Posted by gazgul on 2/3/2012 7:36:00 PM (view original):
I have been reviewing some of the play by play games to get an Idea on how the game planning works, this being my first season. I  have found a few schools, successful ones I might add, that use only one offense in their game plan.   Now I am sure they are changing the tendency and style.  Is this the way one wins a national championship, finding a glitch in the system and running with it? If it is I would like to know so I can save myself a lot of frustration and "Just Win".  I do like the game so far and plan on playing more, that is if I have a chance of winning and moving up.  Sorry to ramble.

Thats the attitude right there! If I cant figure out how to win, or cant cheat to win, then I am quitting!

Posted by grindi on 2/3/2012 9:51:00 PM (view original):
Running one offense makes a little sense.  When it gets set up that you put the formation you are using in all three slots and on 1st down say Pro Always run/very agg, Pro Always Run/Very/cons, and Pro Always Pass/Balance.  The opponent only has 1 choice to make to stop you.  His best bet would Formation?/bal/bal.

But with the way the game is now I don't think formation practice makes a hill of beans.  So even if you don't practice I think 3 defenses are minimum.  Two can work but 3 is easier to plan.  I would never go to 1.

What is the thinking behind running both 'always run/very aggressive' and 'always run/very conservative' for the running formation?  Why not just run 'Pro Always Run/Blanced' and 'Pro Always Pass/Bal' as the two options for each set?

Posted by partyrock on 2/4/2012 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grindi on 2/3/2012 9:51:00 PM (view original):
Running one offense makes a little sense.  When it gets set up that you put the formation you are using in all three slots and on 1st down say Pro Always run/very agg, Pro Always Run/Very/cons, and Pro Always Pass/Balance.  The opponent only has 1 choice to make to stop you.  His best bet would Formation?/bal/bal.

But with the way the game is now I don't think formation practice makes a hill of beans.  So even if you don't practice I think 3 defenses are minimum.  Two can work but 3 is easier to plan.  I would never go to 1.

What is the thinking behind running both 'always run/very aggressive' and 'always run/very conservative' for the running formation?  Why not just run 'Pro Always Run/Blanced' and 'Pro Always Pass/Bal' as the two options for each set?

I would think that if you do it the way grindi mentioned, then you have a 2/3 chance of a running play.  Then within the running play you end up with essentially a "balanced" approach.

If you do it the way you mention, I think you end up with only a 1/2 chance of a running play.

I believe that is the only real difference.

Close Harris.  Here is my thinking.  Ist I want to run more than I pass on first down so like Harris says I have a 2 out 3 chance.  Now being the first half, I want to probe the defense for weakness.  I can do this by running the "verys" the easiest.  At very cons I am almost assured to run up the gut.  With very aggressive I am running the ends.  Believe it or not I think there is a difference in the play call results at all the options.  For instance have you ever seen a Safety when you run very cons or cons?  Yet bal, agg and very agg, get their share even though the play says run the middle.  Maybe I am off base but that is what I do when using 1 offensive formation. 

Another thought, I also do the same thing on passing plays.  Have 3 Always pass set maybe very agg, very cons and balance.  If you pay attention to your play calling you will notice for pass plays that  the completion percentage goes down the more aggressive you get.   So if you just put balance you are going to get a balanced mixture of very cons, cons, balance, agg, and very agg.  By using the "verys" with the balance  My mix is more at the wider range than the middle making it harder to hone in on the formation depth and coverage.  My completion percentage also seems to stay a bit above what I'd expect for balance setting only.

But hey what do I know.  I do know there is more than 1 way to skin gopher.  (Can't say cat no more as I've grown to love the little buggers the wife brought in)

Oh and plus.  say the game is choosing mostly very cons plays in the first half and the opposing team adjusts to that.  Then the game goes and picks mostly towards the agg end in the 2nd half.  You might say you randomize the randomness of the game making it totally whacky or more towards normal.  How's that for convaluted thinking.

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/4/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gazgul on 2/3/2012 11:37:00 PM (view original):
thanks for the input and after thinking about it, there a lot of schools that run primarily one offense ie. the wishbone.  It just seemed strange that an undefeated team was running trips on every down.  But as you say he may have recruited and built his team with that in mind.  Who knows maybe I'll give the ole Wishbone offense a try


thanks again for the input.

Wishbone: I'm not suggesting it or telling you to use it.  But you can win by running the WB full time.  I've been running it for 8 seasons full time in D-III and now D-II.  And I don't even throw the darned pigskin...I run, run, run.  I don't know if I can win a NC with it, but I plan on moving up to D1A and will continue to use it as long as it is successful.  

My point is that you really can win with any formation, or combination of formations.  But you HAVE to recruit specifically to fit your system and you have to experiment a little to find what settings work for your team.  

Same on defense.....as you see above, some love the 3-4, others the 4-3.  Some coaches have been successful using the Nickel as their ONLY defense against all formations.  Some find that the Nickel does not work well against the Shotgun, others (like me) always use the Nickel against the Shotgun.

There are advantages and disadvantages to using and recruiting for each different formation.

I don't understand how you say you "run, run, run" out of the wishbone and win and you don't have any NCs with this strategy.  No knock against you since I haven't seen an NC won with this strategy since the update, but you shouldn't mislead new coaches.

Success isn't just a measure of NCs.  Keeping a team consistantly in the top 15 or 20 is a pretty good accomplishment too.    One thing about this game.  You CAN win no matter if you run, pass, or balance.  I would think that given enough time Harris will get it figured out.  My own thoughts for him are are to really focus on the defensive side of the ball.  Get to where you can keep your opponents under 20 and the offense will take care of itself.

Posted by verbal_kint on 2/4/2012 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/4/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gazgul on 2/3/2012 11:37:00 PM (view original):
thanks for the input and after thinking about it, there a lot of schools that run primarily one offense ie. the wishbone.  It just seemed strange that an undefeated team was running trips on every down.  But as you say he may have recruited and built his team with that in mind.  Who knows maybe I'll give the ole Wishbone offense a try


thanks again for the input.

Wishbone: I'm not suggesting it or telling you to use it.  But you can win by running the WB full time.  I've been running it for 8 seasons full time in D-III and now D-II.  And I don't even throw the darned pigskin...I run, run, run.  I don't know if I can win a NC with it, but I plan on moving up to D1A and will continue to use it as long as it is successful.  

My point is that you really can win with any formation, or combination of formations.  But you HAVE to recruit specifically to fit your system and you have to experiment a little to find what settings work for your team.  

Same on defense.....as you see above, some love the 3-4, others the 4-3.  Some coaches have been successful using the Nickel as their ONLY defense against all formations.  Some find that the Nickel does not work well against the Shotgun, others (like me) always use the Nickel against the Shotgun.

There are advantages and disadvantages to using and recruiting for each different formation.

I don't understand how you say you "run, run, run" out of the wishbone and win and you don't have any NCs with this strategy.  No knock against you since I haven't seen an NC won with this strategy since the update, but you shouldn't mislead new coaches.

You must have missed the part where he mentioned that he wasn't sure if he could win an NC with this style. I've seen a team win and only throw the ball 80 times on the season (Heisman, when I was in D3, I believe a D2 team did it. A conference mate drew my attention to it.) THis was post-update. His point was simply that a wide variety of strategies can and will succeed if run correctly.

Thanks C.  You nailed it.

Posted by grindi on 2/4/2012 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Close Harris.  Here is my thinking.  Ist I want to run more than I pass on first down so like Harris says I have a 2 out 3 chance.  Now being the first half, I want to probe the defense for weakness.  I can do this by running the "verys" the easiest.  At very cons I am almost assured to run up the gut.  With very aggressive I am running the ends.  Believe it or not I think there is a difference in the play call results at all the options.  For instance have you ever seen a Safety when you run very cons or cons?  Yet bal, agg and very agg, get their share even though the play says run the middle.  Maybe I am off base but that is what I do when using 1 offensive formation. 

Another thought, I also do the same thing on passing plays.  Have 3 Always pass set maybe very agg, very cons and balance.  If you pay attention to your play calling you will notice for pass plays that  the completion percentage goes down the more aggressive you get.   So if you just put balance you are going to get a balanced mixture of very cons, cons, balance, agg, and very agg.  By using the "verys" with the balance  My mix is more at the wider range than the middle making it harder to hone in on the formation depth and coverage.  My completion percentage also seems to stay a bit above what I'd expect for balance setting only.

But hey what do I know.  I do know there is more than 1 way to skin gopher.  (Can't say cat no more as I've grown to love the little buggers the wife brought in)

Is the chance of decent gains diminished running very conservative out of Trips due to the absence of a lead blocker?

winning a NC isn't the only way to be a good coach in this game. only 4 coaches get to be crowned any given season. 
more coaches end up with consistent top 10-15 teams than winning national titles. it's hard to win one, it's even harder to win more than one.
just because a coach doesn't have NC in their trophy case doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

the only real way you could have diminished returns by running conservative out of trips is for the defense to also be playing conservative.
if they focus up the middle and expose the edges then running up the middle is likely to backfire without a advantage.
me personally i'd rather pop outside when running in trips but i also use my WR's to run out of trips a lot as well so i don't want them running up the gut.

I thought WR's always ran outside.

Posted by partyrock on 2/4/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grindi on 2/4/2012 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Close Harris.  Here is my thinking.  Ist I want to run more than I pass on first down so like Harris says I have a 2 out 3 chance.  Now being the first half, I want to probe the defense for weakness.  I can do this by running the "verys" the easiest.  At very cons I am almost assured to run up the gut.  With very aggressive I am running the ends.  Believe it or not I think there is a difference in the play call results at all the options.  For instance have you ever seen a Safety when you run very cons or cons?  Yet bal, agg and very agg, get their share even though the play says run the middle.  Maybe I am off base but that is what I do when using 1 offensive formation. 

Another thought, I also do the same thing on passing plays.  Have 3 Always pass set maybe very agg, very cons and balance.  If you pay attention to your play calling you will notice for pass plays that  the completion percentage goes down the more aggressive you get.   So if you just put balance you are going to get a balanced mixture of very cons, cons, balance, agg, and very agg.  By using the "verys" with the balance  My mix is more at the wider range than the middle making it harder to hone in on the formation depth and coverage.  My completion percentage also seems to stay a bit above what I'd expect for balance setting only.

But hey what do I know.  I do know there is more than 1 way to skin gopher.  (Can't say cat no more as I've grown to love the little buggers the wife brought in)

Is the chance of decent gains diminished running very conservative out of Trips due to the absence of a lead blocker?

No I don't think so.  I don't run very cons out of trips much.  Only when I set it ro Heavy Pass, very cons, for short yardage.  A lot depends on the defenses personell to.  When you pound somebodys middle and you have a stronger line you will get gains unless his LBs and DBs are jamming up..  Surprisingly I've seen as many if not more big gains from cons and very cons against the 4-4.  I don't have a handle on that yet as to why.  But the way this engine runs, is a bunch of little runs then a big one now and then.  You may run the same play 10 times and get 0-3 yds then pop an 80 yarder.

As for running the ball I don't see much difference if my FB is strong and blocks well or not.  Good hands on the FB have made more of a difference in getting in on the pass plays.  That is where very cons does well for me.  It gets more passes to my RB and FB.  Not a ton but a few more.

Posted by saad1000 on 2/4/2012 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I thought WR's always ran outside.

you actually might be right, it's been so long since i've been doing it that i forgot if WR's can actually run inside.