MADDEN 26-27 IMPROVEMENT IDEAS

Have you ever tried keeping two versions of the same book during the year, one super lean, one for testing, and one fuller, one for game-day, just to see if it helps you spot which additions are actually helping and which are just there because they looked good in the moment?

I haven't...  But I'm currently in the midst of my WORST losing streak of the year (-8), so I might adopt this approach in tonight's game sessions.  I'm thinking my losses are coming for a number of reasons:

• Too Aggressive on 4th Down
• Not aggressive enough on 4th Down
• Telegraphing Pressure
• Over Disguising Pressure
• Being predictable on 1st Down
• Poor Execution

Analysis with the tools I have shows me that I'm beating myself - so I modify my actions and I get back to winning games (hopefully).  

My 'system' has developed over a lot of years playing thousands of games and results in an offense and play style that is quintessentially MINE.  That ownership, from the building the scheme to executing it, is mine as well - for better or worse.  

My philosophy of limiting offensive plays to 6 plays per formation, derives from 2nd Edition of "The Complete Idiots Guide to Football" by Joe Theismann and Brian Tarcy.  I don't have a copy here, but there is a part where Joe T reveals that the Redskins only had 6 basic plays in each weekly game plan; they just ran them from multiple formations.

When custom playbooks began, I tried to adopt that idea.  HB Dive and Stretch were my runs in almost every formation.  It worked for a while, then it didn't.  So I started blending run concepts ans spreading across formations.

For example...  Suppose I start with 2 sets from I-Form.  Ideally, I'll have at least 2 run plays in each set (4 plays).  That gives me room for an Iso, Power, Inside Zone, and a Stretch.  I generally pair the Iso and the Stretch in one set, while the Inside Zone and Power might go in the other set.  On the field, I have access to all of these run plays via audibles because the two formations use the same personnel.  As far as execution goes, I'm running to the same hole in the Power and the Inside Zone, due to the blocking, my opponent can't defend both plays the same way.  My execution is virtually the same; my opponent has to execute differently.

Over the course of the year, as I face situations I don't have answers for, I add plays to fit the situation where I lack.  Usually these plays address a specific tendency I might see - often, I add plays and NEVER see the situation I put them in the playbook to address.  That's especially true in my defensive playbook.  

Another thing I do is check the Leaderboards so I can compare key stats with the top 100 (or friends).  I look at W/L, of course, but while I also look at Streak, Sacks, Turnovers, and 3rd Down%; I'm most interested in Unique Offense and Defensive Plays, where my average would almost always places me in the top 5.  Right now, I think I'm sitting at about 18.00 Unique plays on both sides of the ball.  I generally take about 25-40 snaps a game on either side of the ball...  18 of those plays get called once and ONLY ONCE.

That said, I want to get a copy of my game reports (team stats, player stats) so I can analyze them and find out what patterns I exhibit that cause me to lose games.  

Considering the process though, I'm curious to get deeper insight on how you go about it. For me it's always been add a bunch from formations I like; trial and error. However, I'd like to be more efficient and refined with my playbooks process. So in saying that, how different should my process be (if at all) considering I play franchsie with playcall limits? Probably would need more plays I assume, but does that mean larger base? More situational? Both?? What are your thoughts?

I really think the process differs for each of us, and is based on what problems we want to solve...  for me, I know that if I run the ball 15 times, I'm going to win 80% of those games.  Most of my long scores come off of either I-Form HB Power (6x) or Weak I HB Gut (3x).  I run the Gut first with a specific motion that establishes it as a threat that forces the defense to run man coverage, then I use the motion to setup an expectation, then run the Power the other direction.  That said, I think you might be able to use a 36 play playbook even in a Franchise with playcall limits IF you also integrate the audible system I use.

Each set has 6 plays...  4 of these plays are set as audibles.  Theoretically, I call the 2 plays that aren't in the audibles which leaves me a binary choice.  Suppose I'm in I-Form Close my plays might be:

• Mesh
• *HB Iso
• HB Power
• *HB Counter
• PA Power O
• PA Rollout

The two plays with the * are the only two plays I'd call, then I'd audible when I got to the line so I always have at least 5 of the 6 plays available.  If I call a play that is already an audible, I'd only have 4 plays available to change to.  If my personnel set allows audible to other formations, I'll have 4 more options to audible to.  Because I only have 6 plays per set, I'll have access to the entire playbook.  

Most of my plays are situational.  Some are so situational, I never call them because the specific situation so rarely presents itself.  But when it's 3rd & 13, the ball is on the left hash, my opponent likes to blitz the right corner, my WR is taller than his DB, my opponent reacts to motion by rotating Cover 3 to the field side, and we need a FG to tie in the last 2-minutes - I'll have the perfect play.  There's usually only one play per set this specific - but they exist in the PB solely for that purpose.  

Essentially, I use my base plays to setup predictable situations for my situational plays - so I can call them.  In my videos, I'll often say something like "He's doing Tactic A - I have something for that".  If I don't have something for it, it's time to expand the playbook.  Careful though... too many plays make it hard to figure out which one fits the situation at hand.