4-3 vs. 3-4?

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

I kind of fall into the group of people that would like to see the ability to put any player at any position, their attributes would give you an idea of where they would have the most success

Yes, please. Just this. "Position" is where you play, not who you are. Guys get put in different "positions" often.

They could "balance" it with an experience rating or something. A guy with talent playing in unfamiliar spot would have some issues until he gets experience there (would be another added dimension to practice - kind of like the playbook knowledge in HC - except positional)

[RogueHominid]

I tend to prefer the 43 for simplicity's sake, but with the 34 I have gotten some good results.

Some questions. If you're running a hybrid multiple front, as I am with a base 34 team, do you want to put in a balanced OLB instead of having them all 34 pass rushers?

With the 34, what are the most versatile playbooks in terms of unique personnel groupings and formations that actually work.

I am noticing something else that another poster mentioned regarding the 34. There's a serious lack of 34 pass rushing OLBs out there. I haven't been through a draft yet, but I'd imagine that those guys would be at a premium, as they always are. I wonder if 5 years down the road there will be enough of them to go 'round.

[mpbaseball22]

Running options on a 4-3 is a lot harder with the extra DE. I run a 3-4 but thats just my preference.. i have more trouble against a 4-3 though

[Ueauvan]

regardless of how it plays in Madden i tend to favour the 3-4 usually because i play the 9ers. but in hc09 and ncaa 13 i create a playbook that has multiple looks (no 4-3 46 plays though). i then use formations that suit my roster. if my 3rd cb is better than 2nd ss and 2nd dt better than 2nd mlb and lolb i use the nickel normal but if ss2 i better than nickel cb then ill use 4-2-5.
i prefer more flexible personnel groupings and fluid defence. i try and get NT who are 6'5" 350 odd etc etc

[KBLover]

Speaking of the 4-2-5, is it in M13?

I haven't seen in it, which playbook(s) have it?

[TheDelta]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Speaking of the 4-2-5, is it in M13? I haven't seen in it, which playbook(s) have it?

Isn't the 4-2-5 simply the Nickel formation from basically every 4-3 playbook?

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheDelta

Isn't the 4-2-5 simply the Nickel formation from basically every 4-3 playbook?

There was an actual 4-2-5 set in M12.

I believe it had different plays and alignment.

Edit: For example:

NEW YORK GIANTS

4-3 Stack
4-3 Under
4-3 Over
4-3 Over Plus

5-2 Normal

Nickel Normal

Sub 4-1-6
Sub 2-3-6 Flex
Sub 4-2-5 Under

Quarter Normal
Quarter 3 Deep

See how it has 4-2-5 AND Nickle Normal?

I'll have to look through the defensive playbooks - maybe it's on the Giants book this year too.

[hawksruleva]

I'm a 4-3 fan, which works out since I play as Seahawks. I like the Jaguars playbook a little better than Seattle's though. They have a Strong Nickel package that really helps stop the run against 3 WR sets. That set uses a safety instead of a nickel CB. Depending on who opposing personnel, you can sub in a corner instead.

The DL sets in the Strong Nickel are a bit tighter as well.

In particular, the Robber play, which moves the FS closer to the box, gives you a good ability to stop the run from single-back sets.

It seems like the RL NFL is favoring the 3-4 right now, but it's sort of cyclical. If more teams start finding success with the power running game like SF and Sea, we might see some more 4-3 fronts popping up. I think 4-3 is better against the QB read-option that some of the young QBs are running, too. The 4-man DL handles more blockers, giving the LBs a bit more time to read the play.