Based on League Trends Madden may need Deeper Nickel Package

[macbranson]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Man, and I was contemplating if going "base Nickle" with my defense in franchise would be realistic. This sounds like the next best thing...

I definitely think this is the direction in which the NFL is headed. There should definitely be a lot more nickel packages and plays as the Nickel formation will probably become the base defense for a lot of teams within the next couple of years. There is so much emphasis on the passing game with all these rules in favor of the offense. And more Nickel plays would mean the game is closer to real life.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

When I draft now I'm mainly thinking Nickel, because I see so much 3 receiver. When I was scouting linebackers, my number one criteria was that he would be able to stay on the field and cover in Nickel. And I'm still playing around with my packages in Nickel Normal, trying to evolve my thought process when I have to focus on stopping the run in it. I drafted a safety that reminds me of Bob Sanders, so I'm having fun moving him all around. My perimeter run defense is so much better when I've got him in the slot in Big Nickel, and I'm still formulating situations to drop him down as one of the linebackers. And I went back and looked over that chart again and I was very surprised that Dime 4-1-6 barely gets used at in the NFL, except by Buffalo 21%, and Stl. 27%, the Dollar even less, and Quarters is nowhere to be found AT ALL. I've been noticing the past few years that most teams stay in Nickel when offenses come out in 4 wide. Wish I had a coaches tape to see what kind of coverages are preferred; I'm guessing quarters. But this would be another reason to deepen the nickel packages in the game because right now nickel is a tough matchup against 4 wides. Just to keep in line with what I've been observing, when I'm playing in Madden, I have gotten into the habit of never bringing out the Dime unless it's 3rd down. After reading this, I may now use it even less.

Yeah, I'm going to have to start doing that. Going to hit the playbook creator and try developing a Base Nickle defense now.

I hardly ever use any of the Dime packages. Dollar I use sometimes against 4-WR if I want to play man coverage, but usually I stop at Nickle and either call some sort of zone/zone-blitz or Man Across, 2 Deep with the LBs in Zone in the middle (or 1 spy if facing a running QB).

But yeah, I'm so Nickle-ing it up this coming year in my franchise. 3-3-5, 2-4-5, 1-5-5, Psycho, 3-3-5 Bear, Nickle Normal/Strong, here I come!

Oh and I need me a Bob Sanders-type. Both my Safeties are closer to Ed Reed - ball hawkers (though my FS is not shy about tackling).

[TWOSILK]

one thing i would like to see madden implement is the ability to make your linebackers not be static instead of ROLB and LOLB you should have the ability to make your linebackers WLB and SLB that would give your defense some much needed flexibility, if you have a primary rush linebacker like a demarcus ware all the offense has to do is flip every formation and now he has a tight end in front of him all game i am sure that the cowboys do everything in their power to get him off on the weakside, and I loved the tiered playcalling that 2k used, gave you so many different combos.

[RobertBrazil]

When will we get to create our own plays like Nfl Blitz?

[TNT713]

Quote: Originally Posted by RobertBrazil

When will we get to create our own plays like Nfl Blitz?

Madden used to have a play editor. I can't remember the last time it was in the game but here's a website that specialized in custom play design Monster Den.

I'd love to have access to a play editor so I could design my own plays... I wouldn't need to hot-route nearly as much to create the plays I wish were on the game... Hot-routing would only be an adjustment instead of a necessity.

Later

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Yeah, I'm going to have to start doing that. Going to hit the playbook creator and try developing a Base Nickle defense now. I hardly ever use any of the Dime packages. Dollar I use sometimes against 4-WR if I want to play man coverage, but usually I stop at Nickle and either call some sort of zone/zone-blitz or Man Across, 2 Deep with the LBs in Zone in the middle (or 1 spy if facing a running QB). But yeah, I'm so Nickle-ing it up this coming year in my franchise. 3-3-5, 2-4-5, 1-5-5, Psycho, 3-3-5 Bear, Nickle Normal/Strong, here I come! Oh and I need me a Bob Sanders-type. Both my Safeties are closer to Ed Reed - ball hawkers (though my FS is not shy about tackling).

Hey KB,

Let me pick your brain for a minute. I've spent the weekend Nickel-ing it up, trying to study different situations, and all but going away from Dime. But there are still a few sets I'm still trying to find a way to defeat. When the offense goes 4 wide empty, 1TE, the TE is giving me fits across the middle when I'm in Nickel. Typically, I like to take away the middle of the field on 3rd down. What do you like to go to in these situations?

I'm working mainly from Nickel Normal. Really feeling the limited Nickel coverages there in those situations. I was thinking about 3-3-5 in those situations, but I read not too long ago, how Mike Nolan didn't favor the 3-3-5 there because he felt the TE overmatched that set.

Oh, and in case you're interested in the name of that safety I found.

Spoiler

Clarence Grove - I found him in my first draft, though.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

Hey KB, Let me pick your brain for a minute. I've spent the weekend Nickel-ing it up, trying to study different situations, and all but going away from Dime. But there are still a few sets I'm still trying to find a way to defeat. When the offense goes 4 wide empty, 1TE, the TE is giving me fits across the middle when I'm in Nickel. Typically, I like to take away the middle of the field on 3rd down. What do you like to go to in these situations? I'm working mainly from Nickel Normal. Really feeling the limited Nickel coverages there in those situations. I was thinking about 3-3-5 in those situations, but I read not too long ago, how Mike Nolan didn't favor the 3-3-5 there because he felt the TE overmatched that set. Oh, and in case you're interested in the name of that safety I found. Spoiler Clarence Grove - I found him in my first draft, though.

A good TE does stress the 3-3-5 mainly because the LBs are challenged to make a play and get enough depth in zone and it's even tougher in man. I do use 3-3-5 (primarily zone coverage, though I have used the MLB as a spy in which case he acts like a "short hook zone" if the QB doesn't run. Sometimes, that seems to confuse QBs as they "lose" the fact he's not in typical coverage depth.

Some of the plays I like:




3-3-5, Cover 3. The Buzz-Hook-Buzz help cover crossing over the middle in the intermediate depth. The Buzz defenders will usually follow a receiver in his zone until about the hashes, then the hook zoner can take over, then pass to the buzz on the other side. There are windows here, but should still stop a 3rd and about 7-10 as a defender should be there to make the tackle if not defend the pass. 3rd and Medium will be harder, especially 3rd and 4. That said, if it's a quick pass, the MLB could be there to make a play still. You can blitz the flats LB on the strong side if you don't worry about a pass in that area. If you spread the DL as well, this could create a good blitz lane. Typically, I do bring him and trust the MLB and the SS to come from his buzz zone to flow and make the play.

Should the TE be looking to go deep middle, say a post, deep in, deep cross through the middle, or seam route, you have a high safety in "center field" and a bit of a bracket-like coverage with the LBs underneath it (they'll sink back as the play continues) as well.





Here's 2-4-5, Buck Slant 3. I like a lot against a spread formation. The defensive backfield is vacated a bit with 6 rushers, but there is a zone defender in most areas in the middle and hopefully the pass rush (an overload, which I love) is going to disrupt any timing and force a quicker throw. If you wanted to make it a bit more conservative, Will or Jack could be set to hook zone, whichever is your best ZCV/PRC LB, to add another defender in the middle levels. If it's a crossing route all the way to the sideline (and the blitz doesn't get home by then), the TE can have a spot to work, likewise if it's an option route with an out branch as the CBs are going to run deep and usually buzz is better against the sideline than outside hook zones. A high AWR TE might see this and adjust.

Here, too, you have protection in case the TE is looking deep. The strong safety rotates to cover where the FS would be while the MLB helps cover the route at the intermediate depth. The WRs can't do too much here unless they are in a flats/quick out type route or a slant where the blitzers left (though leaving W or J in hook zone takes this away).




3-3-5, Cover 6 - probably my favorite way to deal with passes across the middle. It just feels very versatile to me. With so many hook zones, you can afford to blitz any of the LBs. If you have a decent ZCV DE, you can even zone blitz it by bringing an OLB and dropping the DE on that side in hook zone. Then, if the TE gets by all the hook zones, you have a buzz zone on the weak side waiting - and it's the nickle corner, so a good ZCV is somewhat likely as well.

Deep middle is protected in the seams especially this time and anything that gets behind the MLB - the SS/FS should still be able to react in time since they aren't breaking to the sidelines.

If you leave the LBs in hooks, you could blitz the nickle CB instead. If your nickle CB is quick, but not great in zone, this might be the best thing to do. Coming that far from the edge, the OL shouldn't pick him up in time, so he could force the QB's hand - and that always helps zone coverage of course. About the only way to attack this would be a route that could be thrown in the middle if it's open but then breaks to the corner, or that deep slant/cross route run from weakside to strong side. The end of that route would be in the same window in the zone.


Just a few of my favorite plays. Granted, I'm a zone guy a lot of times, especially if I'm outnumbered in WRs. Usually, I might switch to 3-2-6 so I can go man (with LBs in middle hooks), but am getting away from that.

I am disappointed in the 1-5-5 options for this situation. That would be really interesting to work with. With the SS down at the line, you could man across the 4 WR to give that look while having a zone in place or blitz the SS and have one of the outside LBs go zone in that spot. Seems like the best way to go in that regard would be 1-5-5, Cover 4, and then blitz the SS instead of him taking his spot in the deep zones. This might leave the defense vulnerable to a deep TE route, but the QB has to get that much time, and hopefully the SS coming on the blitz doesn't let that happen.

[Senator Palmer]

Whoa, really good stuff, KB. You've given me some things to chew on. I'm typically a zone guy too, but lately, when I've been thinking 3rd down blitz, I've been man-ing up and coming up the middle. After looking at this, I think I'm gonna go back to expanding my palette.

Buck Slant used to be a staple of my D. Don't know why I didn't think of it for the TE, because looking at it, it definitely takes away the middle. It's that TE middle hook, and the shake route that usually gives me the most trouble. Most everything, else I feel like I can handle.

Oh, and one more question. On that Cover 6, what's the down and distance you usually like to call that in?

Thanks again, KB.