Offensive Run Plays on Various Downs

[Dean-Atlanta]

I call bull$hit on that Jerry. If we go 6-6-6, I also favor that we require all three of RL, RM,and RR must be used. That means you will need to have EIGHTEEN rushing plays. Current rules allow you to not use RL, not use RR, and therefore have ONLY 10 total rushing plays. 6-6-6 raises that to 18.

When I studied math in first grade, I learned that 18 is higher than 10.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I do have an idea worth considering. Maybe we try it out in the PCFL first.

Require 5 RL, 5 RM and 5 RR in offensive game plans. Allow them to be used on any down. Only 1 QB keeper allowed per category. Let's see what happens. Test it out.

Also increase PLR requirement to 5 as well and PRD requirement to 5 if used. Basically require 5 plays for any category used on offense except GLR & GLP.

If we still get great results, we can expand the test further to see what happens when we allow PML & PMM and PSL & PSM on 1st and 2nd.

My reasoning is all of these categories are all flips and dupes galore so I'm betting that loosening up the running category requirements and 1st/2nd requirements for pass categories won't impact the game anymore.

Defense is already there. It only requires PS on 3rd 2-5, PM on 3rd 6-10, PL on 3rd 10+ and prohibits the use of PL and PRD on 1st/2nd 0-10. We need to face reality and similarly loosen up the offense with less restrictions considering the proliferation of dupes/flips has made it moot to be restrictive.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

What makes us different from the old leagues and will always make us different is that we use a play pool and have specific restrictions on play design. It's not the categories nor when categories can be called anymore because of the proliferation of dupes and flips. I could submit exact flips of the best PML and PSL plays as PMM and PSM plays and they likely get approved. This means I could basically run those plays either on 1st or 2nd. If that is the case, why restrict us to PML on 1st and PMM on 2nd? It's stupid at this point.

Same goes for runs. There are dupes and flips across the three categories now. The categorization is kind of stupid at this point. In fact, I think it makes it more important that we at least reduce the RM requirement to 8 and increase the RL and RR requirement to 5 if used. Simply to drive more of the randomization Jerry likes.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I do have an idea worth considering. Maybe we try it out in the PCFL first.

Require 5 RL, 5 RM and 5 RR in offensive game plans. Allow them to be used on any down. Only 1 QB keeper allowed per category. Let's see what happens. Test it out.

Also increase PLR requirement to 5 as well and PRD requirement to 5 if used. Basically require 5 plays for any category used on offense except GLR & GLP.

If we still get great results, we can expand the test further to see what happens when we allow PML & PMM and PSL & PSM on 1st and 2nd.

My reasoning is all of these categories are all flips and dupes galore so I'm betting that loosening up the running category requirements and 1st/2nd requirements for pass categories won't impact the game anymore.

Defense is already there. It only requires PS on 3rd 2-5, PM on 3rd 6-10, PL on 3rd 10+ and prohibits the use of PL and PRD on 1st/2nd 0-10. We need to face reality and similarly loosen up the offense with less restrictions considering the proliferation of dupes/flips has made it moot to be restrictive.

If we did this, this is what the minimums would be:

RL 5
RM 5
RR 5
PSL 5
PSM 5
PSR 5
PML 5
PMM 5
PMR 5
PLR 5
PRD 5
GLR 3
GLP 3

61 plays total. Could even have 8 RM and 64 btotal.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Last post unless called out directly. You do not know math then....... How do you mandate the use of 3 run categories in a situation? If you do not, then 6 is all you need at any one time and used basically exclusively.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Last post unless called out directly. You do not know math then....... How do you mandate the use of 3 run categories in a situation? If you do not, then 6 is all you need at any one time and used basically exclusively.

Did you misunderstand what I said or are you being obtuse? If 6 of each are the minimum, and all three categories are required to be used in the profile, that is 18 running plays required,not 6.

If you use RL,RM, andPSL on 1st and 10, that is FIFTEEN plays being called on first and 10.

The proposed change requires use of MORE plays in our PPPs, not fewer.

[Jerry-Redskins]

You never actually read and see outside a narrow scope you want. I understand the concept being discussed. I'm pointing out how I see it evolving over time due to how it may end up being used.

You would still have the total number of plays in a plan, but less in the individual category. You would not be able to mandate more than the one run call. Means I only have to in effect call the same 6 run plays all game. I can in practice ignore the other two run categories. Its 10 to 6 needed. This is the same argument I have made before when we have had discussions on GL and the like. Many want to allow them any time. Means they also may just want to sort out 4 plays rather then 5 or 10 as GL would get turned into the new RM. I 100% believe folks will use the less play aspect rather than the direct play call one, which was never the vision on the VPNFL goals.

I may be jaded and look at things from the worse angle and expect the worse in people, but you have to look at both ends. My point is if the rules allow one play to be called a game and someone sees a W doing it they will do that.

BTW. You were arguing against simming recently. How about the fact that the massive simmer only has to identify 6 run effective run plays to use all game against you rather than 10. Big difference and way easier. It could make simming even more effective in reality.

Again, I do not intend to make any more comments from my opinion in this thread, unless something is directed. Folks already know I believe we are better served with a broader concept and one I think takes more thought and preparation. I understand why the proposal is put forth. I just believe it would be used in what I see as the negative versus what the positive may be available for some wanting to do the specific play calls over situational.

[Justin-Chicago]

Jerry, if I understand correctly, your primary concern is with requiring anything shy of the 10 RM on 1st down, correct? That is one of mine too, it is a step towards less parity and more blowouts.

What would you think of leaving 1st down completely unchanged but taking the intermediate step of adding RR to the allowed playcalls on 2nd and 2-5, and RL on 3rd and 6-10?

While it may not be exactly what some of the proponents of this idea originally had in mind, I believe it could be a good compromise, allowing for implementation of the strategy that Barney outlined. Thoughts?

[Jerry-Redskins]

It kinda becomes a similar issue. Remember, I'm coming from a jaded perspective. It's not a huge change, but it does open up only needing 4 plays to be effective. I think RL is still kinda RL plays, but RR is a good part the same as RM, so you are kinda allowing 4 RM at that point. I see a team putting only 4 RR and only calling that all game other than 1st down. Granted you are still isolating RM, but I think keeping RL and RR away from each other is the key outside 1st down to not have the minimum play need real small.

Just my opinion that it would be exploited and be non-PNFL spirit of broad plans and profiles and situational play calling versus specific play calling.