Differences in Position Philosophies

[Mike3207]

I was going to change my position philosophies earlier to reflect my playbooks. I run the Tampa Cover 2 Defense, and the Garrett Passing Attack on offense. I was going to go with the Cowboys position philosophies and the Buccaneers on defense, but I ran into some problem with the offensive line. The change from Mauler to Balanced would have dropped my guards from the low 80s with a potential in the mid 80s to an overall in the high 70s maxed out! I'll still make the change, but I ll wait until the offseason to do it.

[ebongreen]

mrs844224, I think you're missing the point that coachchris and others have emphasized: changing to a Balanced philosophy takes all of a players attributes into account as a whole, rather than emphasizing some at the expense of others. If moving to a Balanced philosophy makes your players have a lower OVR and POT, then they weren't that good overall to begin with.

Take the default DT philo for the Packers, which is Prototype. Justin Harrell has the physical measurables for a decent DT, so he had the OVR in the mid-70s and the POT to be a marginal starter (mid 80s). When I changed it to Balanced, he dropped into the 60s with a POT mid-70s because his (low-side) intangibles suddenly "counted". So I traded him away in the 2008 draft to the Cowboys and never looked back.

Certain schemes value some attributes over others, which is reflected in the philosophies. The philosophies themselves allow newer players to have the AI guide them in choosing players that work with a given scheme - but as you become a better GM, you figure out what works for your scheme anyway. For example, when I look at FA corners or check out the draft, I know I want fast, strong, tall corners with good press and man coverage skills, but my in-game CB philosophy is set to Balanced - that's the way I know that, beyond the things I know I'm looking for, the player is or isn't a good player to have on my roster. Basically I keep my philosophies in my head now and use Balanced philosophy to know the overall grade of any player.

So your guards work for your scheme, but they don't work for everyone's scheme. If you know why they work for your scheme & team, you've got the makings of a good GM, because you'll know how to replace them if something better comes along... then the OVR & POT are just numbers. Don't let having "good numbers" be crutch to your vanity as a GM - if you do, you risk managing and drafting like the next Matt Millen or the modern-day Al Davis. *shudder* Good GMs can't afford vanity/self-delusion - they've got a franchise to run & a team to improve.

[Mike3207]

Quote: Originally Posted by ebongreen

mrs844224, I think you're missing the point that coachchris and others have emphasized: changing to a Balanced philosophy takes all of a players attributes into account as a whole, rather than emphasizing some at the expense of others. If moving to a Balanced philosophy makes your players have a lower OVR and POT, then they weren't that good overall to begin with. Take the default DT philo for the Packers, which is Prototype. Justin Harrell has the physical measurables for a decent DT, so he had the OVR in the mid-70s and the POT to be a marginal starter (mid 80s). When I changed it to Balanced, he dropped into the 60s with a POT mid-70s because his (low-side) intangibles suddenly "counted". So I traded him away in the 2008 draft to the Cowboys and never looked back. Certain schemes value some attributes over others, which is reflected in the philosophies. The philosophies themselves allow newer players to have the AI guide them in choosing players that work with a given scheme - but as you become a better GM, you figure out what works for your scheme anyway. For example, when I look at FA corners or check out the draft, I know I want fast, strong, tall corners with good press and man coverage skills, but my in-game CB philosophy is set to Balanced - that's the way I know that, beyond the things I know I'm looking for, the player is or isn't a good player to have on my roster. Basically I keep my philosophies in my head now and use Balanced philosophy to know the overall grade of any player. So your guards work for your scheme, but they don't work for everyone's scheme. If you know why they work for your scheme & team, you've got the makings of a good GM, because you'll know how to replace them if something better comes along... then the OVR & POT are just numbers. Don't let having "good numbers" be crutch to your vanity as a GM - if you do, you risk managing and drafting like the next Matt Millen or the modern-day Al Davis. *shudder* Good GMs can't afford vanity/self-delusion - they've got a franchise to run & a team to improve.

So my Guards are marginal starters in the Mauler system, but put them in a different system and they become backup players. The decision I have to make is keeping the present system will help my team ths year and hurt for the future, or hurt my team this year and improve for the future. It's not a good decision either way. You make a good point about the Balanced philosophy though, and I 'll definitely look at it.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrs844224

So my Guards are marginal starters in the Mauler system, but put them in a different system and they become backup players. The decision I have to make is keeping the present system will help my team ths year and hurt for the future, or hurt my team this year and improve for the future. It's not a good decision either way. You make a good point about the Balanced philosophy though, and I 'll definitely look at it.

Changing your philosophy will not help or hurt you in the present as it really doesn't do anything. Players have the same individual attributes and still play the same. It can help you in assessing players in the future though. I personally use balanced for most things other than QB (field general because good balanced guys often scramble a lot which can annoy me, I know I could just go for slower guys but it doesn't really matter as in this game franchise qbs are easy to find so I find one and stick with it), TE (quick/route running, don't know why, just always have. Also, I don't really need a blocker there as my oline is always good) and DT, DE, and OLB if I am using a 3-4 which I currently am. Using a 3-4 I set it to run stuffer for my DT and DEs and blitzing 3-4 OLB. This is because 1) it sets my roster how I want for my dline with a run stuffer starting and my rushers with terrible overalls in my system as backups and 2)OLBs in this system are so different from normal systems.

[ebongreen]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

Changing your philosophy will not help or hurt you in the present as it really doesn't do anything. Players have the same individual attributes and still play the same.

This is worth repeating. The different philosophies only matter to GMs and and the game AI in the trading & drafting interfaces.

When you run a play, the player's OVR & POT are immaterial - it's their individual attributes that count. So it doesn't matter if you change philosophies in-season or after - what matters is whether the attributes of the personnel you have matches the plays you run.

For example, Mauler guards are usually going to be bad fits for zone-run schemes and vice-versa - but the game starts by matching playbooks & philosophies, so it's not usually a problem. On the Packers, if I suddenly decided that I wanted a power running game between the tackles based on man-to-man blocking instead of zone runs inside or out, I'd need a different set of guards & tackles to make that work. But the players don't run the plays I have any differently just because I changed my philosophy to Balanced.

Of course, there are players who can play in virtually any scheme by virtue of their talent - the Future 50, for example. No matter what you want done, those players at those positions can do it. The Balanced philosophy may make it a little easier to identify who those talented players are, and it allows you as a coach to steal plays a little more freely, rather than asking, "Do I have the personnel to run (play X) effectively?"

In my defense scheme I need covers who can play press-man AND zone; I need LBs & Ss who can blitz AND cover; I need DLs who can rush the passer AND stuff the run (and occasionally drop back in zone coverage, because I'm mean). Balanced means do-it-all, and for me that's the best kind of player to have.

[DanTheMan111]

I think prototypical is the one you need to watch out for on D. It can make Vernon Gholston look better than a decent NFL starter because of his size strength and speed.

On offense Speed can mess up ratings. it can make Donte Stallworth look as good as a slower guy like TJ Houshamazilli or Dwayne Bowe.

In the end, you should always look up individual ratings to determine who you want. Awareness is huge for every position, especially QB. Catch is very important, as well as Carry for skill positions. Stamina is important for every single position maybe excluding K/P. Being able to run a RB 20+ times a game will really help your D and relieve pressure off your QB.

The best offense is a high stamina RB who has vision, a high awareness QB with some arm strength, WRs who can catch, and Lineman that know the playbook.