PNFL

This happened early in the second quarter of my game at GB:

Atlanta's ball on Green Bay's 17 yard line. Third and less than 12 to go.
13:23 left in the second quarter. The score is Atlanta 0, Green Bay 3.

Atlanta's QB1 #1 Justin Fields runs for a loss of almost 5 yards. Fields is
tackled by Green Bay's LB3 #56 Jerome Baker. Fields is shaken up on the
play. Fourth and just over 16 to go. That was ATF0ELOB (355) against
MN23PD02 (353).

Justin Fields got injured and in the post-game league files was p-1. At P-1 a QB is at 90 percent of his ratings but still plays. And plays very poorly...extremely poorly. He played well up to that point, and after that came in and out of the lineup wioth the backup QB (who played badly too) because the injury lowered his EN. Here are his ratings:

A QB1 1 Justin Fields P-1 2 0-0 0 77 79 80 96 70 84 92 83

At P-1 and down 10 percent, he was playing at and below (due to EN) these ratings:

69 71 72 86 63 76 92 83

You would not even sign nor play an FA QB with those ratings.There are some aging 20-something aged QBs in the FA pool that look like that.
The 75/80 substitution requirement in the rules is highlighted as a problem here. If it were not for this being in the rules, I think most of us would set substitution at 90/92 for QBs to prevent an injured at P-1 QB, who obtained that injury during the game,from playing during that game due to his P-1 injury that renders him useless but does not sit him on the bench since he was not sent to the lockwer for X-rays for a more serious injury.

I think we should discuss, in this upcoming off-season, eliminating requirement from the rules.

A 90/92 setting would prevent an injured P-1 QB from playing, after having obtained that injury during a game. I think we should have the ability to use that setting for this reason. An injured QB completing 30 percent of his passes, yet still playing (something that would not happen in a real life game) renders a team's passing game almost non-existent and likely to lose the game.

Fields went 2 of 9 with an INT after being shaken up. Later in the game he was shaken up a second time and did not return in the game. Would "shaken up" be considered a concussion now?

I kind of see what you are saying. However, your back-up had more pass attempts than your starter and played just as poorly.

I watched the game. GB was pressuring your QBs all game and disrupting plays. Defensely, GB was moving up and down the field at will with big play after big play.

My guess is the first injury did not make him P-1 and the second one did. Hence why he played again. I also agree with Mitch. The poor pass protection with 8 sacks probably was the major factor

I think there is enough here to warrant a discussion in the offseason. I for one would like to see us move the ability to sub out up a bit as it might allow for lower EN QBs to see the field a bit more. However, I'd like to see some more data(testing) on this.

There was testing done before the change was implemented a million seasons ago and a one time occurrence with no known cause does not say we need to look very hard in my opinion. I believe QB Fields would not have come back in the game if the EN and ratings were 10% down unless QB2 was worse in which case it was the right move.

This rule has nothing to do with injuries. If I recall correctly, the commishes implemented it to prevent coaches from keeping their starting QB refreshed throughout the game with a (too college-like) dual QB attack.