Jump to content

SimNFL Teams Prepare for the Preseason

With the SimNFL Draft now in the rear-view mirror, teams are starting to prepare for the Preseason with the regular season starting shortly

Let the Series Begin!

The SimNBA playoffs begin this week with bubble rounds (7v10, 8v9) this Friday and Saturday

Join Here

Need a team?

Firstly... welcome to the SimFBA! If you are new to the site, and need a team, make sure you head over to the new users section and view the available teams list. You will also be able to fill out your job application there! See you on the field, Coach!

Read more

Baylor wins 2023 SimCBB National Championship

Congratulations to Coach Vivid and the Baylor Bears for winning the national title!

Join Here

#106 | SimFBA | Scheme Changes: Part 1 (New Schemes, Personnel, and Scheme Fits)


Rocketcan

Recommended Posts

  • Rocketcan changed the title to #106 | SimFBA | Scheme Changes: Part 1 (New Schemes, Personnel, and Scheme Fits)
34 minutes ago, kwheele said:

Excited and now have to retool my entire team... 

 

is this in a google/word doc somewhere?

 

This is still in flux, so don't take what is here as gospel. As the update work progresses, this will solidify and a group of posts that outline each scheme in detail will be posted to help users decide what schemes to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kwheele said:

So how are Ballhawk DBs being handled? Are they just neutral or are they considered man cover?

They usually are more balanced than man or zone archetypes, so in most cases they are neutral. Although, again, this is in flux and the DBs are the most likely place to see rework of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kwheele said:

so 4 even and 2 odd fronts? interesting and very realistic too

 

Multiple Man has odd front options, theoretically you could use those two 3 down options with a few nickel formations 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SageBow said:

Multiple Man has odd front options, theoretically you could use those two 3 down options with a few nickel formations 

saw those but with so many AIR RAID (and I assume future R-N-S  teams) it would work against us

 

  • zamn 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kwheele said:

now that we have seen the new schemes is there a way to rescind our contract extensions?

If the player has accepted, unfortunately, no. Don't worry, though, this is only the tip of the iceberg for the update. There might be other uses for those players yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am SO excited for these new schemes! And the ideas of having multiple formations is great, much more fun than just choosing slider numbers.

Question: As listed the entire defensive scheme have strengths/weaknesses versus specific formations. Any thought to adjusting those numbers based on the formation inside the defensive scheme?

E.g. If I run a Speed Man scheme, it's weak to Wing-T and Double Wing (heavy run concepts). But in Speed Man we have 4-1-6 Dime and 4-4 Heavy formations. While acknowledging the Wing formations as an overall weakness, a 4-4 shouldn't be as susceptible to running offenses as a Dime formation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2023 at 2:38 PM, Jieret said:

I am SO excited for these new schemes! And the ideas of having multiple formations is great, much more fun than just choosing slider numbers.

Question: As listed the entire defensive scheme have strengths/weaknesses versus specific formations. Any thought to adjusting those numbers based on the formation inside the defensive scheme?

E.g. If I run a Speed Man scheme, it's weak to Wing-T and Double Wing (heavy run concepts). But in Speed Man we have 4-1-6 Dime and 4-4 Heavy formations. While acknowledging the Wing formations as an overall weakness, a 4-4 shouldn't be as susceptible to running offenses as a Dime formation. 

That will already happen because the 4-4 already is less weak to the run than a 4-1-6, for example. The sim already has some factoring for number of players in the box. It's less of a chance that there is a large hole to break through. I say all that to say no I don't think we will add any more granularity to the strengths and weaknesses. At least not for now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
4 hours ago, tsweezy said:

Is there anyway to get a 3-man front that uses man coverage DBs? Right now both of them penalize that and want zone

None of this is entirely in stone. The man/zone dichotomy is on the top of list for revision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2023 at 6:47 PM, Rocketcan said:

None of this is entirely in stone. The man/zone dichotomy is on the top of list for revision.

I'd argue that either man or zone can/should be played from all these formations. I'm not familiar with any formations in football that cannot be adapted to play both. Obviously teams tend to have a bias for one due to the strengths of their scheme and/or personnel but a defense should always be flexible enough to play both man and zone so that they can adjust throughout the game depending on offensive playcalling.

Additionally, with gameplanning there is already an option to run man/zone coverage so I'm assuming the sim gives a malus/bonus based on your players strengths/weaknesses.

I agree with giving bonus/malus to DBs who are ball hawks/run stoppers and the overall bonus/malus applied for different front 7s but I don't think teams should be cornered into certain schemes based on the secondary as I don't believe this is really true to life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Gap Zone

  • Scheme Fits: Run Stopper DE, Run Stopper and Nose Tackle DT, Run Stopper and Pass Rush OLB, Run Stopper ILB, Zone Coverage DB

3 Man Front Spread

  • Scheme Fits: Nose Tackle DT, Pass Rush OLB, Coverage ILB, Zone Coverage DB

Above are the only two 3-4 formations being proposed, even if 1 of these werechanged to Man coverage, 3-4 teams would have even less flexibility on their scheme and the same can be said for the 4-3 schemes (+ the single hybrid scheme).

No defensive coordinator has decided the entire scheme based on what coverage the DBs are better at playing. In my personal experience, it's been quite to opposite but I realise that may not be true for everyone so that statement is neither here nor there but defensive backs are mostly capable of playing both man and zone when required. A db with a zone preference will fair much better being asked to play man coverage than a nose tackle would being asked to rush the passer or a pass rushing OLB being asked to constantly set the edge and play the run. This is even backed up by the sims logic as looking at the stats of my db's, whilst they are zone corners, they are only 10 points lower in man coverage whereas my nose tackle is 20 points lower in pass rush than run stopping.

I completely agree that the archtypes of front 7 players is going to play a large part in determining the scheme, not just because of skill sets but because of the genetic makeup of each player. You never see teams asking pass rushing OLB's to cover athletic tight ends (unless you are Joe Barry and believe Preston Smith is really a 265lb cornerback) but a zone coverage cornerback isn't suddenly going to forget how to play cornerback because he was asked to play man coverage.

I get the sim won't be as complex as real life and have the ability to run both man and zone because it largely requires the coach to be able to see what is happening on the field in real time but my point is, if we can only choose to play the whole game in either man or zone then we shouldn't have to match our dbs up to an entire scheme. If we wanted to give a malus/bouns for man/zone then I would argue that we'd be better off applying these to the opponents offensive scheme aka a team running a west coast offense could be countered by running zone coverage to stop short routes such as slants/crossers. Give the coach to ability to determine whether they want to 'outscheme' their opponent by trying to take advantage of a weakness in the offensive scheme or rely on the raw ability of their defensive backs to just straight up beat the offense. 

Edited by JC.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JC. said:

I'd argue that either man or zone can/should be played from all these formations. I'm not familiar with any formations in football that cannot be adapted to play both. Obviously teams tend to have a bias for one due to the strengths of their scheme and/or personnel but a defense should always be flexible enough to play both man and zone so that they can adjust throughout the game depending on offensive playcalling.

Additionally, with gameplanning there is already an option to run man/zone coverage so I'm assuming the sim gives a malus/bonus based on your players strengths/weaknesses.

I agree with giving bonus/malus to DBs who are ball hawks/run stoppers and the overall bonus/malus applied for different front 7s but I don't think teams should be cornered into certain schemes based on the secondary as I don't believe this is really true to life.

Please see this comment: 

On 11/2/2023 at 2:47 PM, Rocketcan said:

None of this is entirely in stone. The man/zone dichotomy is on the top of list for revision.

 

14 hours ago, JC. said:

2 Gap Zone

  • Scheme Fits: Run Stopper DE, Run Stopper and Nose Tackle DT, Run Stopper and Pass Rush OLB, Run Stopper ILB, Zone Coverage DB

3 Man Front Spread

  • Scheme Fits: Nose Tackle DT, Pass Rush OLB, Coverage ILB, Zone Coverage DB

Above are the only two 3-4 formations being proposed, even if 1 of these werechanged to Man coverage, 3-4 teams would have even less flexibility on their scheme and the same can be said for the 4-3 schemes (+ the single hybrid scheme).

No defensive coordinator has decided the entire scheme based on what coverage the DBs are better at playing. In my personal experience, it's been quite to opposite but I realise that may not be true for everyone so that statement is neither here nor there but defensive backs are mostly capable of playing both man and zone when required. A db with a zone preference will fair much better being asked to play man coverage than a nose tackle would being asked to rush the passer or a pass rushing OLB being asked to constantly set the edge and play the run. This is even backed up by the sims logic as looking at the stats of my db's, whilst they are zone corners, they are only 10 points lower in man coverage whereas my nose tackle is 20 points lower in pass rush than run stopping.

I completely agree that the archtypes of front 7 players is going to play a large part in determining the scheme, not just because of skill sets but because of the genetic makeup of each player. You never see teams asking pass rushing OLB's to cover athletic tight ends (unless you are Joe Barry and believe Preston Smith is really a 265lb cornerback) but a zone coverage cornerback isn't suddenly going to forget how to play cornerback because he was asked to play man coverage.

I get the sim won't be as complex as real life and have the ability to run both man and zone because it largely requires the coach to be able to see what is happening on the field in real time but my point is, if we can only choose to play the whole game in either man or zone then we shouldn't have to match our dbs up to an entire scheme. If we wanted to give a malus/bouns for man/zone then I would argue that we'd be better off applying these to the opponents offensive scheme aka a team running a west coast offense could be countered by running zone coverage to stop short routes such as slants/crossers. Give the coach to ability to determine whether they want to 'outscheme' their opponent by trying to take advantage of a weakness in the offensive scheme or rely on the raw ability of their defensive backs to just straight up beat the offense. 

This as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...