3-3-5 Discussion

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by Masler, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
  2. LSUTRUTH

    LSUTRUTH The one and only

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    5,424
    There are alot of people who use the 3-3-5 as for the 4-2-5 im wondering what your interest in banning that is. I am running a 4-3 now but im interested in what everyone else thinks
     
  3. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    4-2-5 is notorious for glitches and borderline play
     
  4. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I cannot say I have seen a great deal of glitches with the 4-2-5. I do not see the number of free running "speed" guys like in the 3-3-5. If the thought is that we remove it to "level" the playing field I would disagree because of that fact.
     
  5. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    I don't see how this is logical... I just got manhandled by you Masler when you ran the ball until i sent 7 every play (which is why you got that 100 yard TD pass). So i don't think we need to ban this... I haven't gotten any complaints except from Big Suge Knight but that's it. If anything, I feel i'm one of the most sim with this defense hands down.
     
  6. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Call it complaining if you want but I simply pointed out the imbalance that the formation creates with the poor AI. The discussion involved others who shared similar, if the same thoughts on the formation. The prevailing sense sitewide seems to agree also so it is not like i am going rogue especially since it was another E member that suggested we discuss for our OD.
     
  7. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    My issue is this is week 7 in season two and I've recruited to suit the 3-3-5. So what I'm being told is i've gotta retool my entire recruiting so that I'm getting more linebackers and DTs instead of Safeties. That puts me 2 maybe 3 seasons behind.
     
  8. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I can understand but I guess what I can also understand is others sitewide have expressed the thoughts that the offesnes are poorly programmed to execute against the 3-3-5 and you still choose to run it. My thoughts have been the same that no one should run it from the beginning.
     
  9. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I'm not arguing one way or the other, but your defense (from what I can surmise) is that you can run the ball against the 3-3-5 with proof by how Masler manhandled you when he ran the ball. Obviously I didn't watch the game and DW is down for me so I can't see the stats, but here's what he posted in the summary:

    P. Robertson - 359.1 QBR, 11/13, 307 yards, 3 TD, 6 Att, 30 yards
    J. Hubert - 29 Att, 77 yards, 2.6 ypc, 1 TD
    L. Stephens - 4 Rec, 128 yards, 1 TD
    T. Miller - 2 Rec, 115 yards, 1 TD
    D. West - 6 Tackles, 3 TFL, 2 Sacks, 1 INT, 1 Deflection
    D. Roberts - 3 Tackles, 1 Deflection,1 FR-TD

    In my book, 2.6 YPC by a 94ish OVR HB isn't exactly a manhandling.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    I havent made my decision yet. I just said 4-2-5. I had no issues with our recent game. Yea a few times the LB blew thru my line but it wasnt constant and Hubert was able to make some decent plays. I just want opinions for now.

    And UofCWildcat made a good point, I havent received any complaints via PM about 3-3-5.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2012
  11. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    Again. From the beginning if we said no 3-3-5 I would of had zero issue. With the pipeline glitch I'm already hampered enough.

    And like I said Masler, I only got in the backfield after I decided to commit to the run late by sending six to seven a play. That's just a man on man game where I'm sending more rushers than blockers.
     
  12. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    Do you not find it strange that most other TSO leagues have banned the 3-3-5?
     
  13. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    No because my 3-3-5 was never deemed cheese from my understanding. I asked before we started and no ban so why change it because some random posted about his friend abusing the AI? I clearly don't and I've shown I'm beatable. Why put me into a further hole than I already am?
     
  14. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    You are aware that you're not the only one running it nor are you the only one that could run it in the future, right?

    You're also aware that several people in this OD (not some random) have complained about the 3-3-5 since you started using it, even in '12, right?
     
  15. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    Yeah but that didn't stop them (Suge and Edge and Dakota) to beat me. So it's not some magic defense that is untouchable. It's just not the ordinary.
     
  16. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    What some think about the 335 is what I think about this zone read and option most have gone to. I put the 335 in just for these offenses. Were gonna get to a point where we can only run 43 or 34 and everyone is going to come out and run three or four plays based off man or zone which some do already. If we ban either of these defenses then IMO we should be able to game plan the option and read.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. LSUTRUTH

    LSUTRUTH The one and only

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    5,424
    I can tell you that last year mid season Suge mentioned the same things to me. I went into practice mode and just watched the defense. Needless to say I am now running a 4-3 base. Because the CPU never blocks the right guys. Just my reasoning for switching.
     
  18. dakota7

    dakota7 Former Blue Chip Recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    12,443
    We discussed all of this two weeks ago, I think it was in the Scores thread. Masler you should go back and reread that discussion before you make a decision.

    For you guys who run it, no one is calling you cheesers. I understand its a legit defense in the real world. Problem is, until EA improves the blocking logic and adds physics based collisions, little fast guys (extra safeties) are just as effective against power rushing attacks as big dudes (if not more). It gives the 3-3-5 unrealistic advantages. I said this before, but we have a rule against moving small, fast guys (safeties) to linebacker, but we allow a base defense that essentially uses safeties as linebackers. That doesn't make sense to me. And because 8 of the defenders play off the line of scrimmage and most blitz schemes involve crossing or zone blitzes, the blocking logic can't keep up with the 3-3-5. Its just my opinion, and obviously someone who is a lot closer to the development team and knows a lot more about how this game works than I do agrees with me. Drifterbub
     
  19. Drifterbub

    Drifterbub Help me hide a body?

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,173
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I don't think it's a secret that there are some quirks in the blocking AI out of these formations. I've seen some videos of A, B and C gap blitzes (straight mind you, not crossing) that are pretty puzzling.
     
  20. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    And to follow up on what Drifterbub said we also have users that play the LB and come untouched on 95% of the running plays through these gaps. Now could it be just a conquincidence?
     
  21. dakota7

    dakota7 Former Blue Chip Recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    12,443
    Well, I'm more concerned with the other 10 players on defense and how the CPU interactions are there. There are all sorts of things you could analyze with any user controlled defensive player and it would be different at every position.
     
  22. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944

    Your right but the LB's come free even as a CPU right up the A B C gaps. So it's a problem no matter what defense you run.
     
  23. dakota7

    dakota7 Former Blue Chip Recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    12,443
    Oh yeah, I know what you mean now. I've seen that happen when the o-line will double team the d-tackle or d-end and then try to release and get the linebacker. They're usually way late on that. That is definitely an AI issue as well, but I think you see less of it against the 4-3 than you do with the 3-3-5, simply because the blocking in space is so screwed up (and there's more defenders in space in the 3-3-5). Not to mention the faster safeties which exaggerate the o-line's tardiness.
     
  24. aarondramp

    aarondramp ten thousand words

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,114
    I have yet to play someone that used the 3-3-5 as a base this year, so I don't have that much of an opinion. My only opinion would just be echoing what other people said.

    I have been using the 4-2-5 in the OC, and it seems to be fine. Even drifterbub said above it doesn't have some of the same AI issues.

    If the 3-3-5 is banned, I think that anyone that has been using it as a base should be allowed to use it for at least 2 or 3 more seasons after this. It would be a bit unfair for those that have been recruiting with it to go away from it. I also think it should only be banned as a base defense against 2 WR sets. If teams are using a 3 WR set, then a 3-3-5 would be totally normal and acceptable.
     
  25. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    I agree with the whole thing aside from the bolded part. If you ban our Base set against 2 WR sets, then we're forced to either run 3-3-5 Nickle, 2-4-5 Nickle, 1-5-5 Nickle, or all the Dime and Quarters formations. If we wanna ban it, so be it. But don't make me switch when i have none of the players for other defenses.
     

Share This Page