Those hours invested in creating news plays...

[Dean-Atlanta]

Could be better spent doing other things, PNFL-related or otherwise.

I'm just keeping with real with you all. Some of us have put extensive effort into creating news and unique plays, and some times not so original but improved versions of plays that exist. Either way this effort benfits all and all 18 teams use the plays a few of us are creating. For those who NEVER submit a new play, filling your game plan with the creations submitted by those who DO, is like custom play welfare and some of you are free loaders benefiting from the efforts of the plasy creators. Some =of you might be offended by that, but I am keeping it real. It's true. It's fine, submitting new plays is OPTIONAL, but guess what I think is NOT optional, unless you want the play books to go totally stale and never have any news plays: appreciating and supporting the efforts of play creators. Because the issues that have come up, and new draconian rules Charlie announced in email, risk the scenario in which play creators will decide that time is better spent doing other things. Then yiou no klinger have new plays being created.

There is no such thing as a "semi clone" play. A play is either a clone or it's not a clone. It's like a woman being pregnant or not, no one is ever testing positive for being "semi pregnant." If material changes are made in a play, the pass protect is substantially improved, the WRs route(s) are changed to improve it, etc. it is a new play. These are based on if a play performs better, not how it LOOKS in the play diagram that make someone think it looks like that KC crs play therefore it's a semi clone. BULL$HIT. If the play creator made it work better than the KC crs play by improving it, it's a new play. If it fits in the same place in gameplans as the KC crs play and replaces it, we will all use the newer version, abandon the older one, and the KC crs play get pourged for not being used when the next purge is done.

Those on custom play welfare should think about these issues, before play creators just stop submitting plays. You can support these draconian new rules, but realize what cooked this goose five seasons from now when the KC crs play that can't be improved with "semi clone" versions is all y ou have, and no one is submitting new defenses to stop the KC sloT plays so you're stuck watching your defense being burned by those.

So there it is...make a choice, support the efforts of play creators or get ready to have stale play books for the long term. If you think making new plays, open up th eplay editor and try it. I want to see your short passing p[lays that get at 70 percent completion for 8 yard per catch or more, against our current defenses. Try it. You will see how easy it is.

Or support those who do.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I see this in a few ways. First, I do appreciate those that create new plays. I also understand the commish's position. I think it is not unreasonable to create as many plays as you want and as you test and sim to only submit once they will be in the teams plan for that week.

The clone issue I see both ways. A pure clone should not be done, but I do see changing it with different personnel packages as not a clone or changing most of the routes and blocking as a different play based on the same concept. My roster is built for 11 personnel. I would run all 11 personnel plays if I would create the plays for it. Unlike others creating plays is not what I enjoy the most. I have occasionally changed the personnel in a play and think that is different. if there is no "clone" with 11 personnel. I do agree with the commish that clones create issues. I abuse them a little myself in game plans being honest, but I'd like less of it as well. I do see value if I have a "WR" named play and I tweak it, but it is 99% the same, to just save over the prior play to not add to the bloat. Tweaking a pixel can make a big difference, but the same play with one pixel difference I worked to improve should be deleted or saved over.

All of the above means, I support the commish but hope we can get new and improved tweaked plays in and have no issue with submitted plays needing to be in the plan that week. We can debate how to do bigger updates in the offseason. I have done big deletes of my created plays with new submissions in the off season

[Charlie-49ers]

New Draconian Custom Play Rules effective Week #7:

1) Plays must be submitted by Wednesday midnight (east coast). No exceptions!
2) I you submit and have plays approved for a week, those plays must be in your game plans.
3) Appropriate penalties will apply if you violate Rule #2.
4) If someone thinks of something else necessary for Custom Rules, let me know.

Discussion of play development:

As I understand it, we should pack the play pool with any play that is different than any other play! 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!

Does anyone see what I am trying to avoid?

[Dean-Atlanta]

We have drastically reduced off-season submissions to fewer and fewer plays, this is going in the wrong direction. We should allow more. If we are being realistic, an entire game plan in the off-season since some NFL team re-desogn their playbooks in the off-season.

We should allow unlimited revising and revamping of our own plays in the off-season. We should also allow some old plays, submitted by coaches no linge rin the league, to be improved and replaced when sim data shows an old plays can be improved.

[Charlie-49ers]

So, I should spend my entire off-season evaluating your new 250+ plays. We cannot get through eight each week without exchanging fourteen emails!

What is your idea of the right number of new off-season plays? Now, take that number and multiply it by the number of teams that might send in new Custom Plays in the off-season. Does anyone want to drop out of the League and just review and debate new Custom Plays?

[Dean-Atlanta]

The "packing the play pool" claim is a straw man arguments, no one is submitting 5 versions of one play by just changing the first receiver checked each time. Ridiculous argument and you know it's ridiculous. NONE of us are doing that and you know it. Bad faith argument, please put your dunce cap on and sit in the corner for ten minutes.

#1 is reasonable, my plays are almost always submit well before Wednesday each week.

#2 is unreasonable and objectional, unless we allow more off-season submissions. I create many plays in the -off-season and submit 20 in the off-season then 4 off/4 def per week for future planned use in future game plans, but no necessarily this coming week. But I submit NOTHING that I do not plan to use in the future. Requiring they be specifically used this week is unreasonable and unrealistic.

#3 is unnecessary. And it is a slap in the face to those who take the time and effort to create new plays.

#4 we have enough rules, we could use to eliminate some before adding news ones.

The Wednesday deadline is good. I suggest getting rid of the rest, it's not necessary and is an over-reaction.

New Draconian Custom Play Rules effective Week #7:

1) Plays must be submitted by Wednesday midnight (east coast). No exceptions!
2) I you submit and have plays approved for a week, those plays must be in your game plans.
3) Appropriate penalties will apply if you violate Rule #2.
4) If someone thinks of something else necessary for Custom Rules, let me know.

Discussion of play development:

As I understand it, we should pack the play pool with any play that is different than any other play! 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!

Does anyone see what I am trying to avoid?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Straw man argument again, you're being ridiculous. 20 offensive plays and 20 defensive plays in the off-season per team is not a lot, that is reasonable, not 250 plays.

If you don't like the job don't do it, or maybe there should be a 3 member committee that reviews plays instead?

We didn't get through 8 without fourteen emails because someone looked at a defensive play and rejected it for having 5 bumps and I have seen the play and it has ZERO bumps it in, it has 3 men defending the LOS, four DBs/LBs in read, a safety who has if run, conservative pursuit, if pass aggressive pursuit, and no further logic. The other 3 DBs are in M2M without bump. How you saw 5 bumps in that play I do not know. Maybe it's time to make an appointment with an eye doctor for an exam?

You rejected one oif my defensive play earlier in the season claiming it had 5 bumps and then I proved to yiou it had only THREE and we fully compliant wiht the rules.

Making ridiculous arguments about how many emails and plays does not fly when we look at the real reasons for the number of emails and the root causes.

So, I should spend my entire off-season evaluating your new 250+ plays. We cannot get through eight each week without exchanging fourteen emails!

What is your idea of the right number of new off-season plays? Now, take that number and multiply it by the number of teams that might send in new Custom Plays in the off-season. Does anyone want to drop out of the League and just review and debate new Custom Plays?

[Charlie-49ers]

The intent, maybe before your time, was to submit Custom Plays for the upcoming game to surprise your opponent, which is why only you can use it that week, not to stockpile for future weeks. Rule #2 is clearly in line with the spirit and letter of the rule.

Submit it and use it, or do not submit it.

[Charlie-49ers]

We can discuss the off-season in the off-season.

[Rich-League Officer]

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?
Or better yet, why can't you just edit the stuff you already submitted.
We do not need all these new plays each week.
What is needed is for you and the other creators to fix their bad plays already in the pool.

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.

As for the other rules, having them by Wednesday is reasonable since if everyone has forgotten, Charlie is supposed to be coaching the 49ers.
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 would be more than happy to dump that rule if we adopted my moratorium on new plays and you can only edit existing plays.

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.
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.