Search found 865 matches
- Sat May 17, 2025 6:17 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
- Replies: 11
- Views: 25229
Re: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
2046 Week #12 Winners and Losers! Selected Offensive Plays of the Week: Runs: AT27RRs1 (RR) = 7 attempts; 69 yards for 9.9 yards per carry. - One Fumble. 1 TD KC27swp3 (RM) = 6 attempts; 59 yards for 9.8 yards per carry. - No Fumbles. ATF27swp (RM) = 8 attempts; 70 yards for 8.8 yards per carry. - ...
- Sun May 11, 2025 3:32 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
- Replies: 11
- Views: 25229
Re: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
2046 Week #11 Winners and Losers! Selected Offensive Plays of the Week: Runs: MN24dive (RM) = 4 attempts; 61 yards for 15.3 yards per carry. - No Fumbles. NE28RM01 (RM) = 4 attempts; 38 yards for 9.5 yards per carry. - No Fumbles. KC27swp3 (RM) = 5 attempts; 43 yards for 8.6 yards per carry. - No F...
- Fri May 09, 2025 8:29 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Allowing MORE plays to be used in commonly used categories
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3953
Re: Allowing MORE plays to be used in commonly used categories
Charlie-49ers wrote:Steve-Buffalo Bills wrote:I think this idea has merit but no way the league allows any drastic changes like this unfortunately. I will try to test it out on my own though. Curious to see what happens.
We anxiously await your findings!
Still waiting!
- Sun May 04, 2025 4:50 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Allowing MORE plays to be used in commonly used categories
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3953
Re: Allowing MORE plays to be used in commonly used categories
Steve-Buffalo Bills wrote:I think this idea has merit but no way the league allows any drastic changes like this unfortunately. I will try to test it out on my own though. Curious to see what happens.
We anxiously await your findings!
- Sun May 04, 2025 4:46 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
- Replies: 11
- Views: 25229
Re: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
2046 Week #10 Winners and Losers! Selected Offensive Plays of the Week: Runs: WR27PT01 (RM) = 6 attempts; 50 yards for 8.3 yards per carry. - No Fumbles; 1 TD MN41ctr (RM) = 6 attempts; 44 yards for 7.3 yards per carry. - No Fumbles 1 TD SF67Swp1 (RR) = 7 attempts; 49 yards for 7.0 yards per carry....
- Sun Apr 27, 2025 10:08 am
- Forum: General
- Topic: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
- Replies: 11
- Views: 25229
Re: ## PNFL Scout 2046 ##
2046 Week #9 Winners and Losers! Selected Offensive Plays of the Week: Runs: DB10rmQ1 (RM) = 5 attempts; 66 yards for 13.2 yards per carry. - No Fumbles. NY27Powr (RM) = 5 attempts; 48 yards for 9.6 yards per carry. - No Fumbles. SF26ort6 (RM) = 7 attempts; 52 yards for 7.4 yards per carry. - No Fu...
- Fri Apr 25, 2025 4:58 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Rule Elimination Proposals
- Replies: 7
- Views: 4533
Re: Rule Elimination Proposals
Any new Throw Fake plays would be restricted to only one player (e.g., you could not have a cluster of receivers converging and more than one, or all could not throw fakes. One receiver, one fake, that's it. If the plays become abusive, we delete them and default to the old rule.
- Fri Apr 25, 2025 4:52 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Rule Elimination Proposals
- Replies: 7
- Views: 4533
Re: Rule Elimination Proposals
I'm against both being removed for similar reasons to what Jerry gave. We may not like rules, but game limitations force us to have rules like these to prevent AI busters and exploits. The backward movement on a running play was an initial rule, and the NFL didn't use it 25 years ago! All the NFL t...
- Thu Apr 24, 2025 6:18 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Rule Elimination Proposals
- Replies: 7
- Views: 4533
Rule Elimination Proposals
I would like interested parties to comment on the following two rules that I believe would enhance the game if changed! R05: Backwards movements on a running Play 1. No eligible receiver other than the ball carrier or QB may have movement paths that go back behind the LOS. This rule is contrary to t...
- Sun Apr 20, 2025 5:29 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: Rule Proposal: Defense for 10+ scenarios
- Replies: 9
- Views: 4882
Re: Rule Proposal: Defense for 10+ scenarios
Rich-League Officer wrote:Nice to know someone is listening
As long as we have 90-95 IN/DI players, nobody ever makes a mistake in coverage.
This change could mean a complete shutdown of long/RZD passes to go along with the fact we have no run after catch.
What's left?
I have to agree with Rich on this one.