Boston Gameplanning Thread

[Guest]

One last trick that just occurred to me:

Playing Time:

I never set playing time higher than 85%. Most of the time it's at 80% for everybody. I think that high playing time causes guys to be tired and play at a lower effectiveness than if they got some plays off. I also think that being tired causes more injuries.

You may notice that when a backup gets into the game, they will play at a very high level because they are fresh. I take full advantage of this by getting all my backups into the game for at least a few snaps.

YMMV, but I do notice that my teams seem to have fewer injuries, and they seem to really turn it up a notch late in the season. My hypothesis there, is that my team is still fairly fresh later in the season, where other teams with 100% playing time have tired starters.

I've been a 100% for most of the past few seasons with the exception of low endurance players, but I'm starting to think what Mike says here is a good idea. Especially look at Jumbo Raffray, who I play WAY too much in my secondary despite low endurance. He underwhelms despite some very nice coverage bars.

[Guest]

I've been a 100% for most of the past few seasons with the exception of low endurance players, but I'm starting to think what Mike says here is a good idea. Especially look at Jumbo Raffray, who I play WAY too much in my secondary despite low endurance. He underwhelms despite some very nice coverage bars.

i actually was doing what mike does not going above 85% but i noticed (especially against utah) my backups would be victimized the few snaps theyd play

and one other thing on backups that i didnt learn when i had isaac andrews, or hed have had 120 sacks, i have Bernard Kirk as the #2 everything on the DL to make sure he stays on the field. GO DICE ROLL! and i have vanover as the backup on the the other end

[Isacco]

Thanks Mike for this great infos. I see you reply to my PM question in the thread. Thanks again.

[Aston]

-Choose formations that have your best players on the field. If you have 3 excellent WRs (Like Boston), then you should be coming out in the single-back formations a lot. You can see that in my offense, we're in some version of single-back about 35% of the time, and we are in a set with 3 or more WRs about 50% of the time.

Here's how Utah uses formations, within the context of our gameplan.

On 1st & 10, because we throw long a lot (55/5/40 or so, lately), this is when I want my Big Play assets on the field. A lot of Singleback. We have 3 BPR WRs in Utah (Hansen, Mansker, Littlefield) and 1 BPR TE (Blades).

Ultimately, the goal is to spread the formations around so we don't get stuck in one too often. As mike says, variety is the aim. Because we load up on Singleback on 1st & 10, we are much more balanced on 2nd & 10, where we typically run (35/55/10) or so. Here, we're short passing, so it's not as critical. We can short pass out of any of our formations.

Not to mention, in Utah this year, our #2 WR is not one of our 3 BPR guys: he's Chester Haddix. Per formation subs, Haddix isn't present in any of our 3WR formations. But he is the starting SE in the 2WR sets.

So for our 46-60% Run formation screen, we concentrate on the formations Boone knows where we can field our 3 BPR receivers. On the 30-45% Run formation screen, we spread it evenly. In 10-29% we're talking about our 3rd and longs again, so again, we're going with 3 receivers as much as we can here. Even more so, because we rarely run in those situations.

And in 61+% we really load up on the goalline/2TE sets. These are sets we don't run with great frequency otherwise. So I do like having a few situations, whether it's on 1st & long, 2nd & long, 3rd & short, 3rd & very long, or 2nd & short, where we can put in a (61/39/0) or (61/10/29) into the gameplan, just to give those formations some play. When we do it varies from game to game, so as not to be predictable.

Once again, balance is the end goal. We do run SB more than any other, but I'm careful to not run it too much, and I try to accomplish this by limiting SB severely when I'm running 30-45% run (which I do a lot), and also to have a number of 61+% run formation situations every game where all I'm doing is goalline and 2TE.

It's much easier to work up a big picture plan for your team when you have the big picture. So here's a link to a Google Docs spreadsheet I posted before, which you can copy to your own account and use.

LINK: <a href='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhbfF9SP0LxtdEFDdnRCRmlrM0U4bnl1dHd1OHB2Q Wc&usp=sharing' style='color:#269' onmouseover="this.style.color='#37c'" onmouseout="this.style.color='#269'">FOF Formation Designer</a>

I have to go to it every time I put in a new QB, because I don't like assigning formations he doesn't have, and it's a bitch to keep track of in-game.

[Guest]

Oh, man, thanks for that Google doc. I have formations written down on a piece of paper, but that makes it so much easier to slot in the players I want on the field.

Also, I think I'm generally better at defensive gameplanning than offensive. Whenever I try something new on offense it tends to get worse performance than when I was using a more standard 'run and stun' or 'smash mouth' gameplan. And yes, I run a smash mouth offense more often than not. I do that because I use to not have the receiver to do otherwise. Turns out that I won more games playing the run and stun (with Britt Meyer and Rico Knight) than with smash mouth, but I enjoy running more. I'm weird. I know.

Anyway, defense for me is all about being in pass coverage and the right kind of pass coverage. I like mixing it up with the split coverages in two instances: (1) one of my starting CBs is significantly better in M2m than Zone; and (2) the opposing team's TE is a stud and gets 18 or 20% or more target percentage. If the target percentage is that high they're specifically targeting their TE and while it's rare for a TE to dominate a game like a WR they can still be an effective piece of the puzzle.

Blitzing extra players seems to have no tangible benefit outside of an extra hurry or sack here or there, but it does seem to give the opposing offense an easier time finding an open receiver. Why would you want to do that? I don't think anyone at FOFC has found good evidence that blitzing extra people is a great idea.

I'm in favor of running nickel frequently in a 4-3 as I'm okay with giving up a LB for an extra DB. My main pass rush from the D-Line stays the same. I don't like using Dime very often.

[Guest]

I've thought about doing more man/zone split but I never feel like I know which CB is on which side of the field most of the time!

[Guest]

I've thought about doing more man/zone split but I never feel like I know which CB is on which side of the field most of the time!

Left CB = Strong
Right CB = Weak

That's if you orient by formation.

[Guest]

Left CB = Strong
Right CB = Weak

That's if you orient by formation.

That's mainly the problem. I almost always want my top CB on the top WR.

[Aston]

As I understand it, garion, Strong Side Man means the strong side corner is playing Man coverage, and everybody else is in a zone.

[Guest]

Wait. What are you replying to, Nuts?

[Aston]

I like mixing it up with the split coverages in two instances: (1) one of my starting CBs is significantly better in M2m than Zone; and (2) the opposing team's TE is a stud and gets 18 or 20% or more target percentage. If the target percentage is that high they're specifically targeting their TE and while it's rare for a TE to dominate a game like a WR they can still be an effective piece of the puzzle.

This one. Oh, wait, you were saying the same thing as me. Don't mind me, I'm only nuts!

[Guest]

The LBs don't factor into the man/zone thing? Bummer.

I've definitely noticed (anecdotal) the power of a good pass-covering SLB. Was hoping that might maximize it.

[Guest]

btw, great thread and thanks for all the info. I would contribute more, but we've sucked pretty hard lately :)

Step #1 - get A.J. McGee and run him into the ground.

[Guest]

This one. Oh, wait, you were saying the same thing as me. Don't mind me, I'm only nuts!

Nah, I changed it when I realized I said it backwards. We're on the same page now.

[Aston]

I think the LBs do, Jug, since in those coverages you have one corner playing Man and everybody else playing zone.

But for what it's worth, everyone uses every coverage on every play (I think?) so it would be pretty hard to negate a good cover guy by calling something. I think.