Offensive Run Plays on Various Downs

[Rich-League Officer]

When this discussion started, I did not have squatters issues on my bingo card

[James-Eagles]

Split the difference allow RR and RM on 6 yards + and go with rm 8 rr 6. Not a drastic change I believe it only add RR to 1st and 10. It be middle ground

Just throwing it out there as a thing may be both might be ok with

Still waiting for Tim, Barney and Steve to join the conversation.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Anything that lowers the requirement takes it to more exploitable and more of the old leagues that were the most unrealistic thing ever. No reason to add RR and then change the number limit. It adds no difference in available calls. Every play in RR now can be saved to RM and many are in there already. This would only mean needing to have 2 play categories called in essence and also lower the limit for running plays in a game plan category.

This idea may have started again for an altruistic idea, but it ends to be another end run around the same old discussion to just lower play requirements.

[Justin-Chicago]

I think watching all of these games you guys see situations that "feel" a certain way in real time, react emotionally, and you want something different.

But, as Jerry said, we're a commish sim league. So you have to plan your chess game out in advance. It's not that the ideas are without merit, but it's very important to keep on mind the limitations of the game:

We can't have more than 64 plays in a gameplan.
We can't know if there's 29 minutes left or 6 minutes left.
We can't know if "ahead 8+" means leading 51-35 or leading 14-6, obviously one you keep doing what you're doing on offense and one you consider changing it up, but they're the exact same situation as far as determining your playcall.
We can't call an onside kick.
And many more...

The PPP rules we have have been intricately crafted to balance all of these limitations, and keep teams honest. Action creates reaction. You want to sit on a lead and run up the middle exclusively with more than 5 minutes left? Okay, you can do that. But, you use RM to do that, and yes, 10 are required. It's a trade off. That keeps the blowouts to a minimum.

When I do watch games, I still see a ton of strategic mistakes. My thought is, everyone should figure out how to make the most strategic decisions within the existing limitations, rather than change the PPP rules.

[Rich-League Officer]

There sure a ton of mistakes!
It's sometimes painful to watch all the profile errors.

[Dean-Atlanta]

So, if I have this right, a coach would have more control on what type of run gets called.
Inside/Outside. He could focus in inside runs based on certain criteria and outside runs based on other criteria.

What if hypothetically, I get an email from Thomas saying he wants more control on 1st down to call a medium pass every time he throws?
He wants RM/PSL/PML/PMM/PMR
Justin emails me and says he wants to throw long each pass he throws on 1st down.
He wants RM/PSL/PML/PLR

It's a style of offense they like.

Is this a fair request by them?
Is it a slippery slope?
Is that where we ultimately go where its Run Random/Short Random/Medium Random on all downs?
Why not?

The "slippery slope" argument is non-sequitur and intellectually lazy too, as is the "solution in search of a problem" non-sequitur argument.

Thomas hasn't asked to run all PM passes on 1sr and 10. Justin hasn't suggested we allow PLR on 1st and 10. If they do, those are separate issues and separate debates from the running on first down issue. If they want to propose those things, they can do tha in a separate forum post.

[Dean-Atlanta]

It opens it up to a team only needing 6 right play guesses that week for RM and not 10. There can be good principles and meaning but there are others looking to exploit a situation. Some may want more style which I agree with, but going to 6 max means you allowed a team to only do one thing easier all game. I think people are missing the point. The old leagues let you call like 1 thing the whole game and you cannot react in commish sim. Lowering the minimum plays and calls simply moves things closer to that. I get the want for the style, but the next guy can care less and will use it as an exploit. Ideals do not equal reality and the unintended consequences ruin the ideal.

Kinda like the squatter issues. It is a great idea to try to not have someone temporarily down on their luck go homeless. Others move in and take over your home, destroy it, and you can't get them out. The unintended consequence's of an ideal.

The beauty of the PNFL has been the need to be more varied and not call one play all game. More thought and nuance

The change being unintended consequences argument. The status quo, and NOT changing, also brings about unintended consequences. We get unintended consequences either way, equally. This is not unique to changing things.

This discussion succeeds if we actually discuss and consider ideas. It fails if we simply debate "change for change sake" vs. keep things the same because change is scary.

This discussion seems to have become more like the latter and not enough like the former.

[Rich-League Officer]

We are all not going to agree on everything and just because some coaches do not share your opinion does not make it lazy.
It's also the quickest way to end the conversation.

Now, you have said you are not the architect of this rule change so I can't expect you to defend it, others should speak up.

But, my hypothetical Thomas/Justin rule changes would absolutely be appropriate right here. They are profile rules changes. They would be every bit as valid as altering 1st/10 for runs. It would be altering 1st/10 passes.
We would not open 40 threads for altering profile rule changes on every down/distance.
Granted, I am not asking anyone to seriously debate a hypothetical but it's fair to ask, where does it end?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Half a point each. Here's what Charlie said in starting this discussion:

For this thread, let's focus on the big picture first, should we consider any run on any down in any situation?

You are right that this was not just about 1st and ten. But, it is about running plays and not proposals to run all PMs on first down or run PLR on first down, etc.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Looking at the results of a potential change is 100% part of the discussion. Especially when we are not discussing how to identify and fix a problem, but discussing a change with no identified problem and one that is more aspirational. Even if everyone agreed on the ideal, it doesn't mean the change floated does not have implications which have to be part of the discussion. It is also valid to discuss other potential similar change possibilities when the change is not about an actual discrete problem. Rich is correct. If one person sees, change the runs helps further the ideal, another would see passes the same and as actual path to the same ideal. Even more so when there is not a clear agreed problem and identified things contributing to the problem. Like, I said earlier, no one has an issue with the ideal of wanting to have styles and/or making styles more varied, but that is a large concept without a clear cause and a lack of data or info to base changes on.

I will say this one more time as well. The idea that if you aren't changing you are wrong or that the status quo is bad is actually not correct. Nothing scary about valid thought out change with an actual identified goal. Just making a change because, oh change, is not an intelligent way to operate and an actual bad argument. Change in an organization periodically without problems is good in as much as it changes the people and their interactions and structure. This can spur innovation. Actual production processes or products themselves should not change for no reason normally. The reasons can only be due to environmental changes in the market or actual problems, but not just because and when you do they have to be thought out and not a bad change. We have a piece of software we cannot change. This means part of our world/environment will never change unlike other things in the world. Generating less need to change. Doesn't mean we don't discuss it, but when we do there is part of our world that never changes. We tried a different cap and dumped it a few season later. It turned out bad. Things have changed due to emerging technology. There are game broadcast, a podcast, use of discord. All things adding to the league experience itself which is part of the product. There is no technological change coming to the software. It is what it is.

The game play is also ever changing. The play calling the last couple of seasons has absolutely changed quite a bit. Defensive play calling changed to embrace PM plays that control outside runs and short passing. Offenses are now throwing deeper over the top of these plays. There was time a few seasons ago PMM was hardly used and there were discussions to change the play building rules to help get the medium pass game better. They had bad completion percentages and were not very efficient. The Jets started pushing the ball down the field on 1st down and then 2nd down. A few others joined in and now the previously conservative Vikings are throwing a ton of PMM on 2nd 6-10, but still finding a way to get some running in. The Eagles are just plan aggressive with PM's this season. I guarantee as more join in, teams will change their defenses in reaction over time. Constance evolution/change exists in the league as a natural process.

Changing people related things without a problem can be good. Changing the Coke formula without a reason and thinking it out is bad.