All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Choosing a style to play...
2/14/2014 3:49 PM
How did you guys choice what kind of formations you use? Which is better for a D2 school to lean on, run or pass and from what formations? Thanks.
2/14/2014 5:50 PM
Formations, I took a look at what is working for the elite teams at various levels and tried to understand how they accomplished it (roster construction/play calling/etc).  Ive also site mailed a few of the coaches to pick their brains.  Finally I have simply toyed with a few things to see what works for me.  After two seasons and moderate success, I think you can be successful with just about any of the offensive formations (WB is the only one I haven't tried because Harris has scared me off from it) but realistically it comes down to personal preference and understanding what works in the engine and what does not.

Shotgun - works well for Jfootball
Iform - works well for slid64er
NDB - works well for Chalvorson
Trips - works well for Bhouska
2-3 of these in a mix works well for lots of coaches (see A10 in Yost).
etc...
2/14/2014 7:00 PM
I believe that this engine favors the "balanced formations"...Pro Set and I-Formation.  My belief is that it was designed with these in mind and then "expanded outwards" to allow for variations...Trips and Shotgun on one end....and NDBox and Wishbone on the other.

I would suggest that you do not pick formations based on what level you are playing at.  I suggest you pick what you want to run, learn how to run them and carry them with you wherever you go.

The key to using all these different formations is that they require different personnel.  Shotgun/Trips needs GREAT QB and a bunch of WRs.  NDBox needs beast RBs and TEs, not so much is the QB needed.  Pro Set and I-Formation require the whole package, QB, RBs, TE, WRs.  ALL OF THEM need great OLs.  So, it is tough to play Shotgun and Wishbone equally well.  (Not to mention FIQ). 

My D3 team was Trips and I-formation my whole career there until about 4 seasons before the 3.0 launch...I had just switched over to the All Shotgun approach.  Since 3.0, I have gone to a Pro Set, Trips, Shotgun mix.  Season 1 was all Shotgun, but mostly running.  Season 2 was mostly Shotgun, with more passing, Season 3 was mostly Pro Set and Trips.  This season will be a mix of all three.  I'm still experimenting with what works best.

Regarding the wishbone, I'm still using it at D1AA, but not sure that I will keep it nor not.  I've got a very talented team and it still does not produce like it used to in 2.0.  My defense has been playing very well (but I'm also in an ALL SIM conference right now) and that is what has kept this team from being another disappointment.
2/14/2014 7:39 PM
So far from what I have seen most food teams have been using the I and Trips. Sometimes they had a few nor formations. A guy in Yost has won six national titles in a row using just those two. I would like to have a shotgun air raid but I figured I would have to take a few seasons to get the players in place. Plus I have seen anybody but Colorado in Yost pull it off. Would be nice if they add some more modern formations.
2/14/2014 10:05 PM
Just something to note, the Iform and Pro Set are identical in the engine since it seems to have zero geo-referenced awareness horizontally.  The only thing the engine seems to break down into is buckets that fill up in:  behind the LOS, the LOS, Short, Medium, Long and Deep....nothing laterally matters except the personal stacks involved.

Basically if you are going to run one of them it is a waste of practice time to use both.  You might as well double up the practice time on whichever of the two pleases you more aesthetically.
2/14/2014 10:11 PM
In 2.0 the I-Formation and Pro Set were definitely different.

The I-Formation was intentionally programmed to have a "slightly" better ability to run vs pass.  The Pro Set was programmed to perform "slightly" better pass vs run.

When 3.0 was being developed, Norbert had some debate as to whether or not to keep both formations.  But I'm pretty certain they did something to make them "functionally" different.
2/14/2014 10:13 PM
I've always believed that it is best to spread it over 2 or 3 formations on both off and def so that you have some variety in ur GP. unless you have a "monster" team that you have built a certain way, it does make it a bit easier to GP against you
2/14/2014 11:12 PM
Posted by jtd79 on 2/14/2014 10:05:00 PM (view original):
Just something to note, the Iform and Pro Set are identical in the engine since it seems to have zero geo-referenced awareness horizontally.  The only thing the engine seems to break down into is buckets that fill up in:  behind the LOS, the LOS, Short, Medium, Long and Deep....nothing laterally matters except the personal stacks involved.

Basically if you are going to run one of them it is a waste of practice time to use both.  You might as well double up the practice time on whichever of the two pleases you more aesthetically.
Read offense 101. I and Pro are not identical.

Its posts like these that should make the buyer beware of what they read on these forums.

2/15/2014 8:17 AM
Are you serious Jibe? You're going to base your response on the offense 101 descriptors? Good luck to you then.
2/15/2014 8:32 AM
Posted by jtd79 on 2/15/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):
Are you serious Jibe? You're going to base your response on the offense 101 descriptors? Good luck to you then.
You have coached less than 200 games and yet you get on these forums like you are the GD expert. Continually.

You offer no proof yourself that I and Pro are identical. But yet I am supposed to believe you? I practice both. Run both. I-Form is more favorable to run with the ability to pass. Pro is more favorable to pass with the ability to run. Just as Offense 101 states.

All you are doing is taking other inexperienced players blindly down the same path as you.

As I said, buyer beware....

2/15/2014 8:43 AM
Thank you guys for the info. I like to pass more than run but I also dont think I have the QB yet to pull off a passing attack. But from what I have seen more teams that run more than pass seem to win more than those that pass more than run. Am I way off on my observation or have you guys seen this too?
2/15/2014 1:46 PM
Shotgun is where it's at but hard to develop as you will lose games the first couple of seasons of implementation.
2/15/2014 7:20 PM
Jibe, I've coached less than 200 games on this ID.  Ive played since v1.0.  Regardless, you still offered no evidence either that Im wrong.  The only way this engine treats the two different formations as different is if they are programmed to specifically give bonuses for run or pass.

On a side note, I have just as many games under this new engine as you at this point, and Im sorry that you find my posts offensive.  if you can point out to me where I'm misinforming the masses, I'll be happy to print retractions.
2/15/2014 7:39 PM
I'll say it again.  In the old engine they were definitely different (see my post above).  In this engine, they SHOULD be different, based on the debate that Norbert had as he was trying to figure out what to do.  The main thing was that if they are going to be the SAME, then drop one of the formations.  Therefore, I can only assume (because I have not seen a final formal answer from developers) that the two formations are functionally different in this engine as well.
2/15/2014 8:47 PM
All Trips, all the time -- run a version of Air Raid from it
of 2
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Choosing a style to play...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.