We'll start with a simple question. Should teams be required to use a minimum number of plays in the playbook? Yes or no.

We don't need to discuss actual numbers yet, we can do that if we vote to have a minimum. Some people are upset that other people only use a few plays all game long. How do you feel about it?

This is really more of a defensive play call number.....offensively, overuse penaltiea are clearly in place...If someone used 2 to 3 offensive plays a game, the sim would destroy them.

The real problem is rules are being created to pick 1 specific play versus 1 offensive formation.

The longterm solution is to find plays that beat that defensive play but with play familiarity being an issue....you need to have plays selected for normal owners and a whole separate group of plays versus the 2 defensive play owners which can become problematic if you happen to be in a division with one.

If say 2 to 3 owners are using the "Seth" defense streamlined and the rest are using a varied defensive...you need 2 completely different gameplans with completely different plays.

I for one don't have a database so how do I delineate between what works between the 2 types of defense? How do I practice against it to experiment? If I dont play a Seth defense streamlined all season but meet them in the playoffs...I have nothing to go off of.

Maybe we all should just goto the 2 play defensive set and see what happens.......or give Greg full autonomy to warn and subsequently boot owners that continue the minimalist style.

When you scout an opponent and you scout the defense and in the last 8 games they have used less then 10 defensive plays...PM Greg and let him handle it!

I wasn't going to respond to any of these threads because I find them bizarre and unenforceable. Even if a GM has 30 plays on defense and 40 on offense and has them set to be called all equally, the AI is going to sometimes randomly call one or more plays 10+ times and others 0 because of the RNG.

But...

Since my name keeps getting brought up in all these threads, incorrectly I will add, as the progenitor of some one play defensive scheme, let me tell you how my defensive game planning actually works.

1) I download an arbitrary number of previous games that my opponent has played.

2) I feed all of them into a SQL database where I use a view to turn the CSV files into meaningful data - plays run, number of times a play was run, what down it was run on, etc.

3) I then join this view to a different view that I use to analyze aggregate data from various leagues that I use to determine the effectiveness of defenses against offensive plays.

4) Based on the plays my opponent is running and the past effectiveness of my defensive playcalling against those plays, I make certain judgment calls on what plays I'm going to call against what sets on what downs. I usually try to find one or two plays that work best against the plays my opponent is going to call. [Discovering an exploit like the McKeon sacksploit of 1989 actually skews my data in not-so-meaningful ways to the point where I should probably exclude all of McKeon's sacks to get real numbers again ... I digress.]

So my defensive playcalling has always been dictated by my opponent (and a lesser degree McKeon skewing my data so badly), and it always will be. I'm not just using plays arbitrarily. I'm using plays that I have seen work well in the past against particular plays my opponent runs. The only advantage I have over some GMs is that instead of looking at one or two games, I could look at all of them in a matter of minutes if I wanted to using hard data instead of observational data.

I don't know what others are doing, but personally, I find Holly and 4343 to be some of the more challenging GMs to game plan against now.

So let me tell you how my game planning will change if this rule goes through. TL/DR: It won't.

If you want me to call more plays per game on defense, which I find pretty strange since the McKeon rule was supposed to end the advantage the 46 Heavy had (except I told you it all the advantage the 46 Heavy has is its spacing of the field), here's what I'll do. I'll just rewrite my game planning queries.

I'll follow most of the same steps above, but instead I'll do an additional join. Instead of just looking for a few plays that work best against a set in downs and distance, I'll have the query return the top three or four for that set and plug them all in.

It would actually be more effective than what I'm doing now to be honest.

And now you know how the Seth Defense really, truly works.

To be fair, I called it the "Seth Defense streamlined" Others won't have the data you collect but a play that produces +70 or +100 sacks (InfintyonTrial in another league) did open pandoras box for some who streamlined their defensive gameplan to a play or 2.

I understand why you did what you did I think....to compile data on the play in what was it 4 leagues as quickly as possible to defend the Fl Hitch.

Perhaps if you had incorporated the play into a larger group of selected plays, it wouldn't have gained the notoriety that it did. This game is a copycat game for the most part and if something works to the degree that this play did.....will be copied.

Also, I have lots of data on how to beat that particular play (and many others that get used over and over again), so I don't mind when people run a limited game game plan against me. It's really hard to find multiple plays in the same defensive book that cover the Hitch for instance. 4-3 Run Focused may be the best for it, and I'm switching to it in all leagues.

I wanna hear 4343's take on this. Since he's the one that's been using a limited playbook. It's obvious it works.

What's your reasoning behind it? Why do you think it's fair to use?

Because it's immensely beatable. I completed >80% against 4343 in Champions against a team with an arguably better roster. I actually screwed up that game and left a lot of yards out there too: https://champions.myfootballnow.com/box/2175

Seth, I applaud your commitment to the data and let me make this perfectly clear, I dont really care as an owner but as a league admin I understand the frustration level caused by someone using less then 5 defensive plays.

Seth is an exception, most dont invest the time to watch game film and compile a database to find answers.

IMO, this game wasn't designed for that level of meticulous gameplanning. Offenses lack any type of motion, true audibles or an effective no huddle option to combat someone overusing a play.

The game was designed for my 40 selected offensive plays to randomly via the play matrix go up against a random defensive play from my opponents 30 defensive plays.

This version has been around forever and the fat keeps getting sliced off the plays called on both sides of the ball.

I'm just hoping a new version comes out soon.

The way I see it, the game is exactly made for data nerds. Otherwise, game logs wouldn't be downloadable CSVs. :)

I just never put in the effort to build out a SQL database before. Then when I came back to playing, I needed to catch up fast. SQL is a drug kids. Don't do SQL.

Why did you respond to this??? I explicitly asked for 4343's opinion. You're not 4343. I already know your opinion, setherick.