FULL GUIDE : RAWR

The first one was janky, but the rest were pretty legit! Big man rumblin, bumblin, & stumblin.

Feeling pretty good about where the high & low RZ gameplans are at.

Originally made this as an addition to my Tampa 2 scheme to bolster the run defense, but have since expanded upon it to pertain to all 4-Down, Over & Under fronts.

Disclaimer : Feel free to ignore the Ballhawk & Plaster settings in the custom adjustment, I just have those listed, because those settings tie into my other macros, as this is part of a larger scheme. You can leave those as default, so they revert to your own global settings that you already have, if you don't want AGG.

Over|Run

When in an OVER front, you would call either London (Left) or Rio (Right), based on the direction you expect the run to be heading. Against Shotgun this is easier to predict, because same side run concepts such as Toss & Counter are much more rare in terms of play call out of Gun. It's far more likely to be up the middle or to the opposite side, like Iso, Trap, Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Duo, etc. So whichever side the HB is lined up next to the QB, the run is statistically heading in the opposite direction.

Example A : If both the HB and TE are on the same side of the field, and the HB is to the right of the QB, the run is likely heading left, so I would make a London call within an Over Front.

Under|Power

When in an UNDER front, you make the same call (L/R), except this time based off the Run Strength of the offense, or in simpler terms, which side the TE is lined up on. For clarification, this is not a case of "run Over one way, then run Under the opposite". They work off of different criteria and will often play the same calls depending on the offensive formation! Calling the wrong one in the wrong situation will often lead to large cutback lanes, which are dangerous vs. Zone.

Example A : If both the HB & TE are on the same side of the field, and the TE is to the right side of the formation, the run strength is to the right, so I would make a Rio call within an Under Front.

Versus Pistol & Under Center

Unlike Shotgun, it's tougher to predict run sides for Over front calls, due to the fact that HB is no longer to either side of the QB and instead lined up directly behind him. Giving less context clues, and because of this alignment, plays like Zone Wk, Counter, & Misdirection are a lot more common, making it a risky call. But identifying Run Strength remains unchanged, so I'll typically stick with Under front calls for the most part in these situations, unless I'm feeling confident & want to take the risk. Not ruling out Over fronts altogether, playing stock Over fronts are also an option, if you don't want to be constrained to Under fronts. Just use them without a London/Rio call, until you've caught on to some tendencies.

Versus Balanced Formations

Ace & Deuce formations are hard to get a read on either. So until you gather some opponent tendencies, I'd just run something safer like 6-1 Even, or run whichever front you want, just without a London/Rio adjustment. U Off formations, even if it's mirrored, the Run Strength is always the attached/inline TE, as the H-Back is highly like to motion across or into the backfield out of these sets. Placing Under fronts w/ calls back on the menu for sure, while at the same time providing bits of context to also make Over fronts w/ calls a viable option.

Finally got around to making my cheatsheet for this year's playbooks.

Just like last year, with ROAR & Co., I plan on making more Slow-Sim playbooks for the CFB27 cycle. Whether I get around to making all of these, or choose swap to some different ones as new candidates emerge, I had the free time today to make my cheatsheet.

I don't make replica playbooks, I make interpretations of NFL offensive/defensive schemes, that blend the real thing with what's available in-game & plays/looks good in Sim. Making replicas would just be a matter of copy/paste the playbooks & gameplans from Madden.

Lot of you asked last year, how it was that I went about creating my playbooks, this is pretty much it. Ignore a lot of the lingo, most of it is just word association stuff for my brain to recognize larger concepts/schemes in fewer words to save space. Also, a lot of these playbooks are branching off of similar trees, so theres tags/bullet points that are listed for maybe 1 or 2 playbooks, but you may argue they apply to most, if not all. But the thing is, I have to draw the line somewhere in terms of differentiating the playbooks, so that they can have a different feel from one another when playing or watching.

Another way I try to preserve that feeling, is by creating all of the playbooks from scratch. So as I add/remove formations & plays, and begin tweaking the gameplan, there isn't "carryover" per se, of coding from a previous playbook.

Offense

Offense is a lot more free-flowing in terms of customizing, as there are far more choices to make in terms of formations compared to defense. So instead of focusing on specific formations, I tend to work around "tags" instead. From there, I know what personnel groupings I'm focused on, plus what kinds of tags I want to look out for. Then when I locate those, I'll just cross-reference the cheatsheet to zero-in on the various run & pass concepts I'm targeting, and ignoring the rest.

Once the framing is complete, I will typically hop into practice mode and systematically work my way through the playbook, taking notes on plays. I'm not looking for broken or unstoppable plays, I'm looking for broken and flawed plays/animations. Wanting to rid them of the playbook, if they're truly hideous or unusable, before I even begin to work on the gameplan. Also, taking note of unique dropback or play-action animations (good or bad), so I know which ones can/should/shouldn't be added for certain situations.

Defense

Defense has a lot less to do with formation tags, and a lot more to do with play tags. There's less formations to choose from, so there's less cross-referencing going on when choosing formations for defense. But when it comes to play selection & identity fit, the play tags become important.

Again, once the framing is complete, I will jump back into the lab. Here, I'm less worried about weeding out bad animations, and more focused on preparing the application of identity to the gameplan. So I will systematically go situation by situation (vs. Bunch, vs. Trips, vs. Empty, etc) testing out the various answers to each one, and jotting down the ones that fit the personnel/identity that I'm aiming for.

Then from there, that is when the focus shifts over to gameplanning, and the identity truly begins to morph. As you not only get to shape the bucket itself, but also the contents of the bucket that the AI (or Coach Suggestions) will be choosing the playcalls from.

Scripting Offense (Gameplan)

Plays per Situation : Personally, I tend to go for more detail & depth, especially on offense. Some people stop around 20-30 plays for "realism" purposes, whereas I'll go anywhere from 40-75 for "variation" purposes. Yes, a gameplan installation will certainly have a smaller selection of plays in reality, but unless you're going to edit the playbook on a game by game week-to-week basis, the playbook will become far too redundant. So I purposefully build-in extra variation for the sake of avoiding stagnation, through long seasons of either playing or watching.

Also, situations vary. Most situations fall in the 40-50 plays range, while others like 2-Minute Drill & Red Zone may be more refined to the 20 play range, opposed to high frequency situations like 1st Down, 2nd & Medium, and 2nd & Long carrying at minimum 60+.

Star/Rating Distribution : I use a roughly estimated system of 70% 0.5 star, 20% 1-1.5 star, and the final 10% being 2-2.5 stars. With the absolute highest being reserved for a far & away favorite or go-to play, being 3 stars. The % doesn't need to be exact, just close enough for a general rule of thumb. The ratings on the play screen are stars, but on the gameplanning screen they convert to percentages, so I tend to avoid the higher percentages. Doing so in hopes of leaving enough wiggle room for the 0.5 and 1 stars to find their way onto the call sheet, otherwise the 3.5 or 4+ star rated plays would dominate the scripting.

I try to find situations for all plays. Typically there is less than 10% of the playbook that is unaccounted for in the gameplan, often times being user/user specific playcalls for sequencing purposes etc. Unlike stock playbooks, where it feels like only 10% of the playbook is accounted for.

Ground Game : I script Modern Pro Style Offenses, so I tend to lean heavily on 1st Down runs, and doing it from under center. Normally 1st Down is when I script my go-to scheme runs, the tone setters. Whether it be Power O, Zone Wk, Wide Zone, Stretch, Duo, etc. Lot of these same runs I will apply to 2nd & Long (1st Down 2.0) as well, just at a lowered frequency. For 2nd & Medium I like to mix in plays like Counter & Toss from under center, and Outside Zone & Sweeps from the Gun. Plays that if they hit, they hit, and if they don't we can still recover on 3rd down. For short yardage situations, I really like HB Draws from under center for 2nd & Short, as well as some carryover of Counter/Toss, in addition the typical Iso, Dive, Trap, & Whams (which are the 3rd & Short runs). For 3rd & Medium, I keep the run likelihood pretty low, but still include a few Mid Draws & Read Option (if the QB can handle it). For 4th & Short, I keep it pretty simple, QB Sneak, Wham, and Fake FB Dive Toss, but usually we're punting there anyways.

Play-Action : Play action is coded to work best in short yardage situations (2nd & Short, 3rd & Short, etc), as well as on 1st Down. On top of that, is the Sleight of Hand ability, which can add to a play-action's success rate. But that's not to say they can't work on 2nd & Medium, or 3rd & Medium, it's just less likely, but that's where the line is drawn on animations. There are some animations that are safer than others, either because they're quicker or they have an added layer of mobility. Safer ones like Boots, Sprints & Dashes, or crisp/quick PA animations like PA Scissors, but there's also slower/drawn out animations too. Scripting the right ones for the right situations can add a lot to a call sheet. Bootlegs are pretty safe PA animations, and work really well on short yardage situations, but can be called in other situations as well. Others like PA Read or PA Veer animations are slow and would very rarely be a safe option for a 3rd & 7.

Red Zone : Unfortunately there is no High RZ & Low RZ, instead we've just got RZ Fringe and RZ situations. This is a really important part of the gameplan to script, because it can literally be the difference between scoring a TD or stalling out for a missed 48 yard field goal. This is also one only times I will continuously tweak a playbook from team to team or season to season, because it's often a huge predictor of who gets the lion's share of the TDs. But in general, I like to go Tight/Bunch/Compressed here and just rock out with Mid-Screens, Bubble Screens, Stick, Spacing, & Flood Concepts to dink and dunk my way towards the Goal Line and that call sheet.

2-Minute Drill : The two-minute drill is another important sub-section to gameplan, in order to steal points before the half or stage a comeback in the final minutes. Here it's best to pick 3-4 formations, similar in personnel, to be able to run the hurry-up with, and fill it with plays attacking the boundary. Flood, Slot Out, Comebacks, etc, even some Mid Screens and Bubble Screens can find their way onto the call sheet in a rare case.

Scripting Defense (Gameplan)

Forging an Identity : The plays you build into your gameplan, need to keep with the identity if one has been established. Example, a Single-High defense should focus on more Cover 1 and Cover 3/Match calls, a Two-High defense (even if still playing Cover 1/Cover 3) should focus on more Cover 1 Robber and Cover 3 Buzz/Match to maintain it's shell. An aggressive defense needs to include more blitzes/sim pressures than normal, and should implement more mugged front variants, even if not blitzing them. Also keeping 1-2 primary formations per situation, and 3-4 in total, as a large chunk of your usage will also help with the identity.

Plays per Situation : Don't need to be nearly as in-depth in terms of total play calls, probably mpre in the range of 25-40 per situation. Try to use 2-4 versions of each applicable coverage call (15-20 plays), across any number of formations, while maintaining a 50% usage rate for 1-2 primary formations per situation. Then sprinkling in other one-off coverages, pressures, & blitzes to fill in around those.

Star/Rating Distribution : Typically, I shoot for 12 or so plays between 1-2.5 stars, and everything else is 0.5 stars. This is also where you will need to sculpt, carve, & imprint the identity into gameplan by thematically choosing plays to rate. Example; using Cover 6, Cover 9, Cover 3 Buzz Match, and Cover 3 Cloud to maintain a 2-High shell when not playing Cover 2 or Cover 4. Using Cover 3 Cloud, Cover 9 Show 2, Cover 6 Invert, Cover 6 Trap, Cover 2 Invert, Cover 2 Lurk, etc. if you're trying to build in some disguised looks for your defense.

Beyond these few things, there's not much you can do to instill the identity in the gameplan, because at the end of the day, the defensive gameplan is reactive, whereas the offensive gameplan is proactive. If the offense comes out in Trips, your defense chooses from the Trips bucket, if they come out in 4WR, your defense chooses from the Dime bucket, & so forth. If you have faith in your players, you can also gameplan for these types of things, by scripting playcalls that would normally be considered out of place. Like rating more 4-3 plays in for Nickel and Trips situations if you have faith in your LBs. Brute forcing Over G or Over Flex grouping against Dime or Empty, if you just really love the personnel. That's the beautiful thing about the gameplanning, it's normally pretty vanilla, but you can mix it up to make it unique & fitting of a certain theme.

The defense is smarter this year, so you have to be too.

In 25, a lot of players learned to identify coverages. Then also learned what kinds of routes/route combos could stress & defeat each specific coverage. Match coverages were implemented, but weren’t great.

In 26, we were given an improved version of match coverages, shattering a lot of what players learned to identify in the year prior. New match rules, new weak spots to have to learn & identify.

In 27, the defense and especially the coverages are stickier than ever. Match coverages are more modular, as you can adjust the match rules, per coverage, per scenario. As before, we relied on assuming we knew the logic behind each coverage/situation & that it was actually being implemented, whereas now it’s shown to us in writing.

In last year’s game, it was very common scheme to simply run Cover 4, Quarters for 2x2, Palms to 3x1 bunch, & a mix of the two for 3x1 trips (or so I’ve read). As was commonplace for the CPU to run something similar (at least against 3x1), according to the gameplan tabs of most defensive playbooks.

Using motion to swap coverage assignments, in search of a mismatch.

(Picture 2) Using Exit motions, out of a Wing Trips/Trio alignment, to quickly swap assignment of the 3-Rec defender as the ball snaps. At the start of the play, the 3-Rec defender is responsible for the TE as he is the “3”, but with the Exit motion the TE becomes the “2” just as the ball snaps making the slot receiver the “3”. Forcing the nickel to swap to reading the TE and the 3-Rec linebacker to reading the slot receiver. Because it’s a video game, this is less likely to create actual confusion amongst the defenders, but is instead aimed more towards creating a favorable matchups of LB vs. SLWR & Nickel vs. TE.

- I like these in the case of having a pretty athletic TE who is a legit threat in the passing game, who is able to use the auto-motion to his benefit of getting downfield, then capitalizing on his matchup by winning 50/50 balls.

(Picture 3) Cheat motions, when carrying towards the outside, like out of Bunch, Bunch Spread, Bunch Spread Nasty, and Wide Bunch can be used to a similar effect through different means. The end goal is to again create a mismatch out of that 3-Rec linebacker, by changing his assignment and forcing him onto the SLWR just before the ball is snapped. In this case, the TE is the “3” to begin with but motions out to become the “1” just prior to the snap. Instead of swapping assignments like with the Exit motion, this a full on shift of assignments, as it forces all 3 defenders involved to adjust.

- These can be beneficial in either case of TEs, but the added benefit of them not being a threat is that the defense has to basically waste their best coverage guy on a non-threat. You concede to them their mismatch, while you go and attack yours.

Motioning in & out between Bunch/Trips, forcing a check-check on the fly.

Whereas motioning to leverage the 3-Rec defender is something that can be used against both the CPU and User, this is more geared towards H2H. Although there is certainly carryover, and I’m not saying these can’t also leverage defenders when using the right route combos. They’re just used for a different purpose, as they’re distinct examples of forcing a check-call rather, than just a swapping of assignments within the same check-call.

(Pictures 4, 5, & 6) Coming out in a 3x1 trips set, and then motioning the outside WR into a bunch just as the ball is being snapped, will force a check-call for any match defense. In this case, for Cover 4, it will force Quarters from a Quarters to Box; and Palms from Stubbie to Box. Depending on which defender the player is Usering, you can catch them out of place if they don’t A) realize the defense checked into another call or B) doesn’t know the differing responsibilities between calls (depending on which player they are / got caught out on).

(Picture 7) Inversely, similar theory can be applied to coming out in bunch, and motioning out to trips. Forcing a call from Box to Quarters/Stubbie. Especially with how certain players playcall, for example using one specific Palms or Quarters vs. one specific Bunch or Trips. By using these types of tactics, you can get them to come out in their preferred playcall per scenario, then forcing a check-call upon them without proper time to audible or adjust.

Year in & year out, a lot of the same questions pop up in regards to custom playbooks.

Q : "Why can't I add GoGo formations to my custom playbook?"
A : You likely can't find it, because it's labeled under a different formation name.

Ex : Shotgun GoGo ______, falls under Shotgun Duo ______.

Q : "Why can't I add some of my favorite Wingback formations from the Rice playbook?"
A : Same answer, but for a different reason. It's not a real formation in the game, instead it is an uncommon personnel package, based out of a more common formation, so a new name was adopted within that Rice system. But it is recognized globally as an offshoot.

Ex : Wingback Close & Wingback Slot Offset in Rice's playbook are actually just Gun Deuce Close & Gun Wing Slot Offset, but have 'Wingback' package swap as their default setting.

Q : "Why are there so few 4WR sets, and why do I always have to use Air Raid to get them?"
A : The modernization of football baby, and the chess match that comes with it. TE's & HB's are more than capable of being 4th & 5th options, while also maintaining versatility, allowing coaches to disguise different schemes on offense while remaining multiple.

Ex : Within the 'Air Raid' playbooks, lots of the Spread (Green) & Trips (Early) looks, have a default package swap of 4WR attached to them. Whereas other schemes, even other Air Raid variants, do not carry those same settings, and instead default to using a flexed out TE.

_____________________________________________________________

These differences in "default" personnel, even within the same formations, from playbook to playbook, is a real nice touch and makes sense with their emphasis on "identity" this year. It was in CFB26 a tiny bit here and there, I know Penn State had one for their Wildcat (TE at QB), but saw it appear much more prominently in Madden last year.

Many stock playbooks this year, seem to have at least 1, some having up to 5-7 like Rice, and even a few like Air Raid having almost double digits. I just wish making a custom playbook didn't completely factory reset all formations back to the default default. Or the better option, would be to let us, as custom playbook creators, set them in a similar fashion to the stock books. Pick the package you want to be it's default, on the "Add/Remove" screen when editing formations. Or let us set them in practice, like we can our Audibles, and have them SAVE for that playbook.

There is even an uptick in custom default package swaps on the defensive side too.

Ex : Multiple playbook looks to have 3-3-5 Mint set to "SAM Edge" by default, whereas customs default that to a LEDGE.
Ex : 3-4 Multiple playbook has 3-3-5 Penny set to "CB Slot" by default, making it a more traditional Nickel than having a SS in that spot like the formation defaults to normally.

As a playbook creator who puts a lot of time, effort, & thought into the playbooks I create. I would absolutely love to be able to add this type of "Coaching Adjustment" to my playbooks, before sending them out to the world. It would only add more to the uniqueness of each playbook, and further ingraining it's scheme into the identity.

Shells & formation shifts were great additions in terms of creativity & disguise. The additional coaching adjustments, gap integrity, coverage checks, etc, are all great tools. Even the Macros are going to find good use. But please, can we have access to this one small tweak. Package swaps are leagues above, and better implemented than Formation Subs, they're just annoying to have to set all the time. You've shown the tools are already there to do it, now share with the rest of the class, please.