Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

[phantomshark]

They eliminated all the 5WR sets (the 5WR Trio is still in Shotgun but it's actually 4 WRs and a TE now), they removed all 4WR sets from Singleback and Pistol except for Singleback Spread, and they removed a lot of the 4WR sets from Shotgun or made them 3WR sets. They also removed about half of the Pistol plays period. Why do you supposed they deemed this necessary?

[Jr.]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

They eliminated all the 5WR sets (the 5WR Trio is still in Shotgun but it's actually 4 WRs and a TE now), they removed all 4WR sets from Singleback and Pistol except for Singleback Spread, and they removed a lot of the 4WR sets from Shotgun or made them 3WR sets. They also removed about half of the Pistol plays period. Why do you supposed they deemed this necessary?

You can RS sub WRs into nearly all of those spread sets and turn them back into 4 and 5 WR formations

[Senator Palmer]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Per Anthony White, they did it to better reflect what teams were actually running. There are even some straight I-Form that have been eliminated from some playbooks.

[timhere1970]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Back to colllege?

[yourfavestoner]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

I forgot who did it( maybe PFF?) but when you track position groupings, NFL teams are in 11 or 12 personnel sets like 80+% of the time. I know NYG was in 11 like 97% of thentime

Truth be told, not many teams run 4-5 WR sets because they become auto-blitz situations and most teams/QBs are not well equipped to handle it from a protection standpoint. Between 11 and 12 personnel, you can get into almost any formation you want and also have the flexibility to bkeep a solid 6 or 7 man protection if needed.

In real life football, if you go empty a lot you either need a running QB to flip the math and force the defense to account for him, or you better be elite at running the quick/screen game.

[yourfavestoner]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Found it, it was Football Outsiders.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/2016-offensive-personnel-analysis

11/12 personnel 75%!

10 personnel just 2.5% of plays.

NFL offenses are very very homogenous and tbh bland. They're diverse on a micro-level but on a macro-levek everybody is running the same stuff.

[xSABOx]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Found it, it was Football Outsiders.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/2016-offensive-personnel-analysis

11/12 personnel 75%!

10 personnel just 2.5% of plays.

NFL offenses are very very homogenous and tbh bland. They're diverse on a micro-level but on a macro-levek everybody is running the same stuff.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/personnel-grouping-frequency.html

Pretty much... not to mention the evolution of the TE basically becoming the 4th WR in spread formations...

[jfsolo]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Yeah, even if the usage of true 10 and 00 personnel is low, I would still like to at least have the option to call it in a game. In the Sean McVay Rams playbook, my 5 wide sets all have a RB and a TE in them.

[JayhawkerStL]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

One of the biggest problems with sim sports gaming, and this goes back forever, is that the % of sim sports gamers that are actually well versed in the real stats is much smaller than we all imagine.

It's part of why I call it paint-by-numbers. People are not trying to become better and trying to learn. They are adjusting the game to produce the results they want, which is the antithesis of competitiveness.

But sports have an ebb and flow, and real life teams adjust to the what other teams are doing. But we tend to want our games to play like the sports we watched when we were 10 years old. Once you shake loose the need for everything to be absolute sim, you will realize that reacting to real life opponents is more real and fun than trying to mandate how those real life opponents play.

Bill Belicheck would run the same play 60 times a game if no one could stop it. There are ways to stop everything. Once you realize that, the game become more fun, like cat and mouse. You are guessing what you opponent will do, and adjusting, and they are trying to fool you. That's what the NFL is like.

I laughed when I got an answer going in Longshot, as they asked Devin what he thought a team would doing in 2nd and short. I said pass, but it was run. Then they proceeded to say that it made it a good time to run playaction. Yeah, that's why I expect a pass in 2nd and short.

[yourfavestoner]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

One of the biggest problems with sim sports gaming, and this goes back forever, is that the % of sim sports gamers that are actually well versed in the real stats is much smaller than we all imagine.

It's part of why I call it paint-by-numbers. People are not trying to become better and trying to learn. They are adjusting the game to produce the results they want, which is the antithesis of competitiveness.

But sports have an ebb and flow, and real life teams adjust to the what other teams are doing. But we tend to want our games to play like the sports we watched when we were 10 years old. Once you shake loose the need for everything to be absolute sim, you will realize that reacting to real life opponents is more real and fun than trying to mandate how those real life opponents play.

Bill Belicheck would run the same play 60 times a game if no one could stop it. There are ways to stop everything. Once you realize that, the game become more fun, like cat and mouse. You are guessing what you opponent will do, and adjusting, and they are trying to fool you. That's what the NFL is like.

I laughed when I got an answer going in Longshot, as they asked Devin what he thought a team would doing in 2nd and short. I said pass, but it was run. Then they proceeded to say that it made it a good time to run playaction. Yeah, that's why I expect a pass in 2nd and short.

Tend to agree.

My background is in football. I've been around the game since childhood (my pops was a HS coach). I struggled for a loooooong time "suspending my disbelief" when it came to playing football video games. Playing NBA games was always more fun to me bc I don't really have that basketball background, so again it's easier to suspend my disbelief and play the game as a game.

Something I have noticed with Madden players - sim users seem to think NFL football is a lot less sloppy than it really is. Offensive lines, QB play (besides a few elite guys) and secondaries league-wide are absolutely atrocious. Most people don't notice bc volume stats/scoring on a whole are way up. But watch any NFL game and it's usually two sloppy, bad teams pillowfighting each other until someone makes a mistake.

I know Im way off topic re: 4 WR sets in the OP, but OL and secondary busts especially happen EVERY GAME. Most people's idea of what "sim" should look like is a lot a sloppier in reality than in theory. Just look at the awful slates of primetime games we've been fed the last few years.

[JayhawkerStL]

Re: Where did all the 4 and 5 WR sets go?

Part of the problem is that it is hard to animate failing. Missing an assignment, letting a lesser player get the best off you, and stuff like that just looks wrong when you spend a lot of time going over videos fram by frame.

For me, I tried to keep in the realm of a few decent stats. Plays per game, yards per run, yards per pass, and scoring. But that means allowing for some of the plays to look terrible, as well as some of the stats.

And you are dead on about it being easier to suspect belief in a game you are not as knowledgeable about. It's why video game hockey became more popular than hockey on TV.

I got into hockey via video games, and as I learned more I started tuning my games to be more and more sim. But lately, I just stopped. I hated all of the whining about what makes it real hockey. All I was doing was ruining the game I used to love to play. Now I play hockey as an arcade game, fast with big hits.