Squirrels seeking offensive help

[QuikSand]

I'm fishing around here, because I've seen some very interesting stuff in this part of the forum on offensive and defensive setups. I'm interested in thoughts on my current team-- and what folks think might make sense with my current setup, particularly on offense.

Here's a quick summary:

-My offensive line is pretty young, and very good. I'm planning to keep them together for the next 5-8 years, and they should be excellent.

-I currently have a QB with great ratings everywhere except accuracy (56) and power (72). He's been okay, but our team has focus on running a lot lately.

-Our top RB is very good, bit is making a fortune, and I may not be able to afford him after next season. Regardless, he typically runs fior over 4 ypc, and has regularly gotten close to 100 yards per game on average. He also catches a lot of passes-- typically 4-500 yards in a season, despite my not artificially boosting screen passes.

-My FB is a star, very good everywhere, and my backup RB corps is pretty solid, doing well (behing my great line) when called upon for duty.

-My WR corps is shaky, with one returning early first round pick who has been good but not great. He's supported by a group of semi-talented role players, but definitely no standouts. My TEs are average.

(More detaild are available in my career thread - House Arrest Black Squirrels)

With all that said, I'm interested in some feedback on fine-tuning this offense.

What in particular do you think might make this group click a little better than the basic playcalling setup? I've been tweaking, but in a much less systematic way than those of you who have written extensively here.

Ideally, I'd think this group is best suited to work a bit like the Dallas offense of the 90s, with an all-purpose RB who carries the load and scores a lot, and a quality QB who is nonetheless pretty rarely called upon to post big numbers. I've had glimpses of this, but it's been less consistent that I would like.

Any thoughts?

[Blackwind]

Quik,

I've used a modified version of Morgado's 75 offense with some success in a similar situation to yours. Here are the percentages with the differences in italics.

1st Down 25-50-75-X
2nd Down 50-75-50-X
3rd Down 75-25-X-X

I use I, Pro, and Single Back formations with a 40-30-30 ratio for running situations and a 30-30-40 ratio in passing situations. All produce similar YPC. Passing distance is set at 10-45-25-15-5.

The blocking scheme is set by reducing the C percentage by six and adding 1 to the default direction at each of the other holes.

My QB is average with one very good WR and another good aging vet. My line is very good with amazing cohesion and I have a very good blocking FB with two so so blocking TE's.

FB run percentage is at 15 and I've jacked my RB playing time from 3 to 6. My backup RB (very good breakaway speed) comes in fresh and gets some big runs while my primary RB (Dave Linkous in the TTS thread) is churing out 1000 yard seasons with between a 4.2 and 5.6 YPC with just breakaway speed and carrying skills above 50.

The passing game provides 150-220 YPG and 20-25 TD's while the ground game averages 150-195 YPG on 30-35 carries.

Bad running games tend to really shut down this offense and we're winning 2 of 5 when that happens. When the running game clicks it has been about a 9 of 10 winner.

[This message has been edited by Blackwind (edited 02-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Blackwind (edited 02-04-2001).]

[Subby]

QS - I think you should do what you can to get a WR and TE with high catching abilities - this will help offset some of the passing accuracy problems.

In addition, focus on simply moving the chains with the passing game - dont go for the knockout too often. I like to use a 10-40-40-9-1 pass distribution, primarily out of a 2 WR set (which I run at 85 (league avg being 50)).

If you're running back is getting pricey but your o-line is very good and here to stay, look at a 3rd round back with high breakaway speed and set your running distribution along the line to 15-10-10-30-10-10-15. That distribution is straight out of the Morgado 75 and works beautifully.

Limit yourself to three formations - having more than that is overkill and forces you to spread the expertise too thin. I prefer I, Pro, Single Back - but any of em are fine except the 'Gun, which is a giveaway.

As far as run/pass percentages are concerned, I think what works is setting your percentages much much higher or much much lower than the league average in a given situation - thats why both Morgado 75 and Midwest 35 are so successful. I've been tweaking that though and am finding a nice balance with this set up:

50-50-60-x
50-60-50-x
60-x-x-x

My goal now is to run the same number of run and pass plays from scrimmage over the course of a game, but to keep the defense guessing throughout with neutral formations and against the grain playcalling.

[Ctown-Fan]

Originally posted by Subby:
[b]Limit yourself to three formations - having more than that is overkill and forces you to spread the expertise too thin. I prefer I, Pro, Single Back - but any of em are fine except the 'Gun, which is a giveaway.[b]

I think the esteemed Subby's suggestion were really good except for the quoted section above. With the line that is returning, you should get decent training camp returns on all your formations and it would be a waste to only focus on three formations. You'll be better off using all formations at a rating around sixty, than 3 formations at 70. Then you set all of your formation usages between 15-20. You are then running and passing equally out of the same formations, and there is no immediate giveway to the defense what you are running. You will take advantage of the wrong defense more often.

Also, to maximize your receiving corps, make sure that you get a 3rd wideout with a high yac raiting. This will do wonders for those 20 yard passes.

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the input.

I have typically gone with only three offensive formations, but I am starting to think that my high cohesion OL might make using 4-5 more palatable.

This past season, I used my usual three formations (Strong I, Pro Set, and Single Back) with fairly even distributions.

I had a runs behind my LG and C set to about 19, and each other OL position at around 13-14 (or whatever it balanced out to). I got 57 KRBs from my starting center (best I've seen).

My top RB had a bit over 1,500 yds this season (best in this franchise history) as I used a fairly run-heavy playcalling selection (though not quite as slanted as the 75). He also had two great games, with well over 200 yards in each of them.

I have long been a supporter of using the 2-WR formation very heavily, and was glad to see support here (from Morgado et al) for doing so. With my impressions reinforced even further, I bumped up to an 80 there, with a 0 for 0WR and 5WR formations.

I think I may need a switch at QB-- the guy I've had in there is deceivingly poor-- he is visually impressive since most of his ratings are in the 90s, but his accuracy in the 50s seems to be the problem. He's making about 10% of my salcap, and after a nother year ot rwo he'll be looking for even more. I get trade offers for him every year-- I'll probably pull the trigger there soon.

On balance, if my QB had been more reliable, I would have been happy with this team's offensive output. My defense this year was a bit shaky, though... ah, hell.

[fantavet]

I run the Patriots team and Bledsoe has been performing greater then his real life counter part. My scout thinks I need a starting RB and WR.

In my evaluation my backups for these positions are rated good to excellent.

This is what I have done. All my scenarios are set close to 50% except for the most obvious like 3rd and 4th and long. What is happening is that the defense is playing me the same on 2nd-1 as it is on 2nd-10.

This has opened things up for my passing game. At the end of the game I normally have 4 WRs with at least 4 catches.

My OL is not that good but for every -3 yard carry I can get a 9 yard carry if I catch the defense playing deep on 3rd and 7.

This has led me to an 8-3 record so far this season.

[Subby]

First of all, I'm going to have to ask C-Town to refrain from disagreeing with me. My fragile self-esteem can't take it

Secondly - I have to say that I am not a big believer in the 'Gun because it is more of a blatant passing, big-play formation, where I prefer the more subtle, move-the-chains kind of offense.

The reason I only use three formations is because it seems you have enough variation in Split, Single and one of three running sets (weak, strong, I) to keep the defense guessing. Plus, I would rather be excellent in three sets than pretty good in four.

I am thinking of ditching the I because it may tip off the run too easily.

[QuikSand]

I would rather be excellent in three sets than pretty good in four.

Interesting debate within that statement. Does anyone have any good sense of how using more than 3 formations affects opposing defenses? Theoretically, it would give them more "looks" to deal with, and less time to focus on defending each formation. I don't have any idea whether, or to what extent, this translates into this game.

Does anyone have a beter feel than I do? Is there any way to measure this, in a system as complex as this?

If possible, I usually like having more good sets than less great sets. The thinking being that the engine logs use of plays tied to formations so if you use more, there is less likelyhood that they will "be familiar with the play".

I correlate that to the 50/50/50 offense that I run from time to time and with everything being so balanced, run/pass and formation usage, the defense is always guessing.

Also, Subby, are you thinking of dumping all three I variations and using just Single and Pro? In the balanced offense scheme, you get big running plays out of the Single back set and big passing plays out of the I because of the unusual nature of them. If it is just dumping the I in favor of the strong or weak, I like the I over the strong/weak variations because it doesn't tip the hand as to what side you might be leaning, either way I rather use them all.

[dawgfan]

I've been paying a lot of attention to how my team performs out of various formations for the last 4 seasons. Basically, I've been tracking the tallies in the box scores showing running stats (attempts, yards) and passing stats (attempts, completions, yards) and tweaking my gameplan during the season to adjust for what seems to be working and what isn't.

Fortunately I've got real good cohesion going on my team and am able to get expertise ratings for my formations into the 70's. This has allowed me the flexibility to play around with emphasizing different sets from year to year, and what I've ended up gravitating towards is using primarily the I-formation, Strong-I, Single-back and Shotgun. I'll usually put most of my training camp emphasis on the I, Stong-I and Shotgun (about 60-70% value on the slider bar) with about a 20-30% value for Single-back. Sometimes I'll throw in a fractional value for Weak-I.

This usually produces proficiency ratings in the 60's to 70's for the formations I've emphasized (I, Strong-I and Shotgun), and in the 50's for Single-back. I then set my gameplan up so emphasize the I and Strong I for running plays, around 35-40 for each, with about 10-15 alloted for Single-back and 5 or so for Shotgun. For passing, I've been tending towards 35-40 for Shotgun, around 20 each for I and Strong-I, and the rest in Single-back.

I usually end up tweaking these percentages a bit during the season based on my early results - I'm looking to increase usage of the formations that are giving me the most success, but not overemphasizing them to the point of predictability.

I eliminated using the Split/Pro formation after a couple of seasons of not seeing much success with it, and I'm considering dropping the Single-back as well. I've been going with the Strong-I over the Weak-I purely for aesthetic reasons - it just sounds better. I don't know enough of the intricacies of NFL offenses to make a real judgement of the strenghts and weaknesses of the Strong-I vs. the Weak-I.

I like the idea of having the neutral formation (the Strong-I) balancing out the run-superior I and the heavily pass-superior Shotgun. While I have no proof of knowing that my settings are making a significant difference in my offense, my theory is that by using the I as much as I do in passing situations that it balaces out the tendency of the defense to think run when it sees it, and yet still has a small element of surprise at seeing passes come from that formation.

Some may argue that the Shotgun is too geared towards the pass and loses the element of surprise, but it is still my consistently the most effective passing formation in my offense. My running attack is usually well-balanced between the I and the Strong-I in terms of effectiveness. Same with the I formation - it is consistently my best or one of my best running formations, and is quite effective and efficient as a passing formation.

Of couse, knowing how much of this is attributable to the talent of the players and the coach's Offensive Playcalling abilities is difficult to determine, but I'd like to think I'm increasing my offense's efficiency with my alterations.

Bottom line? I'd suggest tracking your formation results if you're not doing so already. You may discover that some formations are performing much better or worse than others.

[Subby]

All this talk has me thinking of about testing out an offense that runs just two sets: Split and Single Back. My formation tendencies and run percentages would look like this:

0WR  1WR  2WR  3WR  4WR  5WR
 0    85   85   85   0    0

  1-2  3-7  8-10  11+
1  50   50   75    x
2  50   75   50    x
3  75   x    x     x
4  75   x    x     x

Lemme sim a couple of seasons and see what happens.


[This message has been edited by Subby (edited 02-06-2001).]

[Morgado]

Subby,

Sometimes I run the 75 Offense almost exactly like that (oh except the two formation thing... usually I go three. I wonder what would happen with two). The percentages on receiver sets tends to vary every season depending on what personnel I have available. In light of the recent numbers posted by SkyDog in the General Discussion though, i'm planning a fairly detailed study after I wrap up Round 6 for the Knights.

And to think I bought a Dreamcast Monday afternoon an still haven't turned it on yet... finally giving in and fixing the Voodoo difficulty level on FOF2001 really boosted the play value of that game tremendously.

------------------
The 64 Dollar Question: What *is* The FOF Journal?

[This message has been edited by Morgado (edited 02-06-2001).]

[sachmo71]

bump?

[cthomer5000]

i run at least 5 formations in my offense at all times...many times ive tried going with some of the systems people push and they end up failing miserably for me, perhaps it has something to do with the personnel i tend to gravitate towards?

right now, i run virtually every formation and focused on building an excellent offensive line (always favoring run blocking over pass blocking as i like to run more) my RB isn't rated too highly by my scout but has great catching ability and YPC and puts out over 2000 yards total offense per year, some years as high as 2500 (this is all on Wall Street of course)..

and ive noticed that my success in formations seems to vary game to game and year to year with no discernable patterns. THe only thing i dont like about my current offsense is that occasionally (2-3) times a year, my running game will just get SHUT DOWN and ill lose a game...still usually a close game. but most the time i can blow out my opponents. the only problem is when i get shut down in the playoffs obviously.

corey

[Marmel]

Ahhhh.....the Black Squirrels of Colorado Springs.........such memories.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Marmel:
Ahhhh.....the Black Squirrels of Colorado Springs.........such memories.

You wicked, wicked man. You and that wig.