 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Question on 3-4 D
Rockpile523
Question on 3-4 D
April 07, 2014 at 04:41PM View BBCode
How does the AI determine when a 3-4 D will be played? I don't see any settings for it beyond the depth chart. Thanks.
Admin
Chris
April 08, 2014 at 12:27AM View BBCode
I haven't done anything with it yet, it is just in the database. There are some kinks I have to work out before I can install any strategies that use it.Chris
RichNYC1
April 08, 2014 at 12:58AM View BBCode
Will it be possible to turn off either the 4-3 or 3-4?
RichNYC1
April 08, 2014 at 01:44AM View BBCode
I am not a big LB guy.. the thought of having 4 of them on the field scares me. :o
blakjakshalak
Hmm interesting. I am just the opposite. Good LBs and safeties make all the difference imho. I'm looking forward to giving that a try. I wonder though if it is popular if there are enough good LBs league wide to make it work. I don't think you would be able to go back and forth between 4-3 and 3-4 without playing defensive linemen as backers and vise versa. I would prefer being able to designate my base defense as one or the other rather than have the sim decide.
April 08, 2014 at 02:08AM View BBCode
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I am not a big LB guy.. the thought of having 4 of them on the field scares me. :o
Hmm interesting. I am just the opposite. Good LBs and safeties make all the difference imho. I'm looking forward to giving that a try. I wonder though if it is popular if there are enough good LBs league wide to make it work. I don't think you would be able to go back and forth between 4-3 and 3-4 without playing defensive linemen as backers and vise versa. I would prefer being able to designate my base defense as one or the other rather than have the sim decide.
dirtdevil
when we get there, I would agree. if we can also designate specific times to use the non 'base' alignment, then great. but i'd much rather be stuck with one that I choose rather than have the sim choose between two randomly without my input.
April 08, 2014 at 02:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by blakjakshalak
I would prefer being able to designate my base defense as one or the other rather than have the sim decide.
when we get there, I would agree. if we can also designate specific times to use the non 'base' alignment, then great. but i'd much rather be stuck with one that I choose rather than have the sim choose between two randomly without my input.
Rockpile523
I also imagine more Blitz possibilities, Weak Side and strong side overloads, MLB blitzes, FS and SS blitzes, even just Sam or Will LB blitzes. Non of which require a 3-4, but it would be nice. That way more pressure could be dialed up without being to predictable.
April 08, 2014 at 02:40PM View BBCode
Yes, with the lack of DE's in the premium leagues and the high number of DTs, I think putting a 3-4 together would be slightly easier. However in a Goal Line Situation I would want a 4-3 in order to maximize the Defensive push.I also imagine more Blitz possibilities, Weak Side and strong side overloads, MLB blitzes, FS and SS blitzes, even just Sam or Will LB blitzes. Non of which require a 3-4, but it would be nice. That way more pressure could be dialed up without being to predictable.
blakjakshalak
If the same set of defensive plays were available using the 3-4 alignment, an owner could choose for themselves how much and in what situation to use them. Or they can leave them unselected.
April 08, 2014 at 05:10PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by blakjakshalak
I would prefer being able to designate my base defense as one or the other rather than have the sim decide.
when we get there, I would agree. if we can also designate specific times to use the non 'base' alignment, then great. but i'd much rather be stuck with one that I choose rather than have the sim choose between two randomly without my input.
If the same set of defensive plays were available using the 3-4 alignment, an owner could choose for themselves how much and in what situation to use them. Or they can leave them unselected.
Admin
That is how they will be. It will be like shotgun plays now: You'll have a 4-3 Shallow Zone and a 3-4 Shallow Zone. There may be some minor variations, or maybe one strategy for each that is exclusive; I am not a big student of the 3-4 so I need to put some study into it. For the short term, though, deciding who your "starters" are will still be based on a 4-3, although I expect to make that more intelligent at some point.
Chris
[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Admin]
April 09, 2014 at 06:08AM View BBCode
Originally posted by blakjakshalak
If the same set of defensive plays were available using the 3-4 alignment, an owner could choose for themselves how much and in what situation to use them. Or they can leave them unselected.
That is how they will be. It will be like shotgun plays now: You'll have a 4-3 Shallow Zone and a 3-4 Shallow Zone. There may be some minor variations, or maybe one strategy for each that is exclusive; I am not a big student of the 3-4 so I need to put some study into it. For the short term, though, deciding who your "starters" are will still be based on a 4-3, although I expect to make that more intelligent at some point.
Chris
[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Admin]
Admin
Chris
April 11, 2014 at 04:27PM View BBCode
I am also looking to add a 6-2 for short yardage or goal line situations, which will probably require me to crate a Defensive Guard role for the two innermost linemen, which I think should populate from the ILB depth chart rather than the DT depth chart (if the owner doesn't specify DG's for the formation). I'm torn about this though, because logically they should be DT's. I guess I should look at who NFL teams actually slot into those two innermost lineman spots on short yardage defenses.Chris
Rockpile523
I could be way off though.
April 11, 2014 at 04:41PM View BBCode
Normally I believe its more like LDE, RDT, NT, LDT, LE. For a 5 man front, I think the 6 man would fall on the strong side between the DT and the End and be a MLB.I could be way off though.
casperthegm
April 11, 2014 at 04:45PM View BBCode
I have no clue but my gut says get the most amount of big men on that front 6 as possible, which is why I'm thinking either a DT or DE, not MLB.
dirtdevil
For the short term, though, deciding who your "starters" are will still be based on a 4-3 [/quote]
so if I'm following correctly, the default starters at LB in a 3-4 will be the top two guys on the OLB charts on the outside and the top two guys on the ILB charts in the middle slots? barring a more specific setup using the strong/weak/middle charts?
April 11, 2014 at 05:51PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Admin[/i]
For the short term, though, deciding who your "starters" are will still be based on a 4-3 [/quote]
so if I'm following correctly, the default starters at LB in a 3-4 will be the top two guys on the OLB charts on the outside and the top two guys on the ILB charts in the middle slots? barring a more specific setup using the strong/weak/middle charts?
dirtdevil
I'd incline that way as well. I'd even rather draw from OL before LB. I'd think you'd need as many big guys in the pile as possible.
April 11, 2014 at 05:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by casperthegm
I have no clue but my gut says get the most amount of big men on that front 6 as possible, which is why I'm thinking either a DT or DE, not MLB.
I'd incline that way as well. I'd even rather draw from OL before LB. I'd think you'd need as many big guys in the pile as possible.
Rockpile523
Then what are the back 5? 2 LB, 2 CB, 1 S? It would seem logical in a GL front.
Is there an offense set to counter this? Bringing in an Extra O-line at TE, and even an extra TE or 2 on the line?
April 11, 2014 at 06:29PM View BBCode
I'd prefer a line of Fatties as well, preferably strong fatties, but as we have no way of knowing how big a guy is, I'd prefer to base it on a skill set, mainly strength, run cover, and tackle. With a 6 man front agility is pointless. Default to 2 DE and 4 DTs, but everyone will still tweak it.Then what are the back 5? 2 LB, 2 CB, 1 S? It would seem logical in a GL front.
Is there an offense set to counter this? Bringing in an Extra O-line at TE, and even an extra TE or 2 on the line?
casperthegm
April 11, 2014 at 06:48PM View BBCode
Good question about the offensive set for goal line. Shouldn't really have a defensive set and not one for the other side. I'd love to see a jumbo set for offense with the ability to have a bootleg.
Hodor
Some of the things I guess should happen:
-better OLB blitzes
-less pressure from the line
-better pass cover, specially in short yardage?
-allow more short yardage in run cover, but less long runs?
-???
I ask because I think there should be some "goals" before you start testing something like this, otherwise we either won't know if it's working or not, or it'll be only a cosmetic addition.
Why would someone use the 3-4 if the 4-3 is working fine?
Why would someone use the 4-3 if the 3-4 works better?
April 12, 2014 at 04:51AM View BBCode
About the 3-4, what are you exactly expecting to happen?Some of the things I guess should happen:
-better OLB blitzes
-less pressure from the line
-better pass cover, specially in short yardage?
-allow more short yardage in run cover, but less long runs?
-???
I ask because I think there should be some "goals" before you start testing something like this, otherwise we either won't know if it's working or not, or it'll be only a cosmetic addition.
Why would someone use the 3-4 if the 4-3 is working fine?
Why would someone use the 4-3 if the 3-4 works better?
Hodor
In case the answer is not, then why not? if you're stacking the box is clear that you're trying to stop the run, you don't really care about the backfield (=not enough QB pressure), so there's a huge chance for a play action to succeed.
Also, if there isn't a mirror offensive formation, then there's no way you can succeed with a regular running play against a 6-2 formation. Everybody will be forced to pass in goal line situations (I mean forced, not willingly going with it for the pleasure of doing weird things).
April 12, 2014 at 05:04AM View BBCode
About the 6-2 formation... am I right in thinking that a play action would/should work wonders against it?In case the answer is not, then why not? if you're stacking the box is clear that you're trying to stop the run, you don't really care about the backfield (=not enough QB pressure), so there's a huge chance for a play action to succeed.
Also, if there isn't a mirror offensive formation, then there's no way you can succeed with a regular running play against a 6-2 formation. Everybody will be forced to pass in goal line situations (I mean forced, not willingly going with it for the pleasure of doing weird things).
blakjakshalak
Good points. This is why if we have a short yardage defense we need a short yardage offense. Set it up like the nickle D is currently. When the offense comes out in a short yardage formation, the D counters with a short yardage Formation. Then it comes down to personnel. Play-action pass, screen, short pass and short sideline pass would all be available.
A basic short-yardage offense would be 3 TEs and 2 backs. A clever chap may try to put WRs in the TE spots to gain an advantage on a pass play but then the lack of pass protection would (and should) get his QB killed. The D counters with 5 D lineman (with a NT), 4 LBs and 2 DBs. Is there a reason why it needs to be more specific than that? Default would be DT1 at NT, then the next 2 DTs, top 2 DEs, best SOLB on strong side on the line of scrimmage, best ILB in the middle with next best OLBs, plus the best SS and FS. I think that's 11:P. The offense would be the 5 OL with 3 TEs and 2 RBs, plus the QB.
The next question would be: can the offense use this at any time or just in short yardage?
April 12, 2014 at 02:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hodor
About the 6-2 formation... am I right in thinking that a play action would/should work wonders against it?
In case the answer is not, then why not? if you're stacking the box is clear that you're trying to stop the run, you don't really care about the backfield (=not enough QB pressure), so there's a huge chance for a play action to succeed.
Also, if there isn't a mirror offensive formation, then there's no way you can succeed with a regular running play against a 6-2 formation. Everybody will be forced to pass in goal line situations (I mean forced, not willingly going with it for the pleasure of doing weird things).
Good points. This is why if we have a short yardage defense we need a short yardage offense. Set it up like the nickle D is currently. When the offense comes out in a short yardage formation, the D counters with a short yardage Formation. Then it comes down to personnel. Play-action pass, screen, short pass and short sideline pass would all be available.
A basic short-yardage offense would be 3 TEs and 2 backs. A clever chap may try to put WRs in the TE spots to gain an advantage on a pass play but then the lack of pass protection would (and should) get his QB killed. The D counters with 5 D lineman (with a NT), 4 LBs and 2 DBs. Is there a reason why it needs to be more specific than that? Default would be DT1 at NT, then the next 2 DTs, top 2 DEs, best SOLB on strong side on the line of scrimmage, best ILB in the middle with next best OLBs, plus the best SS and FS. I think that's 11:P. The offense would be the 5 OL with 3 TEs and 2 RBs, plus the QB.
The next question would be: can the offense use this at any time or just in short yardage?
Pages: 1