Defensive playbooks

[Fluff E Bunny]

I've been in the process of making a playbook viewer in .Net for my own edification, and the thought came to me that, if we have offensive playbooks, why not have defensive playbooks?

See, here's my thinking, how often do you see teams go from one radically difference defensive scheme to the next from play to play in real life? Sure, in my gameplan I may cycle between 3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5, 4-2-5, nickle and dime, with the occasional 4-4 thrown in for good measure, but in real life you just don't see that.

Most teams run a base D, and have auxilliary packages for various situations (ie, 4-3 base with goalline, nickle and dime packages). So, why not have that sort of thing in the game as well....with a richer set of plays per set so that you can account for various offensive sets better, and confuse offenses more :).

Just a thought.

[djwill13]

amen, my brother preach on

and while you're at it, how about some actual offensive playbooks. i can't remember georgia lining up in the maryland I at all this year

how about different plays in different teams playbooks with the same formations?

and am i the only one that thinks it's wierd to be able to beat a 4-5 wide set with a 3-3-5 defense? that just shouldn't happen, but i guess that goes back to the superman play of the linebackers

sorry, i just had to rant a little bit there

[Fluff E Bunny]

and am i the only one that thinks it's wierd to be able to beat a 4-5 wide set with a 3-3-5 defense? that just shouldn't happen, but i guess that goes back to the superman play of the linebackers


I don't see that as unreasonable. You've got 5 db's (2 CB, 2 SS, 1 FS), with inside help from the two OLB's on the slot guys, and potentially deep help from the MLB. Tampa bay has used deep MLB drops for a while now with their zone blitzing, so I don't see that as unreasonable.

Plus, there is no reason why you couldn't formation sub corners in for the SS's if you know for sure the other team isn't interested in the run.

I think - and I could be way off - that the mission of the 335 is to give multiple looks to confuse the QB and get him out of rythm so he can't neccessarily hit those 5 wides with impunity.

QB doesn't know if he's going to have 8 guys rushing him, or only 3, etc.

When I use the defense I'm looking to get quick outside pressure from my SS's, hoping my LB's can cover well enough shallow...as I don't mind short gains. I do get beat occasionally with the deep corner routes.

Risk-reward man, its all about risk-reward ;)


Now, 335 consistently beating an inside running set is another story. That just shouldn't happen.

[djwill13]

i know what you mean about tampa, but they didn't use the 3-3-5. they used a base 4-3 and crept lynch (SS) up to the line for a 4-4 look.

thing is, if i motioned a WR over to one side (giving me 3 WR's) against a SS, LB and FS. plus one of them is playing off. the slant should be open, but it's not. never is

[Fluff E Bunny]

i know what you mean about tampa, but they didn't use the 3-3-5. they used a base 4-3 and crept lynch (SS) up to the line for a 4-4 look.

thing is, if i motioned a WR over to one side (giving me 3 WR's) against a SS, LB and FS. plus one of them is playing off. the slant should be open, but it's not. never is

I think that has more to do with the generic defensive AI switching issues in all formations, but augmented in 335 by the proximity of the defensive players in that set to each other.