A real life case study on why schemes mean nothing if CFM AI cant coach/manage (long)

[feeq14]

We've all read the news about "specialist" positions, new ratings, and schemes. This all sounds great, but again none of it matters if the ratings don't matter. And more importantly, it won't work if Coach/GM AI are stagnant and don't play to their shemes strengths/weakness and don't make adjustments.


The big question that I need answered is will the AI know to:

1- Know to draft for their scheme AND for their scheme's weaknesses?

2- Play to their strengths and weakness/make adjustments (like they used to do years ago...smh)

An example of this can be the success of the Tampa 2 in Chicago and Indy in the mid 2000s under Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy.

Tony Dungy invented the Tampa 2 scheme with Lovie in Tampa Bay in the early 2000s. They had the perfect talent for it. For it to work you first had to have an great pass rushing defensive line, preferably with an elite pass rushing defensive tackle (Warren Sapp), paired that can get pressure without blitzing. Then you need strong corners (Tiki Barber, Brian Kelly) that can press at the line and force WRs off of their routes to give time for rangey/hard hitting safety duo to clean up on deep routes (John Lynch). You also needed quick linebackers that could play zone coverage well and still make plays on running backs in on sweeps and flats (Derrick Johnson). It’s designed to force teams to commit to dinking and dunking their way down the field, giving the defense plenty of opportunities to force a mistake. It was a great defense for playing with the lead and paired well with a strong running game and a QB that could make plays when needed…something Tampa did not have. They put together one of the best defenses in NFL history before being fired and allowing John Gruden to step in and win a superbowl 2 years later.

But at the same time Dungy had taken over in Indy and Lovie in Chicago. Dungy inherited one of the best offenses in the league, all he had to do was put together a decent defense. The Tampa 2 was the perfect option. Let Peyton drive up the score and force opposing offenses to slowly plod down the field dinking and dunking. It should have worked perfectly. Dungy had an elite pass rush with Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis in their primes. He had a rangy/hard hitting safety as well in Bob Sanders. His corners weren’t as talented as Tiki and Brian Kelly, but they didn’t need to be in the Tampa 2 scheme as long as they could press. The problem was that in a Tampa 2 you need your defensive line to be the opposite of what Indy had. Freeny and Mathis could not set the edge on the run. Plus they didn’t have anything close to Derrick Brooks at linebacker. So opposing teams would gash Indy on the ground every week and force Peyton to win games on offense. Dungy’s scheme just wasn’t working out.

On the other hand, Lovie had inherited several of the tools needed to put together a great Tampa 2 defense. He inherited Brian Urlacher, future hall of fame inside linebacker who could do everything, Next to him was Lance Briggs who was a poor mans Derrick Brooks. He had Mike Brown and Charles Tillman at safety and CB respectively. They were a perfect scheme fit for the Tampa 2. Then he drafted Tommie Harris in his first draft. He wasn’t as elite as Warren Sapp, but he was a true 1 gap penetrator at DT. Better yet he had Alex Brown and Adewale Ogunleye who were not elite pass rushers like Freeney and Mathis, but they could rush well enough but were also stout at setting the edge. The defense was a nightmare and forced record setting turnovers in most of it’s time together.

Fast forward to 2006 these two teams meet in the superbowl as almost mirror images of each other. Indy has the leaky defense trying to piece together a Tampa 2 without the proper pieces, BUT they have an all time great at QB, WR, TE, and a good running game. Meanwhile Chicago has an all time great Defense perfectly tuned for their scheme…but Rex Grossman.

But here’s the thing, Chicago STILL could have and should have won that game. It would have been an ugly win, but it could have been a win. Aside from a blown coverage early in the game, the Chicago defense was as advertised. The problem was that Indy adjusted. They knew they couldn’t run or throw the ball deep, so the entire game the dinked and dunked over the middle of the field, underneath the coverage of the linbackers, one of the few weak spots of the Tampa 2 defense. Joeseph Addai, a good but not great back for Indy, caught 10 passes which might still be a superbowl record. There’s stories about Urlacher begging Lovie to play more cover 3 to adjust and he refused. Combine that with an offense that turned the ball over 3 times and the rest is (painful) history.


So we see here what NEEDS to be in the game in CFM mode. The AI has to know how to draft for their scheme, but also how to protect their scheme from it’s inherent weaknesses. All NFL teams have set schemes, but the winning teams either have elite talent in their scheme, or have great depth to hide the holes in their scheme/ a coach that knows how to adjust. If Madden 19 comes out and I play the Jaguars, and they refuse to run play-action once I start loading up the box with 8 man fronts…none of this new stuff matters.

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by feeq14

We've all read the news about "specialist" positions, new ratings, and schemes. This all sounds great, but again none of it matters if the ratings don't matter. And more importantly, it won't work if Coach/GM AI are stagnant and don't play to their shemes strengths/weakness and don't make adjustments. The big question that I need answered is will the AI know to: 1- Know to draft for their scheme AND for their scheme's weaknesses? 2- Play to their strengths and weakness/make adjustments (like they used to do years ago...smh) An example of this can be the success of the Tampa 2 in Chicago and Indy in the mid 2000s under Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy. Tony Dungy invented the Tampa 2 scheme with Lovie in Tampa Bay in the early 2000s. They had the perfect talent for it. For it to work you first had to have an great pass rushing defensive line, preferably with an elite pass rushing defensive tackle (Warren Sapp), paired that can get pressure without blitzing. Then you need strong corners (Tiki Barber, Brian Kelly) that can press at the line and force WRs off of their routes to give time for rangey/hard hitting safety duo to clean up on deep routes (John Lynch). You also needed quick linebackers that could play zone coverage well and still make plays on running backs in on sweeps and flats (Derrick Johnson). It’s designed to force teams to commit to dinking and dunking their way down the field, giving the defense plenty of opportunities to force a mistake. It was a great defense for playing with the lead and paired well with a strong running game and a QB that could make plays when needed…something Tampa did not have. They put together one of the best defenses in NFL history before being fired and allowing John Gruden to step in and win a superbowl 2 years later. But at the same time Dungy had taken over in Indy and Lovie in Chicago. Dungy inherited one of the best offenses in the league, all he had to do was put together a decent defense. The Tampa 2 was the perfect option. Let Peyton drive up the score and force opposing offenses to slowly plod down the field dinking and dunking. It should have worked perfectly. Dungy had an elite pass rush with Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis in their primes. He had a rangy/hard hitting safety as well in Bob Sanders. His corners weren’t as talented as Tiki and Brian Kelly, but they didn’t need to be in the Tampa 2 scheme as long as they could press. The problem was that in a Tampa 2 you need your defensive line to be the opposite of what Indy had. Freeny and Mathis could not set the edge on the run. Plus they didn’t have anything close to Derrick Brooks at linebacker. So opposing teams would gash Indy on the ground every week and force Peyton to win games on offense. Dungy’s scheme just wasn’t working out. On the other hand, Lovie had inherited several of the tools needed to put together a great Tampa 2 defense. He inherited Brian Urlacher, future hall of fame inside linebacker who could do everything, Next to him was Lance Briggs who was a poor mans Derrick Brooks. He had Mike Brown and Charles Tillman at safety and CB respectively. They were a perfect scheme fit for the Tampa 2. Then he drafted Tommie Harris in his first draft. He wasn’t as elite as Warren Sapp, but he was a true 1 gap penetrator at DT. Better yet he had Alex Brown and Adewale Ogunleye who were not elite pass rushers like Freeney and Mathis, but they could rush well enough but were also stout at setting the edge. The defense was a nightmare and forced record setting turnovers in most of it’s time together. Fast forward to 2006 these two teams meet in the superbowl as almost mirror images of each other. Indy has the leaky defense trying to piece together a Tampa 2 without the proper pieces, BUT they have an all time great at QB, WR, TE, and a good running game. Meanwhile Chicago has an all time great Defense perfectly tuned for their scheme…but Rex Grossman. But here’s the thing, Chicago STILL could have and should have won that game. It would have been an ugly win, but it could have been a win. Aside from a blown coverage early in the game, the Chicago defense was as advertised. The problem was that Indy adjusted. They knew they couldn’t run or throw the ball deep, so the entire game the dinked and dunked over the middle of the field, underneath the coverage of the linbackers, one of the few weak spots of the Tampa 2 defense. Joeseph Addai, a good but not great back for Indy, caught 10 passes which might still be a superbowl record. There’s stories about Urlacher begging Lovie to play more cover 3 to adjust and he refused. Combine that with an offense that turned the ball over 3 times and the rest is (painful) history. So we see here what NEEDS to be in the game in CFM mode. The AI has to know how to draft for their scheme, but also how to protect their scheme from it’s inherent weaknesses. All NFL teams have set schemes, but the winning teams either have elite talent in their scheme, or have great depth to hide the holes in their scheme/ a coach that knows how to adjust. If Madden 19 comes out and I play the Jaguars, and they refuse to run play-action once I start loading up the box with 8 man fronts…none of this new stuff matters.

You lost me at Tiki Barber

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

You lost me at Tiki Barber

So you quoted the whole thing?

[adembroski]

Part of what you're asking for (OP) is built into the system. In fact, it's pretty much the inspiration for the system.

Head Coach 09 was the first EA game to use scheme-based overall ratings, and they did it to ensure that CPU teams would draft/sign the players that best fit their systems.

CPU teams in Madden will base their signings/draft picks on their preferred overall. This doesn't mean they'll do something stupid like pass on an elite player in favor of a **** player who fits better, but it does mean that scheme will inform their acquisitions to a much greater degree than they did before.

For example, Derrick Henry will be viewed as an 88 OVR (B+ starter) by teams that prefer power backs, but an 81 OVR (high-end backup/role player) by teams that prefer elusive backs and a 68 OVR (training camp tackling dummy) by teams that prefer receiving backs.

As for play calling, that's a whole different beast.

[goillini03]

I agree that this will be severely impacted if the AI does not know what to do. I always worry about il things that are implemented like this because it has so much potential, but I just know that it will be half baked.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

You lost me at Tiki Barber

Ronde Barber.


Plus, he was wrong about how long it took Gruden to win the Super Bowl. He did it in his FIRST year in Tampa Bay.


Also, he's wrong about when/where the Tampa Bay 2 came from. It really was an evolution of the defense of the 1970s Steelers (for whom Dungy played), but was crafted and perfected by Dungy in the 1990s at the LATEST. Said Dungy: "My philosophy is really out of the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers playbook"



Also, usually that defense was strong against the pass and weak against the run. For the 2002 Tampa Bay defense (2nd most underrated defense of all time, behind the 1991 Eagles in terms of being overlooked), they were 1st in pass defense but 5th in run defense (but note that their yards allowed per play was lower than the 1985 Bears and 2000 Ravens). They were simply cursed with the 27th best offensive rushing attack, which put them on the field a lot, resulting in more points. But I'd take them with any of those defenses.


Went off topic. Anyway, the 2006 Colts were last in run defense, but 2nd in pass defense. If I recall watching them, their weakness was up the middle, not on the edges.







Anyway, yeah, wrong Barber twin.

[feeq14]

You guys are jerks lol.

The Colt's got gashed by the run every which way. Up the middle definitely, but they couldn't stop the run at all under Dungy.


The think that I want to emphasize though is how important it is for the CPU AI to make in game adjustments. Like they could have different coach profile traits related to how they gameplan so they're all not the same, becuase I know that some coaches don't adjust a lot. But for those that do, they have to implement that. If you're running a base 4-3 cover 3 scheme and you're getting gashed by wheel routes and deep comebacks, the AI needs to start switching up the coverage. If you're running down the AI's throat, then they need to load the box and sell out for the run.

[bigbrother005]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

You lost me at Tiki Barber

Those were my exact words when I started reading this. Too funny.