Standard Defensive Formations with more flexibility - Page 1 - Forum - RedZoneAction.org - Free online American Football Manager Game

We are sorry, but this page requires JavaScript! Please check out www.activatejavascript.org for detailed instruction on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Check how to improve security while using RedZoneAction.org

no content

Community - American Football Management Simulator

AdBlocker active? It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org. The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site. Thank you very much!

Booo, you are using old style IPv4...

Main / Suggestions / Standard Defensive Formations with more flexibility Search Forum
Navigation: \|< 1 2 > >\|
Rating:	Rating
Poster	Message
JonnyP	posted: 2012-10-10 15:37:01 (ID: 60977) Report Abuse
	Following on from reading al the stuff about the new engine, it is pretty clear that people are worried about how defense will work.. Up until now, we have been over-dependent on 5-3-3 - why? Because of the run-based engine, and with passing being so bad, 5-3-3 has been good enough to work as a base defense. Also, the 'standard' NFL formations of 3-4 and 4-3 have proved to be pretty hopeless in stopping run-orientated teams as the LBs, it seems, give the RBs too much space when lining up. The suggestion... more options in the formations. For example: 3-4-4 RUN - Linebackers move up closer to the line of scrimmage to focus on the backfield. Poor pass rush, 4 DBs cover deep gains pretty well, but short passes can easily exploit lack of short zone coverage. 3-4-4 PASS - the current 3-4-4 default it seems - with LBs far enough back to offer short pass coverage, DBs slightly further back (less chance of breakaway TD) - strong passing defense, weak pass rush, rushing very successful for short/medium gains, but unlikely to break. 3-4-4 BLITZ - one or more of the LBs or SS rush the QB, with the others in pass coverage Obviously, this would mean the removal of the 'blitz %' option in the current playbook, and it would become a standard playcall. The same can be done for the 4-3, 3-3 set and 5-2 set, thus making the more 'normal' formations somewhat more effective and flexible. I would suggest only offering the 3 options for the above defensive formations, as the other formations have specific roles anyway, but some options could be: 5-3-3 - run D or SS blitz options only, inside linebackers always play the run, OLB either coverage or blitz, making this a goal-line/short yardage option. Goal-line - more extreme version of 5-3-3 with both MLBs playing the run. Dime - pass D or blitz (with sole LB) only Would having this options reduce the 'all or nothing' mindset we have at present when constructing defensive playbooks?
	Quote Reply Edit
scottishbronco	posted: 2012-10-10 15:50:00 (ID: 60981) Report Abuse
	Love this suggestion. a big +1
	Quote Reply Edit
holmeboy	posted: 2012-10-10 15:54:26 (ID: 60982) Report Abuse
	I like this a lot too. But maybe instead of the blitz option just have the two choices. And you can choose one or more players to blitz a decent %... Kind of like now. EDIT: Or even an idea could be to have another drop down menu on the playbook where you could give specific instructions like 'LB: Push up higher/Drop deeper/None' etc... Just brainstorming lol Last edited on 2012-10-10 16:00:38 by holmeboy
	Quote Reply Edit
chabi	posted: 2012-10-10 15:55:50 (ID: 60984) Report Abuse
	If possible, I also think is a great suggestion
	Quote Reply Edit
cantalupe	posted: 2012-10-10 17:34:18 (ID: 61004) Report Abuse
	A +1 from me too. My suggestion would be to change the blitz % into options for LBs and DBs. That means we get to choose the formation as we do now, but we give LBs and DBs specific instructions. The same three orders JonnyP mentioned and some other perhaps(deep coverage,..), but we could assign them to either LBs and DBs. I.e. setting my LBs to "run" that would bring them closer to the line, but I'm afraid that he may go for deep passes, so I set my DBs to deep coverage or something. That leaves a hole in the middle pass zone, but it's just an example
	Quote Reply Edit
canonico	posted: 2012-10-10 17:39:04 (ID: 61006) Report Abuse
	chabi wrote: If possible, I also think is a great suggestion
	Quote Reply Edit
bwadders76	posted: 2012-10-10 17:54:03 (ID: 61012) Report Abuse
	i like this one too
	Quote Reply Edit
bwadders76	posted: 2012-10-10 17:54:04 (ID: 61013) Report Abuse
	i like this one too
	Quote Reply Edit
phareux	posted: 2012-10-10 21:25:28 (ID: 61041) Report Abuse
	+1 +1
	Quote Reply Edit
hosh13	posted: 2012-10-11 05:14:25 (ID: 61080) Report Abuse
	I do like the idea, but......... I think the Ds should auto adjust from run to pass to run automatically, depending on what the O is doing and how much INT each defender has, especially LB/SFs. And then simply control blitzing. I'd like to be able to put a % blitz on individual players also. Little point having players with great strength/agility playing coverage, or those with lots of pos/vis blitzing.
	Quote Reply Edit
reply Mark this thread unread
Navigation: \|< 1 2 > >\|
Main / Suggestions / Standard Defensive Formations with more flexibility

Username	Password (Lost password?)