Those hours invested in creating news plays...

[Mitch-Oilers]

I guess I'm confused because I don't see a problem with rule #2. Why introduce a new play until you are ready to use it? That makes perfect sense to me and reduces the time Charlie has to spend reviewing plays.

What am I missing?

[Justin-Chicago]

I’m not a fan of the #2 required use rule, because why require the team creating the play to use it? I mean it’s clearly an advantage for them if they do, but the playmakers shouldn’t be punished if they submit something by Wednesday and then ultimately decide Saturday that it won’t make the cut for their gameplan that week.

I also don’t see an issue with creating something for a few weeks down the road, perhaps for a divisional opponent they’ll face again, or something for the playoffs. Pretty sure NFL teams practice plays all the time they are unlikely to run that week, for a myriad of reasons.

I’d rather see new plays than adjusted plays, but I’d appeal to those creating for quality over quantity. I detest the cumbersome offseason play purges because of hasty over-proliferation.

That said, the approach to custom plays has always been Charlie’s area, whatever he says goes and I think the rest of us should live with it. Any inconvenience for anyone is potentially magnified 18-fold for him.

[Rich-League Officer]

Play purges are going to continue!
There is too much crap in these folders already.
And the over abundance of crap only hurts newer inexperienced coaches.
The vets spit on the plays they already know suck.

Stop sending new plays and fix the bad ones you already created.
Over 80% of the plays never get used.
You want to end purges, fine, fix what is in there and clean up the pools.
All this adding of new plays that are 1% different is nonsense and goes against the spirit of custom plays creation.
The idea is to be unique and creative, not taking a good play and altering small meaningless aspects of it and calling it new.

And I kinda sorta agree with not demanding a play be used that week. I can see a submission on Wednesday and by Saturday realizing the play stinks.
But seriously, I am begging the custom play guys (who I really do appreciate) to stop sending new plays and go back and edit the old ones that clearly stink.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@ Justin - I see your point on rule #2. I've definitely had plays I thought would be in my PPP on Wednesday that ended up on the shelf by Saturday.

[Charlie-49ers]

Here is the way I look at a lot of these plays.

You have a Camaro. You take the nameplate off and put on a TransAm plate and you now identify it as a TansAm. Guess what? It is still a Camaro!

[Neil-Raiders]

There are so many things here to discuss that I don't know where to start. But before I do, I want to thank Charlie and Rich for all the time and effort they have put into the PNFL over the years (well before my time). Clearly it has been a labor of love for both of them and while the league has obviously benefited greatly, I'm sure at times it has felt like a thankless job. There are a number of things that I disagree with in their recent posts, but I don't want to just complain I'm hoping to promote discussion and to offer some solutions.

"It sounds to me like the real objection is the "clone". If the new play you create is a tweek of a play we already have and it improves it, then why can't we delete the old one?"
Because if I'm not the original author of a play then I can't request to have it deleted. Last week I adjusted an existing rollout out play (not a timed pass rollout). The only thing I changed in the play was the blocking logic of one player. I think that it will be an improvement over the existing play because it will give up less sacks over time, but I can't prove it. I didn't submit it last week because I had 4 other offensive plays that took precedence, but I was planning on submitting it this week. Will this play be considered a clone? I think it should be (I'll explain why later) but I also think it should be approved. It's possible that the new play it will prove to be better than the original which would benefit the entire league, but it's also possible that my tests were too limited and the new version won't be an upgrade. So if I submit this play will this be allowed or disallowed? In my opinion it should be allowed in a custom play league and I shouldn't have to worry about it.

"Or better yet, why can't you just edit the stuff you already submitted."
I can't speak for anybody else, but if I can improve a play I already submitted I will absolutely do that. In fact, I was planning to do that with one of my plays this week as well.

"We do not need all these new plays each week."
Sorry Rich, but who are you to make this claim? We all put varying degrees of time and effort into the league and it is our choice how we spend that time. Per Charlie's report, a majority of the coaches don't submit plays on a regular basis, but those who do do so because: a) they enjoy it and it keeps them invested in the PNFL, and b) they believe it gives them the best chance to win (or at least be competitive).

"What is needed is for you and the other creators to fix their bad plays already in the pool."
How do you know their plays in the pool are bad? It could be that adding a clone play makes sense because it will likely be better than the existing play against the upcoming opponent. The other issue is that there are many perfectly fine plays IF you have personnel similar to the original author's personnel. I have a number of players that are literally 3-4 seasons from being in their prime so existing plays don't necessarily work with my roster, but making some personnel adjustments without changing logic (a clone) can make a difference.

"If it were up to me, I would place a moratorium on ALL new custom plays. If you want to edit existing plays, have at it."
Well if it were up to you then I would quit. This also doesn't make sense. You seem to be implying that each coach has personally authored a large set of plays that are in the play pool and all we need to do is go in and 'fix' our own plays. My understanding is that the vast majority of the current coaches have few original plays in the custom play pool (I have very few) which means that if I edit an existing play (a play that wasn't originally created by me) then by definition the result is a new custom play. You can't have it both ways.

"As for the other rules, having them by Wednesday is reasonable since if everyone has forgotten, Charlie is supposed to be coaching the 49ers."
I'm not aware that anyone has had an issue with the deadline, but I'm not privy to all those conversations. I discussed the submission deadline with Charlie when I joined and I feel that he was willing to work with me and I appreciate it. I don't think I've taken advantage of it and I agree that if I miss the deadline in any given week then too bad for me.

"On the "you must use" rule. I'm neutral on this. A case can be made the quicker its in the pool, the quicker other coaches get to use it."
I was not aware of this rule. A couple of weeks ago I submitted three goal line pass plays but didn't put them in my gameplan that week. I did this for two reasons: a) Due to "life" reasons I wasn't able to adjust my profile in time for them to be used (i.e. they could have been placed in my gameplan, but they never could have been called because my profile wasn't set up to call goal line passes), and b) I realized after the fact that two of the three were timed passes which would have put me over 50% timed passes for that category. These were hardly nefarious reasons and I wasn't trying to game the system, but now that I'm aware of the rule I will make sure I abide by it.

"I would be more than happy to dump that rule if we adopted my moratorium on new plays and you can only edit existing plays."
Already discussed.

"But, at the end of the day....Charlie is the one who spends hours making sure the plays are legit. I support whatever he wants to do since its his time. I would not react well if coaches started telling me that I need to play the games when they decide they want them played."
I'm not aware that anyone is telling Charlie what he has to do. He is telling us what we have to do without any previous warning and some of us are pushing back. Charlie is the play gatekeeper by choice and it is my understanding that he does not allow outside assistance. It is a somewhat disingenuous argument to say that Charlie doesn't have time when he insists on doing it all himself. Dean's suggestion of a three-man committee to review plays has a lot of merit. This is not an attack on Charlie's ability, it's simply recognition that Charlie invests a lot of time and effort but that sharing the load would allow Charlie more time to invest in his team while allowing custom play makers to continue to create plays without additional restrictions.

"We are all giving up time that could be better utilized and while I appreciate Dean's passion, Charlie has been the gatekeeper for 24 years when it comes to custom plays."
This is possibly the worst argument of all. Just because something has been done a certain way for a long period of time does not mean that it should continue to remain that way. I'm in full agreement that Charlie has done a great job for many years AND fully believe that if custom play gatekeeping can be achieved more efficiently moving forward (while also benefitting Charlie) then that should be explored. In addition to gatekeeping, Charlie has also had 24 years of play creation. I don't think I've even had 24 weeks. I joined the PNFL in large part because of the ability to create custom plays. For me that starts with cloning some existing plays, then by modifying some existing plays, and then hopefully creating some new plays completely from scratch, but it's a process to understand what works and why. If I'm not going to have the same opportunity to go through that process that all previous coaches have had then the league doesn't hold much value for me.

This is from an earlier post from Charlie:
"For example, SF3Xqout is a good play. So now I should allow SF3Yqout; SF3Uqout; SF3Vqout; SF3Zqout; SF3Aqout; SF3Bqout; SF3Cqout; SF3Dqout; SF3Eqout; SF3Hqout; SF3Iqout; and SF3Jqout without changing anything except the intended receiver? Let's assume that there is a designated secondary receiver, say SF3XoutZ. Now I can leave the play as is and change either the primary or secondary or both, which makes for probably fifty or more clones of the play with different combinations of receivers. Now, let's pack the game plan with the required five plays for Pass Short Right. Wow, five plays, all different, but the same!"

Yes, all the variations of SF3Xqout should be allowed. However, here are some suggestions on how that could be approached:
First off, I don't understand why a play has to start with the team's abbreviation. After the first week's submission the play becomes common property of the league so it should just be named that way from the beginning. For example, 3Xqout is created and submitted and then placed in the common play pool. Two weeks later I want to clone it, but I want to use the Z receiver instead so 3Zqout is created. Everything about the play is exactly the same except for the intended receiver. Now we have a 'clone tree'. Any other variation with a different receiver is added to the tree. However, as Charlie states, perhaps multiple receivers are changed, and 3XoutZ is created. Because of the play's origin/naming convention it becomes part of that play's clone tree, but to avoid the dilemma that Charlie discusses above we can only use two plays from a clone tree in a category. To make it easier for Charlie (and/or the committee) all submitted plays should be required to have a brief description of the play that explains how the play was derived. For example:
4Yout2R is a variation of 4Yout1R
2DsloT is a clone of 2CsloT
6ZnewT is an original timed pass
If it's discovered that a submitted play is a clone/variation of an existing play the submitting coach will have to rename it to match the existing play tree or the play is rejected. There will likely be some arguments over this, but if Charlie or a committee rules a play is part of a play tree I don't have a problem with that because I still get to use the play, it just limits what else I can use with it, and for me that is a fair compromise.

To be honest, I don't expect that enough people will care enough for this to make a difference, but I think some type of compromise should be exercised here. Even limiting 'clone' submission to 1-2 per week would at least be something I could work with, but if everything I submit moving forward is going to be rejected then what's the point?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Here is the way I look at a lot of these plays.

You have a Camaro. You take the nameplate off and put on a TransAm plate and you now identify it as a TansAm. Guess what? It is still a Camaro!

Really really bad analogy, and even worse it is factually just not true at all. There is a company that takes stock Camaros brand news, and completely upgrades and revamps them into what they believe a TransAm should be if it was made. Here is their site:

https://transamdepot.com/current-models-2-2/

This is not related to PNFL or even football. But a statements so way off base warrants correction.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Some solid logical arguments and good points made by Neil, our new Las Vegas team owners, above. I like the idea he presented about cloned plays and the compromise that he suggests. If we go from having 1-2 versions of the KC crs playing with the X and A receivers as primary receiver, to the point of having Z, Y, B, C, D, H, I, and U versions, OF COURSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE we do not want anyone loading FIVE versions of the KC crs plays at their 5 PSL plays. This is unrealistic and unbalanced, and also unwise, because if someone scouts you and expect that they load up with best 6 RL defenses that stop the KC crs plays and call RL in the same situations where they expect you to call PSL offense. As a result, your short passing game sucks because it was so unbalanced by using 5 KC crs plays. But for the rules, limiting us to just 2 of the several KC crs plays out of 5 makes sense. This is a good compromise.

On another issue discussed. Let's say that a play named JJ1AcrsH is not used much, and only gets 5.7 yards per catch and 56% completions. I revamp this plays and get it to 75% completions and 8.8 yards per catch, clearly improved and worth using in a game plan regularly. Do I submit this as AT1AcrsH as a new play, or do I submit it as that and ask for JJ1AcrsH to be replaced by my play? Also, this would be an old JJ plays submitted several seasons ago, in this example, by the old Jax coach Eric Davis, not something recently submitted by the current Jax coach. I think it makes sense to upgrade and revamp old plays submitted by coaches that are no longer in the league therefore not here to revise their plays.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think there is still some talking around the same things. The game has a limit on plays in the folders. This means we should be cognitive of that fact as we create/tweak plays. This problem is increased by so many teams moving a bunch of times. I will admit that teams making plays is to my benefit, but Charlie has a point when there are a lot of plays there sure look identical to me from a pixel standpoint and names on casual looks. I mentioned previously I see a different personnel package as a different play, but if the play has the same primary and secondary routes with the same personnel package and only changes say the secondary to WR3 instead of WR2 is that a different play. I say no.

Rich saying a play is bad is because we have a few prolific simmers. If no one in the league has used a play for 3 or 4 seasons, this means it does not work and by definition bad. When I switched to Washington, I went through the DL plays and deleted all that sucked. I sent the names on a spreadsheet to everyone and minimized the DL plays to only those that worked. Now we do seem to have the same plays with multiple team designations. Maybe they are different, but I see Charlies point as well. Polish/update the plays you have submitted even with a different current team designation, but do not submit as new.

Lastly, I have played Charlie on occasion and I think it is fine to have a short discussion on the aspects of a play to determine if it is approved and tweak it to get it so. The issue is the sometimes life or death like aspect of it. It's a play in a game we do for fun with 10 other plays that are trying to accomplish the exact same thing to the defense with the route trees. Yes a pixel or two can make a difference, then delete the original and move on if you own the play, but do not over argue.

Bottom line is make your 8 plays, take the info from Charlie if sent, politely clarify your and his intent if needed and make a change to satisfy him or accept a no. Look to make the play pool better or meet your personnel package and help minimize play bloat and everything will be fine.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Goodness gracious....

Here's a compromise:

- Reduce in-season custom play submissions to 4 from 8
- Adjustments to existing plays do not count in the 4 submissions

- Allows coaches to continue to submit as they have, just slightly fewer plays each week.
- Reduces the load on Charlie for review new plays
- Promotes adjusting current plays