instincts and make plays.

* Stretch- Idea for Barry Sanders type runningbacks that are difficult to control or coach. The back is asked to follow a simple framework, and use his vision and athletic ability to make the play.

* Cutback- The Broncos running system... the back in that system is told stay within the framework until you see that cutback lane, then make your ONE move and go to the house. Gives the back a small amount of freedom, but still has a strict framework to work within that allows the blockers to be used to greatest effect.

* Strict Old School- The tradition trapping, pulling, hit-the-hole offense, and great for guys like Jerome Bettis or good outside backs like Roger Craig. This is the Lombardi offense. The back is asked to stay within the framework of the play until he has gained the initial four yards. There is no cutback unless the precise moment of the cutback is defined.

I got to thinking with this one- if the user is controlling the back, what good does the philosophy system do? If you're going to implement it, it has to mean something. That's when I came up with the concept of "Trust". This is a well known issue in coaching circles... linemen have to trust that their runningback is going to work within the offense, otherwise they're going to feel obligated to deviate form it, and then you end up with blown plays.

So if you, taking control of the runningback with an old school, Lombardi philosophy decide you're going to play like Barry Sanders and bounce all over the place, losing yardage, your offensive line is going to stop trusting you, and start blocking erratically, trying to account for your lack of discipline. By the same token, if you hit the same hole in a straight line continually in a stretch play, your linemen will begin not trusting you, and focus on that location to maximize blockers at the point of attack, rendering the stretch play useless, and opening you up to backside tacklers.

Wide Receivers
This was a tough one at first. I mulled on it for a moment to figure out how "philosophies" can differ at this position. Then I stumbled on it and, as a 49ers fan, felt like a moron.

The '98 49ers illustrated this difference in philosophy perfectly. You had Jerry Rice- a perfectionist, the ultimate route runner, and you had Terrell Owens, a man who used his own physical ability to get open rather than timing. Then you had J.J. Stokes... a great example of what happens when a Terrell Owens tries to be a Jerry Rice.

* Route Running- Focused on timing. It's a well known axiom, and a truth, that there is no defense for the perfectly timed pass. A team that focuses on this will be able to execute the offense blind folded. The advantage is consistency, and a natural advantage vs. zone defenses.

* Get Open- For some, timing doesn't work. They just don't have either the natural rhythm or work ethic to pull it off... so change of speed, strength, stealth push-offs become the modus operandi. They're more likely to vary their routes, force the defense to guess what's coming, adjust to the second gear, and simply react. The advantage is big-play ability, and a natural advantage over man-to-man.

Of course, you could go a step further. West Coast vs. Greatest Show on Turf is a good example... in the West Coast offense, sharp cuts are necessary. On an out pattern, the receiver will gather his feet and push off his inside foot to make a perfect 90 degree cut, turning his head first because the ball is already on it's way. In Martz' offense, you never slow any more than you have too... you round your cuts to maximize speed.

So that's two ways to handle receivers.

There are a lot more ways to make this system deeper. Tackling is a big thing... some teams focus on form, bring the ball carrier down, period. Other teams (The late-80s Broncos) could care less if they miss a few tackles, so long as they knock the snot out of people. Good tackling vs. Scaring the Living Hell out of receivers.

I had some thoughts on other positions, but nothing concrete. Anybody wish to expand? Or just tell me my idea sucks, that's fine too.

[adembroski]

*has a temper tantrum* PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!