I spend a considerable amount of my time on research projects. This usually consists of delving into game logs, constructing perl scripts to parse vast amounts of data, then constructing spreadsheets to analyze the output from these scripts. I have a library with hundreds of these spreadsheets.
Sometimes, the work needs to be redone. Sometimes I have access to better information (snap counts are now reported in a somewhat timely manner, for example). And the NFL is always evolving. Today, it’s more a passing league than ever before. In fact, the old model, teams setting up in a two-back formation with two wide receivers, isn’t even the norm anymore. NFL teams run two-back personnel sets about 20% of the time these days. There are four receivers (tight ends/wide receivers) on the field 75% of the time.
The rules change, as well. Today, teams have 46 active players and 53 under contract – numbers that go back as long as I can remember. But the 46th player is no longer necessarily a quarterback, and, while almost every team has three quarterbacks (about half have the third on their practice squad), around 99% of the time, only two of those quarterbacks are active for a game.
Currently, Front Office Football requires three active quarterbacks. This piece was written under the old rules. And that’s understandably a bit frustrating for players who pay close attention to their depth charts. I can’t patch in a new requirement – the depth charts themselves are so specifically coded that the risk of making that kind of change would undoubtedly lead to lots of rare crashes in simulation.
But I’m thinking of future projects, and working on models for a new type of depth chart. One that doesn’t require specifying backups at all. If the starter is injured, the next best player goes into the game. I think that’s more realistic. Consider the offensive line. During the entire 2014 season, no team ever had more than eight offensive linemen active for a game. Now starters typically play 100% of the time, so this isn’t the typical setup. But the average team had only 6.9 linemen active. Presumably, that’s five starters, and an interior lineman and a tackle in case of injury.
So if you have a depth chart for a game, you specify the starters, but the backups will be repeated. What’s the value of having someone set each backup position?
In the next game, you will handle depth charts very differently. It will all be personnel based – in that your offense will run skill position players out there based on the personnel package and the defense will have personnel-based and situation-based depth charts. No one will be tied to formations any more (in fact, I want to remove all traces of quarterbacks “knowing” formations).
I think this will more accurately reflect how coaches approach game planning. The one weakness in this system lies in defensive line rotation. Defensive linemen are asked to do a lot on every play, and these are bigger guys who, even when in great shape, have limitations. Whenever you hear of a player who is wearing down during a game, it’s usually a defensive lineman. So I’m putting a lot of thought into how rotation can work on the defensive line without requiring a lot of busy work from players.
Another piece of information from these spreadsheets is an exact idea of how teams arrange those 46-man rosters. I want players to have as much flexibility as possible when arranging their lineups, but, again, with realism in mind, I need minimums. I’ve found that the minimums in the current game still hold up as accurate. The only changes I will make are 1) of course, reducing the quarterback requirement from three to two. And 2) increasing the minimum number of secondary players from six to seven. The average team has 8.6 corners and safeties active for a game, and no team ever had less than seven in 2014. I think this change goes hand-in-hand with the explosion of four-receiver packages.