4-3 vs. 3-4?

[Woody19]

Which team do you think has the best 4-3 playbook? I'm currently using the Lions' but especially when selecting a 3-zone-defense I tend to have too many opponents uncovered ...
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[leevo27]

This why we should be able to change positions. I know we can change from LE to RE, LOLB to ROLB and vice versa but if we want to switch a team from 43 to 34 we need to change the OLB/DE/DTs

in a 4-3 there are 4 linemen, LE DT DT RE

but in a 3-4 the "LE" and "RE" are really DTs, closer to 300 lbs, bigger and stronger. Also the OLBs are the pass rushers so they are really DEs.

In other words: a 34 OLB is a 43 DE. Thats why for the colts, Freeney and Mathis are now OLBs not DEs

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by leevo27

This why we should be able to change positions. I know we can change from LE to RE, LOLB to ROLB and vice versa but if we want to switch a team from 43 to 34 we need to change the OLB/DE/DTs in a 4-3 there are 4 linemen, LE DT DT RE but in a 3-4 the "LE" and "RE" are really DTs, closer to 300 lbs, bigger and stronger. Also the OLBs are the pass rushers so they are really DEs. In other words: a 34 OLB is a 43 DE. Thats why for the colts, Freeney and Mathis are now OLBs not DEs

Agree.

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

However, I think you need to label each player as some sort of position, as this would/should affect his awareness.

The addition of the player-types and schemes have gone along away towards making the game more of a simulation. Now, if they could add animations that visually show the difference between a 2-Gapping NG and a penetrating 3 technique....

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

3-4 4ever. Even with teams that have a 4-3 personnel basis, I work towards making them 3-4. I've always loved the 3-4. I also think the 3-4 formations are interesting along with the other formations you get out of the 3-4 book. 3-4, 2-4-5, 1-5-5 are by far my favorite formations. That 4-4 is interesting though...

The 4-4 is essentially the same as the 4-2-5, which is the same as the 2-4-5.

Defense is defense. There are required tenets in order have success on defense, but how you get those players in place vary greatly

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Woody19

Which team do you think has the best 4-3 playbook? I'm currently using the Lions' but especially when selecting a 3-zone-defense I tend to have too many opponents uncovered ... Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

You really have to manipulate the defense pre-snap in order to get things covered (sort-of) in MOFC zone defenses. The automatic defensive alignment adjustments are much better in this year's game, but you can still end up with some weird matches. You need to check alignment/assignment before every snapj.

If you're talking about zone-blitzes, its hard. The game has the idea on the play diagrams, but the execution of how the route distribution should be matched is off. The best bet is to control the field SCIF player (yellow zone), so you can at least carry seam routes and then get to the flats to the field, since its harder to throw the boundary seam/out in the game.

[dirtguru]

Would be nice to be able to edit player positions again?????

I believe we can still put OLB's at DE and DE's at OLB on our depth charts as both are listed as options in my 3-4 depth chart. Makes sense as this allows the use of the 2-4-5 nickle formation.
In my case [3-4] OLB's at DE don't take much of a ratings hit if any but moving my starting ends to OLB gives them a questionably high OVR in the low to mid 70's?????????

Not sure if this could be done with 4-3 depth charts but if the user/new head coach changes to 3-4 or hybrid scheme it shouldn't matter too much gameplay wise as most 4-3 pass rush DE's seem to have similar coverage ratings as 3-4 OLB's with a few exceptions.
Block shedding, power and finess move ratings may be different but I suspect the underhood programming doesn't put much emphasis on those traits unless one users that player. In this case the user could choose to spend XP to upgrade these traits, assuming the user is playing CCM mode.

In my CCM I have noticed a only a half dozen highly rated 3-4 pass rushing OLB's coming up from college thus far. The few that have are picked very early and a couple were picked by 4-3 teams and now show up on there depth charts as DE's.....cool.
Just signed Harrison to a dirt cheap one year extension indicating he is about to retire?
So, with no good draft prospects available without some time to develop and limited cap space ruling out any FA possibilities I am considering either trading up or drafting a couple of 4-3 pass rushers, one of which I have spent a huge amount of scouting points on to uncover his OVR which is 83 with decent coverage skills. Not sure if his OVR will carry over to my scheme but probably gonna try it anyway just to see??

[dirtguru]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

You really have to manipulate the defense pre-snap in order to get things covered (sort-of) in MOFC zone defenses. The automatic defensive alignment adjustments are much better in this year's game, but you can still end up with some weird matches. You need to check alignment/assignment before every snapj. If you're talking about zone-blitzes, its hard. The game has the idea on the play diagrams, but the execution of how the route distribution should be matched is off. The best bet is to control the field SCIF player (yellow zone), so you can at least carry seam routes and then get to the flats to the field, since its harder to throw the boundary seam/out in the game.

Excellent point!!!!!
Very important, especially against a good Human/online QB.

[SuckaRepellent]

This year 43 is king. I've got some 34 sets in my book but for the most part I run 43 as my base.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2