PLaybook question

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Archie Griffin, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    PLaybook question

    I wanted to ask you guys a gameplay question. In my playbook (I run a pro style), I have a number of ACE, I, Strong, and Weak sets. When I audible between them, I typically run a WR across the formation (from normal to twins or the reverse) shift a TE from one side to the other (Ace Big to Ace Twin TE, for example) or move the FB from the I to weak to strong. I assume these shifts are kosher, since they happen in the real game all the time.

    My question is about shifting the TE into the FB slot. Now, I've seen a lot of teams do this, (Pitt does it on nearly every play) and it's built into the game this year (there's a number of plays with built in motion that shifts the TE into the FB spot and sets that feature a FB in a TE spot, like Ace F Pair Twins). Anyway, I thought I'd ask because, in the past, throwing to the FB was an issue. I'm not trying to set up a pass to a TE in the flat; most of the time the TE becomes a lead blocker. I'll dump the occasional pass into the flat if I get a heavy rush, but everybody does that.

    Anyway, my shifts mimic the real game, but I know some folks don't like audibles. I love them because they give me the largest number of options out of any playbook. But I thought it would be a good topic of discussion. What shifts are cool, and what shifts are not?

    For me, WR shifts are fine, but not into the backfield. TE shifting back is fine, and splitting out is fine (but only one - no Big to Spread stuff). HB to slot receiver is fine, but FB to receiver is not.

    Anyway, I thought it would be a good question to ask.
     
  2. DoomsDayD1978

    DoomsDayD1978 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Personally, I see no problem with any of that. Motions of the nature you are talking about all happen in the realm of real football. On the HS team I coach here in Arkansas, we use personnel shifting quite a bit...ie. FB to TE side to give a two offset TE look, or FB to off. tackle side to give a 2 TE one back look, show 3x1 WR look and motion the Z receiver over to give a 2x2 look.

    I'm all for sim as much as the next guy, but audibles enhance the strategic nature of football and in itself is sim. Now that said, I don't do much audibling. But if you are on offense and you audible into another look in hopes of gaining an advantage, it's my job defensively to make adjustments accordingly.

    I guess as long as the shifting/audibling is not done to exploit an AI glitch in programming then I see no problem.
     
  3. vatechhokie01

    vatechhokie01 Anglican Priest and Beer-snob

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,965
    Agree here. Too many rules can take away from variety in play-styles. But it would be annoying if every play you had to wait 20 seconds so that a guy could get an entirely new (now) play setup to exploit your defense you called. I'm more of a... hey, this seems to make more balance-sense so I will move/audible...rather than a...hey, if i audible to this play (which ive done 15 previous times) and move this guy all the way across the field here and this FB to here, logically this guy has no chance of stopping this play (which ive ran 15 times).

    somewhat of a fine line...but really the integrity of having fun and playing "legit" is what i'm hoping for from every manager in this league. seems like the point.

    im more of the "man, i need to pass a few more times or get my WR1 and WR2 more balls immediately or this just isn't realistic." in other words, everyone take responbility for themselves and don't just go asking for d-bag cards (this is gonna get a lot of run, huh? ha!)
     
  4. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Here's a typical kind of audible that I find myself running:

    I line up in a single back set, with a pass play called. The safeties stay back, and the linebackers stay back. I decide they're in zone, and the backers are going to drop into coverage, and decide to audible to a draw. I prefer to run draw with a lead blocker, so I audible into, say, a strong set. TE drops from the line to the FB spot, and becomes that lead blocker.

    That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
     
  5. vatechhokie01

    vatechhokie01 Anglican Priest and Beer-snob

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,965
    sounds like football. sounds like the defensive backfield should creep up (and have time to so realistically?) in response.
     
  6. ChaoticUT

    ChaoticUT Life is Orange and White!

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,832
    sounds legit to me. ive found that in a lot of formations when you do try and motion the FB out of the back field he lines up behind the TE in like a wing formation. however, when you motion the HB out, depending on the formation, he becomes the slot or #1 WR. im not sure if this is 100% but maybe this is EA answer to unreal motions
     
  7. djnnfl

    djnnfl Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    453
    have no problem with that its part of the game, i audible myself. Since were on this subject of playing calling an such, how do u guys feel about no-huddle this is what some of the teams run far as style of offensive. well there be some rules & regulations for that just curious.
     
  8. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I haven't played with it head-to-head. I don't think I have any issue with it. Have there been any discussions about this in other OD's?

    As long as I have the time to call a play, and get to the player I want to be on the field, then I'm fine. But that's just me.
     
  9. DoomsDayD1978

    DoomsDayD1978 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Those are my thoughts on no-huddle as well.

    As long as it's done as a "style of offense" rather than being used just to exploit guys being out of position on defense, then I'm cool with no huddle.
     
  10. ChaoticUT

    ChaoticUT Life is Orange and White!

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,832
    isnt the point of the no huddle exactly that, to get people out of position and to make the defense call a play they may not be happy with?
     
  11. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    To some extent. I just don't want situations that don't really happen. Can you no huddle from a jumbo to a spread set and then back again? I just don't want a guy lining up five wide and then playing the next down with WRs at TE, FB and HB.

    Also, I could see a guy setting up a group of audibles that can turn the game into a sprint, which would give the O a big advantage. In the real game, even when running the no-huddle, a team takes the foot of the gas long enough to get a play call in and set up. The game might allow a guy to run five or six plays over and over, and at a much faster pace than the real thing.

    If it's used like the real game uses it, I'm fine with it.
     
  12. djnnfl

    djnnfl Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    453
    cool!
     
  13. DoomsDayD1978

    DoomsDayD1978 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Not at all. I personally think that's just an edict of the video gaming world. Up until last year, I coached in a HS system that ran the Tony Franklin no-huddle scheme. His system is still run at Troy with variations of it at So. Miss, MTSU, and a few other colleges. I personally didn't like it, as I'm a power guy, but as DC I didn't really care one way or the other, my job was just to give our offense as many different looks as possible in trying to stop it. The offense was NEVER run in hopes of getting the defense out of position. There's a base formation for each play and each set is scripted. The plays are called from the sideline...so in essence, there is a huddle, it's just from a formation.

    That said...the offense in itself, even down to the HS level, is designed as nothing more than a faster pace, tempo oriented offense. It's purpose is to gain a momentous flow with the hopes of forcing the defense to play every inch of the field and systematically garner fatigue on the defense. It's a style of offense, just as much as any other is. It's not run like a true 2 min drill no huddle.
     
  14. ChaoticUT

    ChaoticUT Life is Orange and White!

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,832

    see i would disagree. a no huddle is used exactly as that. the offense lines up, the defense then lines up, and then the OC sees how the defense is lined up and then calls a play to take advantage of the defense. i do agree there is a difference between a no huddle offense and a two minute drill. playing as ND im gonna use a no huddle quiet frequently but it wont be in excess and it wont be a 2minute drill that is ran all game.
     
  15. DoomsDayD1978

    DoomsDayD1978 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    I get what you're saying...see, in your original post, it seemed like you were under the notion that a no-huddle system was used to have defenses all out of position scrambling around every play in hopes of hitting an uncovered WR or exploit an unmanned defensive line gap and that's not what it is designed to do. That's why I said that kind of stuff only exists in the video gaming world. Your explanation above is exactly what I was saying previously in regards to how the no-huddle is really run. I understand what you were trying to say now.

    I'll tell you something funny though that a lot of head coaches in real life find out who have a fascination with the no-huddle only to abandon it after a few seasons....teams see so much of one another from year to year that you actually are conditioning your opposing defenses to become no-huddle defenses. Honestly, the system itself looks all intricate and everything, but it's a very limited offense in all actuality and very easy to prep for unless it has some form of option to it. We see no huddle at minimum 4 times each year and fundamentally it's all the same stuff. These no huddle coaches figure out quickly that, unless you are going up against a complete moron that's a DC, he has 2-3 checks for each formation that is called in from the sideline for the offense, regardless of the fact that they are not huddling. So really, the only advantage of that system is if you face an unconditioned, uninformed defense. I would much rather prep for no-huddle any day of the week as opposed to having to prep for all the Double and Single Wing power stuff. Saves me time doing conditioning after practice. No huddle stuff is fairly easy to replicate in practice, the power stuff is hard to get ready for. You can replicate finesse, it's hard to replicate physicality.

    Sorry for the real life no huddle rant...lol...I just have gotten many thrills ripping that no huddle stuff to shreds over recent years against some of these arrogant OC's that think it's an unstoppable offense.
     
  16. ChaoticUT

    ChaoticUT Life is Orange and White!

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,832
    I would agree that its not unstoppable by any means. We had a couple teams in my league that ran a no-huddle and our defense would much rather practice and game plan for that then have to play defense against our actual offense (a variation of the veer option) which for any defense is just not fun. Although I will say that one of our rivals Hart High School, which basically pioneered the read option/no huddle type offense (been running it since the 80s and is an absolute offensive/quarterback powerhouse producing Matt Moore- Panthers and Kyle Boller- Rams just to state a few) came up with quiet an extensive "check with me" audible system that allows the offense to audible even after the OC has sent in the play based on what the defense has shifted to or shown. Although not perfect, its definitely been successful for them to counteract how defenses has evolved. But I guess its all relative to what kind of personnel you have. We only ran the veer because our OL was small and quick which suited us well. They ran the spread/ no huddle because their OC/QB coach was a genius. At the end of the day 11 people have to line up against 11 people and do their job.

    With all that being said, I would agree were on the same page as to what the no-huddle is and what the no-huddle is not.
     
  17. DoomsDayD1978

    DoomsDayD1978 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Yeah, the veer is flat out NASTY! It's as old school as the wishbone, but my god, it is SO hard to prepare for.
     

Share This Page