Would be super swell amazingly awesome if when I go to 'View' on my Player Card, and then hit the Play Book Tab, that the Offensive Plays that are (1) in my Head Coaches Play Book and (2) Currently Active in my Game Plan had some sort of signifier to denote this information for me.

As it stands, I don't even look at it. It's a jumbled mess of Plays that I'd have to write down (or Print Page) then check against my Play Book.

In fact, would be really swell if I could see this for any Player I view, as I'd be much more interested in a Good Player that already knows some of my most vital Plays, in case of Free Agents or Trades.

Play familiarity should just be completely scraped tbh.

I like it. I makes sense as well. You are more effective in real life with a Play that you know, and against a Play you recognize and/or practiced against, than you are on a Play you don't know.

But as it stands, it's just way to much for me to go, check every Play a guy knows, and then compare that to my Play Book... even a Rookie I Drafted to my own Team.

Most Teams only run a handful of Plays in actuality, but they mask it by running that Play from a variety of formations. Now, other Teams have a plethora of plays and more complex concepts, but to each their own in that regard.

I mean in reality the HB Dive Strong from the I Form, I Strong and I Weak... it's the exact same play. The only difference is the route the FB takes to Lead the Run. Same would go with something like an Shallow Flood out of each... nothing really changes between those 3 Formations. This is so a Team can master a Play, but disguise it to a Defense by being able to run it in 3 Different 'Fronts' or 'Looks'.

But that's neither here nor there on the current discussion of denoting Team Play Book and Active Plays on a Player's Play Knowledge Page.

Each positions rules within the assignments change as formations match formations. Most of the time they are completely different rules that player will have to follow. It should not always carry over like here.

In addition our game can be exploited by changes positions.

All together IRL the guy would have to learn complete different assignments and specific rules based on how others line up. We're talking inches changes what the player should do.

Its not as simple as jdb or you put it.

In the situation of the Weak, Strong and I it IS as simple as I'm making it.

Same for various Ace Formations.

In the case of a HB Dive Strong in any Base I (Strong, Weak and I), the only guy doing anything any differently is the FB. He has to change his angle to the hole to Lead (in a standard variation with no Pulling Lineman).

Assignments in this situation only change to counter the Defensive Formation... which is going to have to happen regardless of the Formation you are in.

If you can run the HB Dive Strong... you can run it from the I, the Strong I or the Weak I. Doesn't matter, same player and the only Formational Difference is a shift of the FB.

You take an Ace HB Off Tackle... everyone is going to be doing the same thing by and large. The differences will be with the TE/WR, as being off the line (4 Wide) versus being on the line (1 TE or 2 TE) will change things. But for the Lineman and the Running Back it's virtually the exact same play.

But let's visit this for a minute. If the TE flexes out to make a 4 Wide, isn't of blocking out he's now blocking down (and likely on the same player he was blocking before, probably the OLB or S/NB on his side). It's not like he had to learn an entirely new play here. If inside... kick the guy out. If outside... block the guy in. It's not Rocket Science, it's essentially the same play.

What I believe you are talking about is matching your blocking to the Defensive Front... but that's going to happen regardless. Doesn't matter if the FB is on the Weak, Strong or Neutral... if he's the Lead through the Hole, he's going to the same place and just taking a slightly different route to get there.

Now what a Coach CAN do, he can have the FB block the back side and send the LG pulling Strong to lead the RB in the Weak and I, and in the Strong he can instead lead with the FB (who will be closer to the Lead and further from sealing the back side). In this scenario you have the Same Play (HB Dive Strong) that would require a different Blocking Scheme due to YOUR Formation. But I specified that I was talking about a base HB Dive Strong, not employing any Pulls. So in my scenario it's literally he exact same play with the only 'variation' being the angle the FB takes to Lead to the Hole.

Can you make plays more Complex? Absolutely. And those plays wouldn't be grouped in the same way a HB Dive Strong out of each Base I would be, or the way a Flood Strong FB Flat would be ran out of each Base I Formation.

But again, NONE of this has anything at all to do with the actual Suggestion... which is seeing Team Plays and Active Plays marked on the Player's Play Book Knowledge page.

Real football has rules within the assignments and it all depends on how the other guys line up and the look he is going. This is why teams disguise stuff.

Those minute alignment do change reads and assignments and force players to use different blocking techniques. The FB has some of the simplest reads which lead to simple blocking techniques . He might have to drive with his inside shoulder....outside shoulder....he might have to kick out...it all depends on what the defense shows and does after the snap. Particularly the FB will have seek out different players . Play familiarity is not simple at all and should be reset as a player changes position groups. And definitely should not carry over as you say. It should be scraped or it acts more like team chemistry . ....or that how I view it in relation to real football

Players may take time to learn a SYSTEM, the language the general philosophy of why they do certain things, what types of concepts they run and how those concepts work against certain formations and opposing concepts. If anything there should be a system or coach familiarity. Familiarity with specific plays actually isn't even realistic, teams come out with possibly 100s of tweaks they may use each week based on the opponent and the players are expected to know those, so the specific play familiarity is already ridiculous enough, but to combine that with how slow the players learn those plays makes it a completely unrealistic feature of the game.

Screw the playbook. I want to know how to stop a RB with a 65 rating from running over my defense for 300 yds when I gameplan heavy run. Not to mention I was giving up 90 yd a game over the entire season and first round of the playoffs.

i agree that playbook knowledge shouldnt be a defining trait for experienced players ie:3 or 4 yr players n up.however,i think rookies and qb's joining a new team should b affected,using intelligence n volativity to determine how fast they learn them.even a tom bradyesque qb needs some time to learn a new playbook when joining a new team.granted he'll perform better than a midling qb,but he wont jump in and master them immediatly.

I never said it should carry over when changing Position Groups. The FB is still the FB, whether he is in Balanced, Weak or Strong... still the FB.

If the TE flexes out, he's still the TE. He's simply flexed. He's not learning to be a WR, he's learning to do what a TE does when a TE is asked to Flex (which on that particular play would be what the Slot WR would do if they had came out with a Slot instead of a TE).

But again, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL SUGGESTION.