Tiered Play Calling Revisited

[BezO]

Probably the 1st time I've disagreed with you LB.

I still think the basics of the front, stunts/blitzes & coverage/shell should be called in the huddle. Constructing a scheme & making adjustments at the line seems like too much. And I believe defenses break the huddle with those basics set most of the time.

I'd want my defense automatically aligned to the offense's strong side, and run fits/support/force automated, but with audible options.

As for adjustments, I want packages. For example, instead of allowing individual blitz audibles or line slants/pinches, give us LB/D-line packages. Same for individual coverage audibles, give us shell & coverage packages. Not only will it limit silliness, it will help those less familiar with the intricacies.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Probably the 1st time I've disagreed with you LB. I still think the basics of the front, stunts/blitzes & coverage/shell should be called in the huddle. Constructing a scheme & making adjustments at the line seems like too much. And I believe defenses break the huddle with those basics set most of the time. I'd want my defense automatically aligned to the offense's strong side, and run fits/support/force automated, but with audible options. As for adjustments, I want packages. For example, instead of allowing individual blitz audibles or line slants/pinches, give us LB/D-line packages. Same for individual coverage audibles, give us shell & coverage packages. Not only will it limit silliness, it will help those less familiar with the intricacies.

Bezo, I think depending on the team both methods are applicable in the NFL. The method I described was what the Chiefs used to do. You have your personnel package that is 3-4 but they would get to the line and call the front based on the offensive formation. I know some coaches do it, but I'm not sure going with the shell in the huddle and line stunt package in the huddle is the best idea. Think about this. You might know it is 3 WR. But you don't know if it is Doubles, or Trips. You want your shell aligned based on that, not just calling a shell and not knowing if it is doubles, trips, bunch. Same thing with your stunt. If they come out with bunch to the right, I don't want that end and tackle on the right along with any other personnel that might be stunting with them doing it on the bunch side. I want that on the back side. This is why I think at the line is more conducive. You see the offense and therefore you can outflank it and you can match your shell with the pass strength of the formation. That's best done at the line IMO, not before.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Probably the 1st time I've disagreed with you LB. I still think the basics of the front, stunts/blitzes & coverage/shell should be called in the huddle. Constructing a scheme & making adjustments at the line seems like too much. And I believe defenses break the huddle with those basics set most of the time. I'd want my defense automatically aligned to the offense's strong side, and run fits/support/force automated, but with audible options. As for adjustments, I want packages. For example, instead of allowing individual blitz audibles or line slants/pinches, give us LB/D-line packages. Same for individual coverage audibles, give us shell & coverage packages. Not only will it limit silliness, it will help those less familiar with the intricacies.

The bolded would work with what you are describing. I never thought about the auto-align because no game has ever done that and I don't see them ever doing that. Who knows. These are all just ideas.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Quote:

Free Safety and an Open Support is called. Then the user is switched to the Strong Safety and a Closed Support is called.

I'd like to ask again if you could elaborate on this LBz. I don't quite get what this means.

[LBzrule]

Also Bezo, another reason why I want the user to call it is because it gives room for error and huge breakdowns that even the best defenses give up at times whereas if it is auto programmed then if you have the players then it auto-shuts down. I don't like auto-anything. In a game I would want to mimic the breakdown in communication on defense and gives the users something to learn about defensive football. Combining this with the edge setting trait I discussed in taz's thread, what I want to avoid also is that even if you make the correct calls, this does not automatically mean that you are going to bottle it up. If you do not have an edge setting guy it might be the case you need to go with a coverage that has your CB's as the force players rather than your linebackers. What this does is force people out of using the same coverages and also forces them to scheme based on their personnel and nothing else. At least that is the hope. Using the Ravens as an example, since I would have Suggs and Upshaw then I would more than likely call a great deal of 1 high safety looks because those guys can set the edge. But, if my team does not have OLB's that are stout at the point then I will need to run something else. CB's may be the force run players instead.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kaiser Wilhelm

I'd like to ask again if you could elaborate on this LBz. I don't quite get what this means.

Open and Closed are based on the formation. You can actually go with strong and weak side if you will. Some even extend it to the field. Open side = wide side of the field, closed side = short side of the field. That falls out though when the ball is in the middle of the field. The SS is communicating with the Sam backer and the CB to his side, which is gonna be strong side/open side. The FS is communicating with the Rush (thinking in 3-4 terms) backer and the CB to his side. So if I'm' the FS and I tell rush, hey, you have back side boot, reverse, cut back ect. What this means is me as the FS I'm not worried about it because you are supposed to have it. If the run goes to the open side, this gives me leverage to be aggressive and help on that side. Now if I do not communicate and he charges down the line of scrimmage and they hit us with boot action, reverse or even a strong cutback then all he and I can do is look at each other and throw our hands up. Nobody communicated and our defense broke down because of it.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Open and Closed are based on the formation. You can actually go with strong and weak side if you will. Some even extend it to the field. Open side = wide side of the field, closed side = short side of the field. That falls out though when the ball is in the middle of the field. The SS is communicating with the Sam backer and the CB to his side, which is gonna be strong side/open side. The FS is communicating with the Rush (thinking in 3-4 terms) backer and the CB to his side. So if I'm' the FS and I tell rush, hey, you have back side boot, reverse, cut back ect. What this means is me as the FS I'm not worried about it because you are supposed to have it. If the run goes to the open side, this gives me leverage to be aggressive and help on that side. Now if I do not communicate and he charges down the line of scrimmage and they hit us with boot action, reverse or even a strong cutback then all he and I can do is look at each other and throw our hands up. Nobody communicated and our defense broke down because of it.

Okay, thank you. That makes a bit more sense now.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Also Bezo, another reason why I want the user to call it is because it gives room for error and huge breakdowns that even the best defenses give up at times whereas if it is auto programmed then if you have the players then it auto-shuts down. I don't like auto-anything. In a game I would want to mimic the breakdown in communication on defense and gives the users something to learn about defensive football. Combining this with the edge setting trait I discussed in taz's thread, what I want to avoid also is that even if you make the correct calls, this does not automatically mean that you are going to bottle it up. If you do not have an edge setting guy it might be the case you need to go with a coverage that has your CB's as the force players rather than your linebackers. What this does is force people out of using the same coverages and also forces them to scheme based on their personnel and nothing else. At least that is the hope. Using the Ravens as an example, since I would have Suggs and Upshaw then I would more than likely call a great deal of 1 high safety looks because those guys can set the edge. But, if my team does not have OLB's that are stout at the point then I will need to run something else. CB's may be the force run players instead.

I can understand that and would welcome the responsibility of making the call, though would it work with people who play no-switch/man-lock style? Would I have to switch to the SS/FS, make this call, then switch back to who I want to User? Would there be time enough to do so (opponent could see me switching around and snap it, catching me both off my preferred player AND before making the call).

That said, perhaps AWR+PRC could have an impact here, just like it's often presented for AWR+PRC for OL communication/passing off, etc. Part of AWR and PRC could be representing communication on the field, helping everyone being in a better play to stop the play, should they understand what's being told them (i.e. SS PRC has him make the correct call, but if the SLB is a rookie and has 63 AWR, he might not get it/recognize it and still could break down)

I think this would also help coach mode players, or players who play in Player CCM, as they would not likely have the ability to make that call, unless playing the said positions. If I'm nose tackle, say I'm playing CCM as Ngata, I shouldn't be making this kind of call, yet, as part of team defense, it should occur and since I'm not doing it...