Proposal: Simplify Archetypes (Less Clutter, More Gameplay)

Proposal: Simplify Archetypes (Less Clutter, More Gameplay)

Quick context (related post):

Before this, I posted another proposal about simplifying roster management while keeping the depth chart stable. The point was: The roster should put players into position families without assigning them to a specific side, and the depth chart should be the main “identity layer” for the game engine, and the game shouldn’t push people into constant formation subs and endless shuffling just to make things work. Less menu work = more time playing, scheming, and actually learning matchups.

This archetype proposal goes with that same philosophy: cut clutter, improve clarity, and let players develop naturally.

The problem:

Archetypes have gotten bloated. A lot of them overlap and feel like “labels for the sake of labels.” Recruiting becomes sorting tags instead of scouting players.

Modern college/NFL football isn’t full of one-dimensional specialists. Most starters have to do more than one thing. A kid can come out of high school as a “run defender” and still have the capacity to develop pass rush moves or coverage skills in college depending on coaching, scheme, and reps.

Right now the game leans too hard into:

“You are this label forever.”

That’s outdated.

The goal:

• Fewer archetypes that actually mean something on the field.
• Less UI clutter in recruiting
• More emphasis on body type, traits, and scheme fit
• Archetypes should bias development, not lock development

Defensive Line:

Interior DL should only have 2 archetypes.

We don’t need separate “power rusher” and “speed rusher” archetypes at DT. That’s style, and it should be expressed through body type, ratings, and traits, not separate labels.

IDL Archetypes (2)

1. Anchor (Space Eater / NT type)

• Eats doubles
• Holds point
• Forces cutbacks
• Compresses the pocket with power
• Defined by: STR / BSH / AWR-PRC / TAK / traits that help vs doubles

1. Disruptor (3-Tech / Penetrator / “whatever name sounds best”)

• Shoots gaps
• Creates negative plays
• Collapses pocket 
• Can win with either finesse or power moves
• Disrupts run fits
• Defined by: ACC / AGI / FMV-PMV / PUR / get-off traits

Power vs speed should come from:

• weight/body type
• STR vs ACC/AGI
• pass rush ratings
• trait package

Not separate archetypes.

Edge should only have 2 archetypes:

Same thing here. “Power vs speed rusher” is a style difference, not an identity difference.

Edge Archetypes (2)

1) Edge Threat (Pass Rush Specialist)

Wins rushes with finesse or power

Forces quick throws

Closes on QB

Defined by: ACC / COD / FMV-PMV / PUR / AWR-PRC / rush traits

2) Edge Setter (Anchor / Contain)

• Sets the edge
• Maintains leverage
• Spills runs inside
• Defined by: STR / BSH / TAK / PUR / AWR-PRC discipline traits

Unicorns should be rare (not a third archetype)

The “do-it-all” guys should exist, but they should be rare and earned. Your Aaron Donald / Von Miller / JJ Watt types should show up as elite rating spreads + elite traits, not an archetype you can just shop for every year.

Cornerbacks

CB should only have 2 archetypes: Physical or Nimble

Modern defense requires versatility. “Man-only” or “zone-only” corners aren’t the norm at the top level.

1) Physical CB

• Wins with press and contact timing
• Plays the catch point
• Disrupts releases
• Defined by: press/strength + jam/catch-point traits
• Quickness is still needed to be serviceable or elite. 

2) Nimble CB

• Wins with quickness and leverage
• Mirrors routes better
• Recovers faster
• Defined by: COD/ACC/AGI/SPD + mirror/play-ball traits

Field/Boundary shouldn’t be archetypes;

If you want to keep them, make them alignment preferences or coaching tendencies. But as archetypes it’s mostly window dressing unless it actually changes behavior and development in a clear way.

Halfback:

HB also has too many labels. Keep it simple:

1) Elusive Playmaker (space, cuts, explosives)

2) Elusive Bruiser (breaks tackles but still creates)

3) Contact Seeker (downhill, falls forward, wears defenses out)

4) All-Purpose (run + receive + align anywhere)

“All-Purpose” can come in different flavors (lighter or bigger) based on body type and ratings. No need to split it into 10 sub-archetypes. One can argue that all purpose backs should be rare, similar to the do it all defensive lineman. But, there are average all purpose backs and there are great all purpose backs. 

I only propose changes to archetypes for positions that make sense for the moment. I’m content with the archetypes at other positions but if you think they need refinement please make changes using my ideas in this article as the guideline. 

The most important change: archetypes should bias, not lock:

Archetypes should represent what a player is best at right now and what they’re most likely to develop into.

But development should still be driven by:

• coaching/scheme
• reps/usage
• offseason focus
• dev traits
• facilities

So a “run defense” kid can develop pass rush and coverage skills as well to adapt. 

That’s modern football.

What this improves

• Recruiting becomes scouting again (body type + traits + scheme fit)
• Less clutter, less menu time, more gameplay
• Player growth feels more realistic
• Roles are clearer: “what job does this guy do on the field?”
• Pairs well with my roster and depth chart stability proposal (less shuffling, more consistency)

If EA wants “modern football,” the design needs to reflect it: versatility, role clarity, and development based on coaching + usage — not label overload.