Suggestion Box - Playbooks

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Archie Griffin, Jun 19, 2011.

  1. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Weigh in on what you think the restrictions on playbooks (if any) should be. Also, if you have a style that you might want to try, give us an idea what it might be. It'll help with the discussion.

    I'll start - I plan to run a pro book again this year - lots of two back/one te stuff. I plan to run some Wildcat as my specialty set, maybe even using variations. No pro books had more than a single Wildcat set, so I might have two, or even three.

    This could change if: running out of the shotgun is improved this year, or if the read option out of the pistol is working. I could see myself changing it up if this stuff works.

    I was thinking that we should make people declare styles, and then taking things away based on those choices. Here's just a quick example:

    Pro style = no five wides, one 4 wide, rest three and under. Maybe all three and under.
    Spread = no fullback (under center - the shotgun FB stuff would be fine) and no two TE sets - even from the gun. Wildcat = spread only.
    Multiple = no idea.

    Anyway, that's just something I've been tossing around. I'm not in love with it or anything.
     
  2. soxandgators

    soxandgators The Gator Nation

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,713
    I am down for custom playbooks as you see fit

    But if not a full custom set up we should stick to school playbooks not a fan of doing it by style to customize
     
  3. Cimmy24

    Cimmy24 Candy Ass Self

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    8,063
    I want to see how cheesy custom stuff gets before we ban it, so I am ok with that. As far as other PBs I like the idea of guys sticking within their programs style at a minimum. I don't like to see guys take a team like Penn State and use an option PB with them. Speaking on PSU, they are a Spread team and do have 2 TE sets, so restricting formations could be a challenge imo.

    So if someone were to use PSU and go spread, they could use spread PBs only. Or if someone uses Army, they could use options PBs, like Air Forces.
     
  4. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    A potential problem I see with this is that there are Spread Teams that have Big, Big Ace, and Under Center formations in their default playbooks and there are Pro Teams with 5 Wide sets. Restricting what can be added to playbooks kind of defeats the purpose. Based on '11, I never found a formation that couldn't be stopped, I felt it was more routes than anything. I understand not wanting people to have playbooks that don't make sense, but the Default Multiple Playbook has everything. It's going to be tough to find a way to set limits on customization.
    You could maybe have a panel that reviews customized playbooks and approves or denies that changes.

    I don't know how this would work with us using the whole Coaching Carousel thing. If we had to stay true to what the program is, you would be limited in what jobs you could take, or would have to change your style. Sometimes, schools hire certain coaches to change styles and coaches that have coached for a long period of time evolve and styles change. For example, Penn State wasn't always a Spread Team.

    As for me, I plan to run some form of Spread Zone Read Offense.
     
  5. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I'm really just trying to kick start a discussion. I'd prefer not to have restrictions at all, but I don't want to line up against any junk offenses either. Defending the five wide, I-twin TE, and fleXbox One in the same series will take something away from the game. Realism is what I'm after. However we get there is fine with me.
     
  6. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    I agree, I'm just being a pain in the ass new member :D. My opinion is, in real life, most Spread Teams go Under Center occasionally, also, some Spread Teams (Florida, Mississippi State, West Virginia) can also be Power Running Teams. Since the Spread can be run different ways, it's not really fair to take away the 2 TE formations or saying they can't go I if they have the personnel for it. Stanford for example is a Power Running Pro Style, but their default Playbook from last year had Empty Sets.

    I think the main issue with the customization is what you stated,
    Maybe the best way to police it is to put restrictions on the gameplay. I don't see an easy way to define what can and can't go in a playbook. We're all supposed to be here to play sim ball and hopefully be mature. We should be able to police ourselves and eachother.

    Again, I'm just stating an opinion and I'll be fine with whatever the final decision is. Looking forward to hearing what other people think.
     
  7. Cimmy24

    Cimmy24 Candy Ass Self

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    8,063
    I get what JCA is saying...I don't know exactly what we're doing, but I think we should commit to a scheme as a coordinator. Whether we start out as an OC or DC....we should commit to either a Spread or Single Back offense as well as either a 4-3 or 3-4 defense. Idea?
     
  8. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I'm thinking it's best to start with no restrictions, and then see what happens. If we see things we need to address, we can do so as things come up. I think most of us have been around long enough to know straight cheese when we see it, so maybe if we just post our book preferences or what we're running, we can probably weed out anything the guys object to before any user games are played.

    As a general guide, we should try to have some kind of identity that is recognizable in the formations we have available and use. If your opponent can't identify what "kind" of offense you run, then that's probably going to be an issue at some point.

    I think that's a safe starting point.
     
  9. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    I am way too lazy to make a custom playbook...

    I'll more than likely use Michigan's playbook no matter where I go just to keep it as realistic as possible if I ever land in Ann Arbor...
     
  10. soxandgators

    soxandgators The Gator Nation

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,713
    Same with me i use South Carolina's book so i will just maybe add 1 or 2 formations to that if an changes at all....I prefer a pro style offense and don't want to try and rewrite what already feels comfortable to me
     
  11. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I'm probably going to do something quite different. I'm a bit of a playbook junkie, and I've been wairing for this feature for a long time. I am going to tweak endlessly, since I am that kind of geek when it comes to my video game competition. But I'm a sim-junkie, too, so I doubt I'll ruffle any feathers in the process.
     
  12. bdub

    bdub Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    Probably goes without saying, but I say no playbook changes after the season starts.
     
  13. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    I plan on building a playbook for my high school football team to down load and use that emulates what we run on friday nights, which is a pro style offense centered around the inside zone. It will be multiple sets with the same basic plays in each. Zones (out, in, and stretch) counters, traps (god I hope they work) and the power to each hole. I will have the pistol in as well, but only one formation of it. Maybe one our two shotgun formations because most of the book is under center. I'd like to use this same book here.
     
  14. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    I'm very excited about the custom playbook feature. I think we should embrace it. My goal is to get the right set of formations and plays into my playbook. I typically run 90% of my plays out of 2-3 formations and the other 10% out of the rest. Part of that is because a good part of the playbooks are full of formations that I would never use.

    I think the direction here should be relative to our sim-style play more than the formations in our playbooks. While there is some correlation, I think the formations are very much secondary to the style of play.
     
  15. egofailure

    egofailure Sim habits die hard!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    While some users may (er, will) take advantage of the new PB feature as an opportunity to cheese, I see it as an opportunity for sim players (i.e. everyone in this league) to become more sim than ever before. Until now, playing a tough conference opponent every season resulted in many issues, one being that PB limitations eventually made you (at least somewhat) predictable. Some of my favorite team playbooks were filled with plays that rarely worked or were outright broken. They also included formations that didn't jive well with the other sets. Thus, once they were seen a few times by your opponent, they were no longer effective. Still, I managed to play some user games without calling a single play (outside your standard dive) more than once.

    But, now, instead of using only 65-70% of my playbook, I'll have all of it at my disposal. My formations will play off others, resulting in my system flowing better than ever before. Plays called in the first quarter will most certainly set up plays made in the 3rd quarter. Auto-motion from certain formations will no longer tell the defense one of two plays are coming. I'll no longer have too work hard to keep play-calling ridiculously varied, because it will be a reasonable expectation.

    I'm completely jazzed about this feature.
     
  16. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I agree with this. I wanted to run a particular system last year, and got to for the most part, but didn't get as much as I wanted out of it because no playbook had all the formations I wanted, so I went with the one that had as much as I could get. This year, I'll get to run a more complete style, and run more plays from my book that I was able to run past year.
     
  17. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I've been putting some time into developing a book, and I think I know what I'm going to do. I always prefer a lot of 2 back stuff (I, Strong, Weak sets) and I think I'll likely start Bauserman over Miller to start the year. But I'll need some spread for when Miller comes in, so I think I'll stay 2 back in most of my shotgun sets, using a number of those funky sets that hide a back/TE behind the line (the ones developed for the Florida book 2 years ago) so I can run some read option stuff and so on. I'll give myself one or two true spread sets, and maybe a wildcat set or two. That oughta do it.

    This will likely completely change once I get into the actual game. Anyone know if we'll be able to change formation audibles?
     
  18. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    From what I read in the developers blog you will not be able to change formation audibles
     
  19. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    They said that you can't change them, but that they will adjust to what's in your playbook. I think this means that (worst case) you could pick the 4 plays you want to use for that formation and control what plays go into the audibles.
     
  20. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Does this mean that, for example, if I didn't want my quick pass to be a double slant, I could just take double slant out of my book? That would make sense, and it would probably give me just what I wanted.
     

Share This Page