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

[Rocketcan]

Hello Coaches!

Welcome to another Dev Diary for NewSim on SimFBA! We will start a series of Dev Diaries to explain the massive changes that are coming to the sim regarding schemes. There is a ton of stuff to go over, so this post will cover just the most high-level changes. This is just a taste of what is still to come. There will be in-depth posts made about each scheme in terms of what you can, and cannot do with them.

Scheme Fits

All schemes will have a list of player archetypes that are considered "scheme fits". This means their archetype is especially suited for this scheme and they will receive a bonus to their play (amount not yet determined and subject to balance). In addition, there are several player archetypes that are considered "bad fits" for each scheme, and these players will receive a penalty (see caveat about the bonus) to their play. The good news is that most archetypes will fall into the "serviceable" category. These players will not receive a penalty as they are not wholly opposite of what the scheme is looking for, but they aren't what it is looking for either and thus won't receive a bonus. I will list the good and bad fit players with each scheme as I go over them (serviceable is just all those not listed). These lists are subject to change for balance purposes.

Offensive Schemes

Up first is the offense. Previously, there were only four options here: Pro, Air Raid, Spread Option, and Double Wing. Now, we will expand that number by three times to 12. We have also grouped the new offenses into three categories: Pro, Spread, and Smashmouth. You can definitely still see some resemblance to the old schemes, but there is a lot more granularity and options to choose from.

Personnel

Before we dive introduce the new schemes, I want to go over the concept of personnel first, as this is a big key to how the schemes differ. In short, personnel determines who is on the field for you. Each formation has a personnel associated with it (I formation, for example, is 21 personnel: two RBs, 1 TE, and 2 WRs), and many schemes only have one formation per personnel group, so that formation is likely the only way to get that particular grouping of players on the field.

Formation

So now that we have established personnel, now we can talk about formations. Formations are just the name that each scheme gives to the personnel group and let's you know how the players are lining up on the field. Each scheme will have 5 formations to choose from, but you will only be able to pick two or three for each game. You will be allowed to change between any of the five formations your scheme offers without penalty. However, overall scheme changes still will have scheme change penalties associated.

As I go through the formations, I will give what personnel are included on the field in that formation. I will also tell you what kind of players will be 

Pro Scheme Group

This scheme group is defined by a mostly balanced approach (run vs. pass) in addition to usually having 1-2 RB, 1-2 TE and about 2-3 WR.

Power Run

• Formations:
  • I Formation: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Double Tight: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • I Formation Heavy: RB1, FB1, TE1, TE2, WR1
  • Split Back Gun: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
• Scheme Fits: Power RB, Blocking FB, Blocking TE, Red Zone Threat WR, Run Blocking OL
• Bad Fits: Speed RB, Receiving RB, FB and TE, Vertical Threat TE, Pass Blocking OL
• Notes: This scheme centers around using the run to set up the pass. Most run-heavy pro scheme, but still a good amount of passing will be available.

Vertical

• Formations:
  • I Formation: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Double Tight: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Spread Gun: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
• Scheme Fits: Pocket QB, Receiving RB, Receiving FB, Receiving and Vertical Threat TE, Route Runner and Speed WR, Pass Blocking OL
• Bad Fits: Balanced, Scrambler, and Field General QBs, Power RB, Blocking and Rushing FB, Blocking TE, Red Zone Threat WR, Run Blocking OL
• Notes: This scheme centers on the long pass, but still allows for quite a bit of running.

West Coast

• Formations:
  • Near/Far: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Spread: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Split Back Gun: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
• Scheme Fits: Field General QB, Balanced and Receiving FB, Receiving TE, Route Runner and Possession WR, Line Captain C
• Bad Fits: Blocking FB, Red Zone Threat WR
• Notes: This scheme centers on the short pass, but still allows for a bit of running.

I Options

• Formations:
  • I Formation: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Double Tight: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Split Back Gun: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
• Scheme Fits: Scrambler QB, Power RB, Rushing FB, Blocking TE, Possession WR
• Bad Fits: Pocket QB, Speed and Receiving RB, Receiving FB, Receiving and Vertical Threat TE.
• Notes: This scheme offers up the ability to run a lot more option-type plays, but still is mainly balanced in run vs. pass.

Spread Scheme Group

This scheme group is defined by a pass-focused approach in addition to usually having 1 or fewer RB, 1 or fewer TE and several WR.

Run and Shoot

• Formations:
  • Spread: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Singleback: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Spread Gun: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Empty Gun: WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR5
• Scheme Fits: Field General QB, Speed and Receiving RB, Speed WR, Line Captain C
• Bad Fits: Balanced and Power RB, Blocking and Rushing FB, Blocking TE, Possession WR
• Notes: This scheme focuses on short passes and passes far more often than it runs.

Air Raid

• Formations:
  • Spread Gun: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Empty Gun: WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR5
  • Big Spread Gun: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • Pony Spread Gun: RB1, RB2, WR1, WR2, WR3
• Scheme Fits: Pocket QB, Receiving RB, Receiving and Vertical Threat TE, Speed WR, Pass Blocking OL
• Bad Fits: Balanced, Scrambler, and Field General QBs, Power RB, Blocking and Rushing FB, Blocking TE, Run Blocking OL
• Notes: This scheme focuses on long passes and passes far more often than it runs.

Pistol

• Formations:
  • Pistol: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Power Pistol: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Heavy Power Pistol: RB1, FB1, TE1, TE2, WR1
  • Big Pistol: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • Spread Pistol: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
• Scheme Fits: Balanced and Pocket QB, Balanced RB, Rushing FB, Vertical Threat TE, Route Runner and Possession WR
• Bad Fits: Balanced FB, Line Captain C
• Notes: This scheme is the most balanced of the spread offenses and has limited access to option-type plays.

Spread Option

• Formations:
  • Spread Gun: RB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Singleback Gun: RB1, TE1, WR1, WR2, WR3
  • Split Back Gun: RB1, RB2, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Big Spread Gun: RB1, TE1, TE2, WR1, WR2
  • Pony Spread Gun: RB1, RB2, WR1, WR2, WR3
• Scheme Fits: Scrambler QB, Speed RB, Receiving FB, Route Runner and Possession WR
• Bad Fits: Balanced RB, Balanced FB
• Notes: This scheme offers up the ability to run a lot more option-type plays, but focuses on pass plays still.

Smashmouth Scheme Group

This scheme group is defined by a run-focused approach in addition to usually having 2-3 RB, 1-3 TE and very few WR.

Wing-T

• Formations:
  • Wing-T: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, WR1
  • T-Split: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Wing-T Double Tight: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, TE2
  • Split Back Gun: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
  • Wing Split Back Gun: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, WR1
• Scheme Fits: Balanced QB, Balanced RB, Balanced FB, Speed WR
• Bad Fits: None
• Notes: This scheme has the most balanced approach (run vs. pass) of the smashmouth scheme group.

Double Wing

• Formations:
  • Double Wing: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, TE2
  • Double Wing Strong: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, WR1
  • Double Wing Wide: RB1, RB2, FB1, WR1, WR2
  • Double Wing Spread: FB1, WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4
  • Double Wing Split: RB1, FB1, TE1, TE2, WR1
• Scheme Fits: Power RB, Blocking and Rushing FB, Blocking TE, Red Zone Threat WR, Run Blocking OL
• Bad Fits: Pocket QB, Speed and Receiving RB, Receiving FB, Receiving and Vertical Threat TE, Pass Blocking OL
• Notes: This scheme has barely any access to pass plays.

Wishbone

• Formations:
  • Wishbone: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, TE2
  • Wishbone Strong: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, WR1
  • Wishbone Wide: RB1, RB2, FB1, WR1, WR2
  • I Formation Heavy: RB1, FB1, TE1, TE2, WR1
  • I Formation: RB1, FB1, TE1, WR1, WR2
• Scheme Fits: Balanced and Field General QB, Balanced RB, Red Zone Threat WR
• Bad Fits: Balanced FB, Route Runner WR, Line Captain C
• Notes: This scheme is also fairly balanced (run vs. pass) like the Wing-T, but it does not have access to any shotgun formations.

Flexbone

• Formations:
  • Flexbone: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, TE2
  • Flexbone Strong: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, WR1
  • Flexbone Wide: RB1, RB2, FB1, WR1, WR2
  • Flexbone Gun: RB1, RB2, FB1, TE1, TE2
  • Flexbone Gun Wide: RB1, RB2, FB1, WR1, WR2
• Scheme Fits: Scrambler QB, Speed RB, Balanced FB, Red Zone Threat WR
• Bad Fits: Balanced RB, Speed and Possession WR
• Notes: This scheme offers up the ability to run a lot more option-type plays, but is almost entirely run-focused.

Defensive Schemes

Next, we have the defense. Previously the schemes just a generic 4-3 vs. a 3-4 which really weren't even schemes; they were formations. Once again, we will have three times the number of schemes with six for defense. The only right now that bothers me is I can't seem to come up with good names for the defensive schemes. If you have any ideas, please share them here!

Personnel

Just like offenses, defenses have personnel. Also just like on offense, personnel determines who is on the field for you. Each formation has a personnel associated with it (4-3 Base, for example with 4 DL, 3 LB and 4 DB), and many schemes only have one formation per personnel group, so that formation is likely the only way to get that particular grouping of players on the field. I will list the personnel of each formation.

Formation

Again, formations are just the name that each scheme gives to the personnel group and let's you know how the players are lining up on the field. Defenses will have five formations to choose from, but will not be limited in the number they can field, but why that is will have to be saved for a future dev diary. You will be allowed to change between any of the five formations your scheme offers without penalty. However, overall scheme changes still will have scheme change penalties associated. When I list personnel in a formation, the two '|' characters show the separation between the DL, LB, and DB groups.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Each defense will have two offenses that they are good against (they will get bonuses against them) and two offenses they are weak against (they get maluses). Any other offensive scheme will not have any modifiers applied. I will list these under each defensive scheme.

Old School Front 7 Man

• Formations:
  • 4-4 Base: (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, MLB2, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1)

  • 4-4 Over (LOLB1, LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1, MLB2, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1)

  • 4-4 Under (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1, ROLB1 | LOLB1,MLB1, MLB2| CB1, CB2, FS1)

  • 4-3 Light (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-2-5 Nickel (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

• Scheme Fits: Run Stopper OLB, Field General and Run Stopper ILB, Man Coverage DB
• Bad Fits: Coverage OLB and ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Strengths: Flexbone and Wishbone
• Weaknesses: Vertical and West Coast

2-Gap Zone

• Formations:

  • 3-4 Okie (LE1, DT1, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, MLB2, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-4 Bronco (LE1, DT1, RE1, ROLB1 | LOLB1, MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-4 Eagle (LOLB1, LE1, DT1, RE1, ROLB1 | MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-3-5 Nickel (LE1, RE1, ROLB1 | LOLB1, MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-2-6 Dime (LE1, RE1, ROLB1 | MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, CB3, CB4, FS1, SS1)

• Scheme Fits: Run Stopper DE, Nose Tackle DT, Run Stopper and Pass Rush OLB, Run Stopper ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Bad Fits: Speed Rush DE, Pass Rusher DT, Speed OLB and ILB, Man Coverage DB
• Strengths: Wing-T and Double Wing
• Weaknesses: Spread Option and Pistol

4-man Front Spread Stopper Zone

• Formations:

  • 4-2-5 Base (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-1-6 Dime (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, CB4, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-1-6 Big Dime (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1, SS2)

  • 4-3 Heavy (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | SS2, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-4 Jumbo (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | SS1. SS2, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1)

• Scheme Fits: Speed Rush DE, Pass Rusher DT, Coverage OLB and ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Bad Fits: Nose Tackle DT, Run Stopper DE, OLB, ILB, FS and SS, Man Coverage DB
• Strengths: Air Raid and Pistol
• Weaknesses: Flexbone and Wishbone

3-man Front Spread Stopper Zone

• Formations:

  • 3-3-5 Base (LE1, DT1, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-3-5 Over (LOLB1, LE1, DT1, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-2-6 Big Penny (LE1, DT1, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1, SS2)

  • 3-2-6 Penny (LE1, DT1, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, CB4, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-4-4 Heavy (LE1, DT1, RE1 | SS1, LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1)

• Scheme Fits: Nose Tackle DT, Pass Rush OLB, Coverage ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Bad Fits: Run Stopper OLB, ILB, FS and SS, Speed OLB and ILB, Field General ILB, Man Coverage DB
• Strengths: Run and Shoot and Spread Option
• Weaknesses: Power Run and I-Option

Speed Man

• Formations:

  • 4-3 Base (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-3 Over (LOLB1, LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 |  MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-2-5 Nickel (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-1-6 Dime (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1, SS2)

  • 4-4 Heavy (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | SS1, LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1)

• Scheme Fits: Speed Rush DE, Pass Rusher DT, Coverage and Speed OLB, Speed ILB, Man Coverage DB
• Bad Fits: Run Stopper DE, Nose Tackle DT, Pass Rush OLB, Field General ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Strengths: Vertical and West Coast
• Weaknesses: Wing-T and Double Wing

Multiple Man

• Formations:

  • 4-3 Base (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | LOLB1, MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-3 Over (LOLB1, LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 |  MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 3-4 Bronco (LE1, DT1, RE1, ROLB1 | LOLB1, MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-2-5 Over (LE1, DT1, RE1, ROLB1 | MLB1, MLB2 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

  • 4-2-5 Nickel (LE1, DT1, DT2, RE1 | MLB1, ROLB1 | CB1, CB2, CB3, FS1, SS1)

• Scheme Fits: Run Stopper DE, Speed OLB, Speed and Field General ILB, Man Coverage and Run Stopper DB
• Bad Fits: Speed Rush DE, Pass Rusher DT, Coverage OLB and ILB, Zone Coverage DB
• Strengths: Power Run and I-Option
• Weaknesses: Run and Shoot and Air Raid

Big Thanks to @Sarge, @alexfall862, @Piercewise1 and @TuscanSota for doing a lot of the design work on this!

That is it for this dev diary. Next up, we have a topic that @Sarge has put a lot of work into: Out of Position Penalties

Until next time,

Rocketcan

[SageBow]

GOAT Update so excited for next season

[kwheele]

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

 

is this in a google/word doc somewhere?

[Rocketcan]

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.

[kwheele]

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

 

[Rocketcan]

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.

[kwheele]

thanks bossman, did a great job on this as a dev team. let me know if I can help in any way

[kwheele]

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

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by kwheele

[SageBow]

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 

[kwheele]

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

 

[Bingo415]

Wow, exciting! 

[kwheele]

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

[Rocketcan]

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!

[Weeze]

Oh this will change everything i think. Recruiting is about to get much more challenging for everyone and you will really need to pay attention to schemes and players. 

[Jieret]

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. 

[Rocketcan]

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.

[tsweezy]

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

[Rocketcan]

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.

[JC.]

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.

[JC.]

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 November 5, 2023 by JC.

[Rocketcan]

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.