Players out of position

I have noticed this season, that some teams operate in a scheme where the players don't really fit - especially if we talk about defensive linemen and linebackers.

We have kind of strict rules about position changes and for example DE's in 3-4/4-3 should meet certain requirements like weight, speed, etc. While in 4-3 DE's can be a bit lighter and should have pass rush moves, the 3-4 DE's should be a bit heavier. I think we would all agree that a 250lb pound DE shouldn't play 3-4 DE and wouldn't do that in the NFL normally. Therefore the league wouldn't accept a position change (if it would be one as it's the "same" position).

What I'm seeing in game is that some teams play hybrid schemes or clear 3-4 schemes, but the 4-3 DE's play in a 3-4 system. As there is no positional change involved, there is no rule preventing that - expect that it's not sim.

I can see an advantage in having quicker pass rushers at 3-4 DE, but only a very slight disadvantage (if any) due to the weight.

How do we handle that? Is it allowed? Only a "light" defensive scheme? If yes, maybe open up the position changes a bit, so it's open to everybody?

I agree this needs to be policed more. If teams want to play a hybrid scheme then there are hybrid playbooks available and they should clearly document how they plan on using their personnel in formation subs.

It will happen most often when players change a teams scheme from their one IRL and like you say do not check personnel appropriately. I noticed it recently against a playoff opponent before the game and ran at the right hand side of their defence a lot because their lineman were undersized for that position. It actually causes you a disadvantage in some aspects of the game, but can look cheesy as you get more speed in positions where there should be less.

Nose tackles are a specialised position and need to be a certain size and strength to be effective. 3-4 DEs equally are 4-3DTs in most cases and 4-3DEs vary between suitability as 3-4 OLBs to remaining as 3-4 DEs.

Funnily enough I have created something that I have already posted on the forum that checks whether your player fits within the constraints that already exist within the game. Please play around with it. This could be very useful in helping to solve this issue.

dwevans wrote:1) I agree this needs to be policed more......I noticed it recently against a playoff opponent before the game

2) Funnily enough I have created something that I have already posted on the forum that checks whether your player fits within the constraints that already exist within the game. Please play around with it. This could be very useful in helping to solve this issue.

I just numbered so its clear what I'm specifically replying to 

1) "Policing" - no offence but if there is rule breaking its our responsibility to raise that with the opponent coach there and then to resolve it - there's no point moaning about something after the game (not as though much can be done after game is done) just simply pause and message and if there is a stalemate of discussion then commissioners can be contacted. Likewise if something has happened through the game and you're still concerned then raise with commissioners with PM after for those guys to review on the archived streams (that's the point of archiving anyway lol) and take the appropriate action. I think these are easy and expected for us as a group of players to do and not sit like children (players but no offence using this term lo)  expecting the teachers (the commissioners) to see every little thing, watch every streamed game, lets be frank watching every single league game is no feasible. Just my thoughts and I dont expect many people to agree. 

2) @fraseroliver17 is obviously delighted.

Bartell wrote:
I just numbered so its clear what I'm specifically replying to 

1) "Policing" - no offence but if there is rule breaking its our responsibility to raise that with the opponent coach there and then to resolve it - there's no point moaning about something after the game (not as though much can be done after game is done) just simply pause and message and if there is a stalemate of discussion then commissioners can be contacted. Likewise if something has happened through the game and you're still concerned then raise with commissioners with PM after for those guys to review on the archived streams (that's the point of archiving anyway lol) and take the appropriate action. I think these are easy and expected for us as a group of players to do and not sit like children (players but no offence using this term lo)  expecting the teachers (the commissioners) to see every little thing, watch every streamed game, lets be frank watching every single league game is no feasible. Just my thoughts and I dont expect many people to agree. 

2) @fraseroliver17 is obviously delighted.

Just a question - my topic is not related to any specific game, so if we could keep it out of here My topic is not an offense we have in our league at the moment (at least not specifically written somewhere or discussed).

In very easy words:
250lb OLB to 3-4 DE ==> position change obviously denied
250lb 4-3 DE to 3-4 DE ==> no position change in Madden, so no approval ==> means ok or not?

ParaAUT wrote:

Bartell wrote:
I just numbered so its clear what I'm specifically replying to 

1) "Policing" - no offence but if there is rule breaking its our responsibility to raise that with the opponent coach there and then to resolve it - there's no point moaning about something after the game (not as though much can be done after game is done) just simply pause and message and if there is a stalemate of discussion then commissioners can be contacted. Likewise if something has happened through the game and you're still concerned then raise with commissioners with PM after for those guys to review on the archived streams (that's the point of archiving anyway lol) and take the appropriate action. I think these are easy and expected for us as a group of players to do and not sit like children (players but no offence using this term lo)  expecting the teachers (the commissioners) to see every little thing, watch every streamed game, lets be frank watching every single league game is no feasible. Just my thoughts and I dont expect many people to agree. 

2) @fraseroliver17 is obviously delighted.

Just a question - my topic is not related to any specific game, so if we could keep it out of here My topic is not an offense we have in our league at the moment (at least not specifically written somewhere or discussed).

In very easy words:
250lb OLB to 3-4 DE ==> position change obviously denied
250lb 4-3 DE to 3-4 DE ==> no position change in Madden, so no approval ==> means ok or not?

I never mentioned a game - I was replying to Evans

Apologies though.........logging off

Bartell wrote:

dwevans wrote:1) I agree this needs to be policed more......I noticed it recently against a playoff opponent before the game

2) Funnily enough I have created something that I have already posted on the forum that checks whether your player fits within the constraints that already exist within the game. Please play around with it. This could be very useful in helping to solve this issue.

I just numbered so its clear what I'm specifically replying to 

1) "Policing" - no offence but if there is rule breaking its our responsibility to raise that with the opponent coach there and then to resolve it - there's no point moaning about something after the game (not as though much can be done after game is done) just simply pause and message and if there is a stalemate of discussion then commissioners can be contacted. Likewise if something has happened through the game and you're still concerned then raise with commissioners with PM after for those guys to review on the archived streams (that's the point of archiving anyway lol) and take the appropriate action. I think these are easy and expected for us as a group of players to do and not sit like children (players but no offence using this term lo)  expecting the teachers (the commissioners) to see every little thing, watch every streamed game, lets be frank watching every single league game is no feasible. Just my thoughts and I dont expect many people to agree. 

2) @fraseroliver17 is obviously delighted.

Yes I agree. And I did the above steps. I don't mean any insult by the reference. I am just using it as an example where not paying attention to these things can lead to a disadvantage in some scenarios and and advantage in others. Maybe policing is the wrong word but teams should have a defined defensive scheme at the start of the season and their rosters should comply with that. Should they choose to change they will need to seek approval just like they would for position changes, not flip flop between 3-4 and 4-3 unless they have chosen a hybrid shheme and playbook at the start of the year and clearly document how they front seven will be shaped in both fronts.

This is what I mean by policing - some additional checks/barriers in place to stop manipulation of positions from happening by simply selecting a different playbook. If you are a 3-4 team and want to choose between a range of the 3-4 PBs that's fine but you shouldn't be able to just pick a 4-3 one at will without the correct personel in place

Bartell wrote:I never mentioned a game - I was replying to Evans

Apologies though.........logging off

No, stay here

This one is a bit difficult from a player perspective. Purely because of Madden deficiencies. 34 is simply more effective than 43 in almost all situations, and it has been for several years. Better run fits, better blitz angles, I have no idea why EA doesn't address the state of 43.

3-4 definitely has the better blitz creativity but this is the same IRL. I don't find either more or less effective against the run. I don't think any difference is huge between the two and the moment except in blitzing. Both are perfectly capable of being very good in the game with the right players and play calling. If one was far superior then all of the top players in the SML would be using the same style. They are not.

If anybodies team doesn't fit 3-4 then its time to make some trades or moves in the offseason to prepare it for next year. We should have some consistency in what body types and skill sets we see at these positions though.

Interesting points gentlemen.

There are advantages to playing the 43 though. It's an even look as in a 34, if you only send 4 rushers (3DL, 1OLB) the formation automatically becomes uneven against the run (the OLB not rushing is in coverage and unless has high play recognition is not on the LOS). The natural advantage of the 34 (OL not knowing which side is rushing) was lost in previous Maddens but seems to be better this year with the AWR OL check for blitzes. 

I can get success out of both schemes but you need to modify your play style. I've seen the hybrid scheme actually penalise unprepared defenders this season as it takes players out of their strongest position (a cover LB with no pass rush moves asked to rush for example). Also, playing the 43 over or under puts a 43DE in the 5tech spot anyway so it's a very hard rule to police.

Many 4-3 ends are still suitable to play 5tech in the under though, so that is often ok. That sort of knowledge is quite advanced though and whilst many in the league are aware of the qualities needed for the Sam linebacker or the strong side defensive end versus the weak side in the under, a lack of knowledge of those intricacies is excusable.

An undersized 3-4 front 3 is a fairly simple concept to get though. We all know examples of prototype Nose tackles and 3-4 ends and if our players don't fit similar moulds then you shouldn't be stretching the limits of that position.

Often part of the pull for doing this will be to get more speed on the field. In some positions that is not particularly realistic. Size does make a difference in the run game in Madden, so a massive nose tackle will still be a good thing.

Aye, speed isn't everything on the line. I remember DatIsraeli last year drafted an Aaron Donald clone in the top10 but he played 34 and left him at NT. I tried to explain his skill set isn't being utilised as he's getting double teamed in the 0gap or getting lost in the pocket pile up. Likely okay if he was playing DL wide but he didn't. So a knowledge of your scheme and players is key to utilisation otherwise they're poorly out of position. Anyway, I'm derailing the original point now...

I think this is a good discussion and I'm glad its been brought up. To answer the initial question though, coaches should not be using 43 personell in 34 schemes or vice versa. That is why we have the position change threads. Just because your 43 DE is a DE in Madden doesn't mean you should automatically play him at DE if you use a 34 playbook. However, because we changed the playbook rule this season it opened up a loophole that we didn't foresee before.
In previous seasons coaches were required to declare a playbook that they would use all season. Due to this they were also forced to make position changes if they declared a 34 playbook but had a 43 team for example.

I think the simplest, fairest and most sim way to avoid this loophole would be to return to playbook declarations on defense next season. Either we go back to the rule that each team declares one team playbook or we alter the rule and allow a team to declare one base formation/scheme (3-4 or 4-3) so they can use any team playbook that utilizes that scheme. Also, I think to truly close the loophole we should ban hybrid playbooks (Raiders and Patriots). That would at least force teams to choose one scheme and get players approved for the right positions.

Totally agree - i was also going to suggest banning hybrid pb's - purely because of this issue.

Great that so many take part in the discussion.

I absolutely don't think hybrid pb's have anything to do with the discussion. It would be really bad if we ban them because of a different discussion. Formation subs give us exact the opportunity to play around with different formations and personally I love to use hybrid pb's depending on situation. If we want to ban hybrid pb's, then every formation in every playbook has to be monitored, as 4-6 or 4-4 offer enough opportunities to have the same kind of influence.

Easy solution for that: If you want to use different base formations, then announce the players playing in each formation at the start of the season. Nothing easier than that - just 7 names and a position.

I'm not sure if we all have the same point in the discussion. Of course in reality a big huge nose tackle has an advantage, but did you really see a difference in Madden? Personally I can't really see a difference between a 340lb-nose tackle and a 280lb-nose tackle - other than it's not sim of course. If most of us think that a light DE (maybe 250lb) is a huge disadvantage in some regards, then this discussion does not make sense. But then we should open up the position change thread a bit, to give people opportunity to create their own scheme.

Great comment by eternal. Almost everybody would answer that 4-3 is better, about 90% of the teams in the league play 4-3 I think. I like 3-4 too, but I'm not sure it's that much better, both have advantages in certain situations.

Declaring players position for 34 and 43 and then using formation subs to make it work for hybrid playbooks sounds good but it is hard to control. If we ban hybrids then people will have to use position changes to get the players in the correct position for their chosen scheme. This is much easier to follow than having to look at a list of players and how they can line up in 2 different base fronts.
 Banning hybrids is more a matter of making things easier rather than risking everyone choosing a hybrid playbook and arguments arising about players out of position that are more difficult to police/monitor. Also formation subs are buggy and dont work for all formations.
I don't think 44 or 46 fall into the same category because there is no position switching involved. Just an extra LB or S in the box. 

The discussion is that most dont see an advantage of using a heavy usually slower NT or 34DE in a 34 Defense which there should be. There seems to be little to no penalty for using lighter faster players on the line in the 34 but huge advantages which are unsim. Thats why we have the position change approvals and why those guys shouldnt be allowed to play 34 without having a position change to match real world height/weight expectations at the position.

Good thread however im going to use me as an example here: 

Im using the same scheme in two different leagues and in this league my le is 246lb  in the other league he is 276 and i have to say my d is way better in the other league even though skills are similar except for the weight issue. so from this small sample i have to say i agree with paras suggestion

Honestly, if we all think that avantages/disadvantages of a "light front" balance out, then we don't need to discuss about any complicated checks and approvements. Only question here would be to lighten the rules for position changes a bit, so the possibility is open to everybody.

brza37 wrote:Declaring players position for 34 and 43 and then using formation subs to make it work for hybrid playbooks sounds good but it is hard to control. If we ban hybrids then people will have to use position changes to get the players in the correct position for their chosen scheme. This is much easier to follow than having to look at a list of players and how they can line up in 2 different base fronts.
 Banning hybrids is more a matter of making things easier rather than risking everyone choosing a hybrid playbook and arguments arising about players out of position that are more difficult to police/monitor. Also formation subs are buggy and dont work for all formations.
I don't think 44 or 46 fall into the same category because there is no position switching involved. Just an extra LB or S in the box.

I see no difference here. It's the easiest way to just sub my standard DE with a lighter one in formation subs - no approvement necessary and exactly the same result. So to really control it, you have to control formation subs and I think we can all agree that's not possible.

There are some playbooks with 3-4 base and 4-4 formation, so there is a change from 3-man front to 4-man front. Honestly, I don't know in this case how the correct formation subs would look like - are the big DE's outside or do they go inside and the 2 OLB's as DE? So there would be a switch involved too.

I have no problem with hybrid playbooks to check for approval at the start of the season. At the moment just 2 teams use hybrid schemes according to DL. So a thread would look like this:
3-4
DE: Jones, Adams
DT: Miller
MLB: Johnson, Wilson
OLB: Houston, Ford

4-3
DE: Houston, Ford
DT: Jones, Adams
MLB: Johson
OLB: Wilson, Ragland

Just a question of 2 minutes to have the front 7 lineup in a thread.

Any updates on this too? How long is brza away for & will we have a decision before cuts need to be made.

Personally I think teams should declare their planned  scheme prior to the end this offseason and if wanting to play a hybrid scheme should post their front 7 as Para has demonstrated showing how they conform to both. I am happy to help check these.

However, we are a sim league and should aim to remain as so with what body types we have at each position at the very least.

I just got back yesterday and discussed this with the other admins. We agree with Para and DW.

All teams should post their base D scheme in the following thread:
https://sml-europe.forumotion.com/t1663-season-24-base-defense-and-front-7-declaration#17028

There are three Base D options:
4-3
3-4
Hybrid

Teams that use a 4-3 or 3-4 defense should have their players in the correct positions utilizing the usual position change requests. If you have switched your base D from the teams' original scheme then you MUST also request position changes. For example, you cannot just change from a 4-3 D to 3-4 and keep all the players at the same positions. The new positions must be approved first.

Teams that choose to run a hybrid defense, in other words Raiders or Patriots playbook which have 3-4 and 4-3 fronts, must declare positions for each front 7 player here in this thread in the following format:
-----------------------
Eagles
Base D: Hybrid
Playbook: Patriots
https://www.daddyleagues.com/smleurope/team/PHI/depthchart
4-3 Front
DE: Brandon Graham, Derek Barnett, Vinny Curry, Chris Long, Alex McCalister, Ray Perez, Malik Conner
DT: Fletcher Cox, Elijah Qualls, Larry Ogunjobi, Destiny Vaeo, Howard Gregory
43LB: Nigel Bradham, Jordan Hicks, Mychal Kendricks, Kamu Grugier-Hill, Joe Walker, Don Cherry, Nathan Gerry

3-4 Front:
DE: Fletcher Cox, Larry Ogunjobi, Destiny Vaeo, Howard Gregory
NT: Elijah Qualls
OLB: Brandon Graham, Derek Barnett, Vinny Curry, Chris Long, Alex McCalister, Ray Perez, Malik Conner
ILB: Nigel Bradham, Jordan Hicks, Mychal Kendricks, Kamu Grugier-Hill, Joe Walker, Don Cherry, Nathan Gerry
------------------------
Generally the following positions should be equal:
43 DE = 34 OLB
43 LB = 34 ILB
43 DT = 34 DE if less than 310 lbs
43 DT = 34 NT if more than 310 lbs, high STR

There may also be some cases for a 43 DE moving to 34 DE or 34 OLB moving to 43 LB but those are far fewer and need to be handled on a case by case instance since they involve more variables (height, weight, STR, SPD, ACC, ZCV etc.)

If you choose a 4-3 or 3-4 front scheme for the season you can use any playbook that utilizes your chosen front. If you choose a Hybrid scheme then you must also post the Playbook (Raiders or Patriots) and use formation subs so that the players are in the same positions you listed here per front.

Playbooks that use 3-4 and 4-4 split (ie Cardinals, Ravens, Rams, Jets, Steelers, Titans) are not considered Hybrid as players remain in the same positions, merely adding another DT resulting in a big D-Line.

Defensive packages are allowed but speed/4-DE packages should only be used in passing situations (3rd down or the other team is running hurryup) and not as a base D used to circumvent position change rules.

Excellent post. Thanks committee

To clarify do I need to post anything as I have changed nothing other than the LE to olb who was too light and you approved this already?- Do I and other teams need to post our base anyway as this has been done last year or is it just the guys who are switching schemes fro m new?

zill_kills wrote:To clarify do I need to post anything as I have changed nothing other than the LE to olb who was too light and you approved this already?- Do I and other teams need to post our base anyway as this has been done last year or is it just the guys who are switching schemes fro m new?

Everyone needs to post their base D (4-3, 3-4 or Hybrid) in the new thread I posted above. This gives us a quick reference for each team.

If your D is a Hybrid then you need to post the positions for each player in 3-4 and 4-3 fronts.

If you changed from the team's original scheme (4-3 to 3-4 or vice versa) then you need to post all positions too.

According to Daddyleagues, you changed the Jags from a 4-3 to 3-4 but didn't change positions, hence you are playing with 4-3 DEs at 3-4 DE which isn't allowed and should have been posted in the position change thread last season.

If you don't know what your team's original scheme was you can check this list for easy reference:
http://www.e-athlete.com/madden-defense/madden-18-defensive-playbook-formations-list/