less plays =better game

[waltwa]

I have always believed that a lot of plays in a sim football game are a waste of time and simply window dressing. Let me explain

If u have a great QB, 2-3 really good receivers and the defense is weak on pass defense you are going to complete a lot of passes. Now the question is does it matter if you call "short pass" or "Flanker Curl, X Post, Y Flat, FB Stop etc. My belief is that the same number of short passes will be completed in the above situation regardless of how you call the play. The same will be true for Medium passes and Long passes. It is not important how u call the play but rather the fact that short passes will be completed 75 %, Medium 50% and Long 25%. Some games will ask you to select a primary receiver and i happen to like that or it may randomly work it so that the receivers will catch the ball in a way proportionate to their ratings. If this is in fact true and i believe it is why must their be time spent selecting plays that frankly with 35 years of experience in playing and coaching i don't think amount to any difference.

Recently in the Rose Bowl the announcers stated on more than 1 occasion that Michigan had only 1 running play that went Lt. or Rt. Now except for special plays (Draw, Reverse ) i think they were correct. Michigan utilized Zone blocking thus the need for a lot of running plays is not necessary. What Michigan found out in the Rose Bowl tho is that USC is not Indiana.

This is how i think the game should be structured and it is done in other games. The players all have ratings. Let's say that the game supplies a Run rating for a team. It could be for LT., Rt and Middle. The Defense will also have a Run rating for those areas. Now all you have to do is what actual coaches do after they have completed film study etc. and that is call plays that have a good chance of working against your opponent. Of course football is not that simple because the Defense will have the option as it already does in Bowl Bound of calling Run Defense and thus have a better chance of stopping the offense when it guesses right.

What i envision is this

TB LEFT - vs Normal Defense +5 yds

TB Left - vs. Run Defense +2 yds

TB Left - vs Pass Defense +8 yds

Believe me if there was a game in which scripting the 1st 20 plays vs an opponent had some meaning and could be done w/o spending 16 hrs a day on a game plan i would love it- but trust me at this point in time it does not exist.

The ****tail lamp is on so i have to go but at some time tomorrow i want to further expand on this point.

[waltwa]

I want to expand further on this simplification of the game. I have noticed in both Action PC and Som Football that both games have a series of plays that can be called but it also allows you simply to call "Inside Run",Outside Run,Short Pass, Long Pass etc. This tells me that while both games give you the ability to call specific long winded plays the Game Engine simply identifys plays as Inside runs or Short Passes and probably ensures that the ball winds up in the better receivers hands more often regardless of what specific Inside Runs or Short Passes are called by the coach.

In Bowl Bound a game that i really enjoy I coach each game for my team but all i watch is to make sure that the proper type of play is called (inside Run, Medium Pass etc.) and don't worry at all about the specific play within that group.

As i stated earlier with almost 30 years of coaching experience i have no idea what the specific defenses with a 3-4 do. But i do know that in 3rd and 15 i want "Pass Defense" called say with the 3-4 defense and probably want my nickel package on the field.

My point is that by simplifying the offensive and defensive playcalling it can be made more realistic in terms of allowing a Coach to identify more easily the areas where his team has an edge on his opponent and that really is the essence of football.

What i want to be able to see is the ratings of the players on my opponents teams and i would also like to see in a scouting report a numerical rating given to my opponents ability to play the run Inside and Outside and their rating strength vs Short, Medium or Long passes. Coupled with a rating given to my teams strengths in those areas now i know how and when to call plays.

As stated earlier my opponent -Human or otherwise still has the ability to emphasize various things to strengthen a weakness so that i simply can't call "Inside Run" on every play and make 5-6 yds and win the game.

The point of all this is if people want to see 300 plays that they can call in a game let them do it but don't waste a lot of time on it because it is window dressing and instead structure the game (both college and Pro) so that we have more info about the strengths and weaknesses of our opponent both before and during the game. That is what Coaching a game is all about!

[john]

I think this is a very good suggestion

[Silverbullet]

I agree.

[Arlie Rahn]

I think this is a good post. I don't plan on simply overwhelming everyone with plays - but the structure of the plays will matter. All that said, a lot of my focus is on performance feedback and not on trick play creation.

[udlb58]

The NFL is not about trick plays and I hope there is nothing more than a few reverses, double reverses, or HB/WR passes. But NFL playbooks are substantially bigger than college playbooks. I hope to see more plays and more basic formations (i.e. I-form, I-form three wide, I-form WR slot, I-form double TE, off-set I, etc.) and fewer formations like the wing-t and double wing.

[jlemmen43]

I agree.

[john]

I wouldn't mind playing calling such as pick formation & pick play..

For Example..
Formation = Shotgun w/4 rcvrs
Play = Medium Pass

And maybe another option to select a primary reciver.

For Running plays:
Formation: Pro Set
Play = Inside Run
Direction = Left
Ball Carrier = HB

[Greendiver]

I’ve played both SOM and Action, and I agree that there is an attraction to simplified play calling. It lets you feel like you are implementing a strategy on a global basis and gives you some feedback when it works. Setting up an opponent with short and flat passes in SOM until you draw up the free safety, then catching him with 0 men in the zone on a long pass, gives you direct and tangible feedback that your play calling strategy made a difference.

For replay football games I’ve since abandoned both and moved to Second and Ten, which I like a lot more. It also has very simplified playcalling, but it allows for the same level of strategy as SOM if not more. One huge advantage to simplified play calling is that the SAT computer opponent (and SOM for that matter) are very challenging since they deal with fewer options. This makes solo play a lot of fun and a win feels deserved most of the time.

One difference between those games and Arlie’s games is that the ratings in a game like Bowl Bound, or TPF are significantly different, and I think you need the detail in play types to take advantage of that. If your wide receiver has 4.3 speed and the cornerback is slow, you’ve got a reason to send him on fly patterns rather than just calling a “long pass.” If you’ve got a slow guard, perhaps you choose outside runs and formations that don’t demand that he pull. I can think of dozens of ways I react to the detail of the plays, formations, and ratings in Bowl Bound that I don’t consider in SAT or SOM. At least I like to think the on field action in Arlie’s games are modeled at this level of detail.

That said, I have developed a hybrid approach to playcalling I use in Bowl Bound that combines both pre-game planning and the coordinators with my playcalling. I spend some time setting up the playbooks and gameplans on offense and defense at the beginning of the season for my team and then tweak them each game. I call all plays during the game, but hit the suggest button on almost every play and then decide whether to go with the play. I consider it the offensive or defensive coordinator giving me suggestions in my headset, but I end up calling something different about 25-33% of the time. By setting the playbooks, however, I feel like the playcalls are guiding me to run the team within the gameplan I established before kickoff, and if the coordinator’s play makes sense I usually stick with it which keeps me out of the play details and makes my coordinators ratings matter. I find it a nice combination of pregame planning and in game decisions. I give Arlie a lot of credit for allowing this type of approach. I’ve played Front Office Football, and would love to do something similar, but this system isn’t an option because there is no recommended play button. Either you select the play without help or the computer selects it for you. The option to override is missing and is what I like so much about Bowl Bound.

In Arlie’s next pro football game, I could see expanding the role of the coordinator to allow for a compromise that would get you to more simplified playcalling. Perhaps some options that you could check/uncheck during the game that would define what the coordinators recommend. ie, play, formation, play type. You could then choose just “Inside run” letting the coordinators recommend specific play and formation, or pick any other level of play calling you want. What he’s got in Bowl Bound works for me, but perhaps with some options he can incorporate a simplified play calling that feels more like the other games you mention.

[waltwa]

I also hit the suggest button on every play but i really don't go any further that the type of play rather than the individual play within a group.

Here is the key. If you select

3-4
Run

Does it then make any difference what individual defense within the 3-4 you call- i don't think it does.

Conversely on Offense if you call

I- Formation
Inside Run

Does it then matter what inside run you call- once again I don't think it does.
Consequently if I am right then the need for a lot of plays is simply not necessary and I think that would allow the developer (Arlie) to focus more on the interaction of the strength of the Offense vs. the Defense.

An additional point in Bowl Bound that I have noticed is that their definitely seems to be "Momentum" shifts in the game. There are extended points in time when no matter what I call works and extended times when no matter what I call does not work. I am not sure exactly what this indicates but it might mean that the game is not quite structured well enough for my superior run defense to stop a team that is a poor run team and allow me to call more Pass Defenses to stop the pass. When I say well enough I mean the interplay between strengths and weaknesses that I would like to see emphasized rather than trying to work up 500 plays of various types.

In the case of Formations I think it is also possible to simplify. There are some exceptions but what i want to know as a Coach is how many Backs are in the Backfield. As the number of Backs decrease the emphasis on Pass goes up. There are some variances within that but still Formations can be simplified to some degree.

[udlb58]

It should definitely matter whay play was called. If you call 3-4 Run, are you in man coverage, zone coverage, did you blitz, and who blitzed? If you call I formation, inside run; which side did you run on. I don't know if the game engine takes these things into account, but it should. It would be a lot harder to run a sweep if there is an outside blitz on. Personally, I don't call my own plays on BBCF because I feel there are not enough plays for each formation and I find it hard to run the specialized offenses (option, spread); I end up feeling like I run the same plays over and over again, so I just let the computer handle it. I think there should be more plays in each formation, but the suggest option should be left in case you don't want to call the plays yourself, or feel overwhelmed with playcalling.

[Scott Vibert]

One thing that has become key to the NFL isn't so much the number of plays a team runs, but the personnel mismatches that they can create.

What I would hope is for the ability to define certain personnel groups that would be in the game for a given play/series of plays.

Each formation could have a default personnel group, but that group should be able to be switched.

Example

31 Personnel Group: (3 WR, 1 RB)

X - WR 1
Z - WR 2
Y - TE
A - TB
B - WR 3 (Slot receiver)

Now if you choose to run a 3 wide spread formation the default personnel group would be the 31 group. But perhaps you've decided you want to run it with a 21 personnel group (2 WR, 1 RB) which would result in the following:

X - WR 1
Z - WR 2
Y - TE 1
A - TB
B - TE 2

Now in this case the slot receiver is a second TE. Perhaps this results in more of an ability for your team to run the ball against the spread out defense, forcing the defense to adjust.

[BigDawg]

I have from day 1 of TPF till now have been harping on Arlie to let us make our own plays. This generic play types might be all and good for some but others would like to have more control on how to attack teams from week to week based on weeknesses and strenghts. If all you want is to call INSIDE RUN than I would assume their will be limited amounts of play formations the game will use. Hence it becomes EASY for the defence to know what your running.

What if I still want to call that inside run from a 4 WR formation? How about a situation where your TE is an outstanding reciever and I like to line up in a JUMBO set giving the defence the idea I am running but than motion both TE's out to a 4WR look and pass deep.

We all know their are 1000's of situations like this that a GENERIC PLAY cant cover. I hate to harken back to FBPRO but this is where you could realy dig into your teams, tinker sith different formation and play types than tweek them to find the weakness's you want to explote in the defence.

But sorry to run a play that simply says ProFormation - Inside Run against 34 defence good for a gain of 5 yards .. this tells me nothing.

[waltwa]

Big Dawg - you capsulized exactly what I am talking about staying away from. I was a High School Coach for 25 years. I loved every minute of Coaching both on and off the field. As i play the game I wish I had moved on to College coaching so I could have experienced the joy(I'm not kidding) of spending 18 hours a day working on game plans and sleeping on a cot in my office 5 days a week. But you know what? I wanted to get paid at least 1 mil a year for doing that. Now as i play the game i don't get paid to sit up all nite and decide that when the Offense lines up in trips and the TE goes in motion we adjust from Cover 2 to Cover 3 etc. My point is that the game is not equipped to do the things you want it to do. That is why I when I read a post that asks for 100 plays out of every formation i truly believe that the game doesn't care what exact play you call but only deals with less specific things. Believe me if what you wanted to do mattered in the game I would be all for it- but it doesn't matter and that's is the only reason why I am always calling for simplification.

[Greendiver]

I also hit the suggest button on every play but i really don't go any further that the type of play rather than the individual play within a group.

Here is the key. If you select

3-4
Run

Does it then make any difference what individual defense within the 3-4 you call- i don't think it does.

Conversely on Offense if you call

I- Formation
Inside Run

Does it then matter what inside run you call- once again I don't think it does.


One thing I don't think I've ever seen is an explanation from Arlie (in general terms) how the action is modeled on the field. Is it in 1 second (or shorter)increments similar to FBPro or Eastside Hockey Manager, or is it based on team strengths which are derived from a combination of player ratings and applied to a curve like Action PC football. If it is the latter, your argument probably makes a lot of sense.