Formation Feedback

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Formation Feedback

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Play Development System (PDS) >> Formation Feedback

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Formation Feedback - 1/17/2009 7:21:12 PM

DAWUSS

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline

This was something that popped in my head late last night. Now, I'm not a defensive-minded individual -- my specialty is the offense -- so if this is terrible I won't be too deeply bothered, but what do you think of this defensive formation? It's probably nothing to run a base defense out of, but more useful in certain situations.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/17/2009 8:31:01 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

I've seen something similar to that defensive alignment in a 34 press. The safety is usually off the LOS.

Be aware that this alignment will likely be vulnerable to the slant, skinny post, and quick clearing routes as well as a dive run. I certainly would attack its center if given the opportunity.

Is the SA1 covering the a deep zone as a Cover 1?

Have you set up man and zone schemes to test?

(in reply to DAWUSS)

Post #: 2

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/17/2009 9:11:05 PM

DAWUSS

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

I've seen something similar to that defensive alignment in a 34 press. The safety is usually off the LOS.

It has the same flavour as a 46 defense, with the outside pressure, but the 46 is unbalanced, has overload pressure to one side, and plugs up the center on the nose.

Be aware that this alignment will likely be vulnerable to the slant, skinny post, and quick clearing routes as well as a dive run. I certainly would attack its center if given the opportunity.

Have you set up man and zone schemes to test?

It works great against the run, but it is terrible against the pass, even if I do send the SS and OLB into pass coverage (primarily zones [although M2M against the TE/RB could be a possibility]). Maybe if there was an effective blitz it could be used on passing downs, but more often than not passes wind up being a means of churning out long drives.

I did get some inspiration from the 46, but I was a little wary of an unbalanced formation, though. One of the things I like about it is that I can often use the SS as a DE (similar to how some teams use an OLB as a DE). You obviously need one heck of an SS, as he'll be doing just about everything (rush, coverage...). The player next to him has the job of occupying the OT so the SS can make the play. (Or the OLB on the respective side opposite the field)

Against the dive up the middle, maybe it was just the personnel or something, but having either the DT and DE or the ILB and OLB crash the "A" gaps would stuff the FB dive.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 3

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/18/2009 5:31:37 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

One of the things I like about it is that I can often use the SS as a DE (similar to how some teams use an OLB as a DE). You obviously need one heck of an SS, as he'll be doing just about everything (rush, coverage...). The player next to him has the job of occupying the OT so the SS can make the play. (Or the OLB on the respective side opposite the field)

The "Eagle" defense uses a linebacker in place of the nose tackle for a speed rush up the middle, but it looks like you are trying to do that on the edges. The graphic above has many players stunting inside. I'm not sure if that is a good idea, as it takes players more time to get in position before they can react to the play. If DE2 covers his A gap, then OL1 can cover the B gap against the run. That leaves the SA2 to either drop into a short zone or blitz. If IL2 protects the edge, OL1 could blitz through the B gap, drop into the short zone, or Read and SA2 is available to cover the flat.

The alignment itself is how the 6-2 formation is set up. The 6-2 has E T G G T E on the line with the linebackers lined up the same way (on the OT or over the B gap). It is used mainly in short yardage situations or in high school against teams that run almost exclusively.

Having the linebackers at the line, as this formation does, is something that some college teams do to press, but the defensive tackle is generally on the nose and the safety is at linebacker depth or deeper.

Have you tried this as a 4-3 with just the OL2 and the SA2 up? That would give you more size on the line, but it would require a position change from a team that is set up for the 3-4. On the other hand, you can use what you have as a defensive audible in the game from the 3-4 and it would move the players up to show blitz or press. If that is the case, it may be better to bring the OL2 up to the line rather than the IL2 to keep the linebacks from running into each other when changing the look.

quote:

Against the dive up the middle, maybe it was just the personnel or something, but having either the DT and DE or the ILB and OLB crash the "A" gaps would stuff the FB dive.

The dive will almost certainly not work with both linebackers going inside, but then there is more vulnerability to the sweep, stretch, or screen, and the quick slant or skinny post are almost a given. The TE can just run a curl or seam route for big yardage if no one covers him Man or is allowed into a vacated zone. That assumes the DE1 and IL2 are playing the edge against the run rather than covering the TE.

quote:

I did get some inspiration from the 46, but I was a little wary of an unbalanced formation, though.

One thing I brought up from time to time in beta was that the game needed to have strong and weak side designations for plays. Without them, it is hard to set up the "46" to work as it should. I did get a modified "46" to work, and there are some other community members who have looked at it as well, but having strong and weak sides would make things easier.

(in reply to DAWUSS)

Post #: 4

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/18/2009 6:22:11 PM

DAWUSS

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline

Here's the same formation under a 4-3 package. Both sets weren't meant to be something to run your base defense out of, but more of something to be used in certain situations. And like I mentioned earlier, I'm an offensive-minded individual, so working with the defense is still relatively new for me.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 5

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/18/2009 7:16:01 PM

Yngvai

Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline

This formation you have here is somewhat similar to the "G" package that the 1991 National Championship Washington Huskies ran, and they had the #2 total defense and #1 rushing defense in the country that year.

Bud Foster of Virginia Tech visited with
Washington's coaches and adopted the exact same scheme around 1996 and went on to be a powerhouse, winning a national title and being ranked nationally in defense. They ran the scheme up until 2003, before switching to a more traditional 4-3.

The G-front was an 8-man front similar to what you've outlined. The defensive ends were more linebacker types, focusing on speed. The defensive tackles were bigger, stronger guys (Steve Emtman was one of these on the 91 Husky team). There were two inside linebackers ("Mike" and "Backer"), and then two outside linebacker/safety hybrids ("Whip" and "Rover"). It essentially gave a 4-4 look. The free safety was set about 10 yards deep, and then you had your corners. The corners had to be very good man coverage guys because of the aggressiveness of the front.

The front would often shift before the snap between G and "Tuff"...Tuff was a Bear 46 front.

The front was a balanced front, intended to be able to adjust to multiple formations and thus man and zone coverages would have the same look to the offense. Around 80% of Washington and V-tech's defenses were ran out of the G front; most of the rest came out of "Tuff". They ran a lot of dogs and blitzes out of G.

One weakness of the front was the vulnerability to draw trap plays (such as Michigan used against Washington in the 1993 Rose Bowl, and Tyrone Wheatley rushed for over 200 yards), taking advantage of the aggressive gap-control scheme and the fact there was only one deep safety. Also, as college football moved to more spread passing type offenses, the strategy lost some of its effectiveness (why V-Tech eventually scrapped the scheme in 2003 after UCLA passed for an insane amount of yards against them in a bowl game).

(in reply to DAWUSS)

Post #: 6

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/18/2009 7:37:09 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

Both sets weren't meant to be something to run your base defense out of, but more of something to be used in certain situations. And like I mentioned earlier, I'm an offensive-minded individual, so working with the defense is still relatively new for me.

No problem.

This, or a similar play, may be good to have set up as an audible. Of course, that wouldn't help in a CPU controlled or sim-game.

(in reply to DAWUSS)

Post #: 7

RE: Formation Feedback - 1/19/2009 10:26:17 PM

Yngvai

Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline