designed plays for QB2

[Justin-Chicago]

I agree with Jerry, agreeing with James, keep any change minimal and incremental. So how about this compromise:

-only plays in categories GLP, GLR, RL, and PRD could feature a non-starter QB
-all play names for these plays could end in "Q2" or another symbolic suffix
-game plan use limited to ONE per category within the categories of GLP, GLR, RL, and PRD

I’m not particularly sold this whole concept is a “must have,” but if it’s done at all I do think this is on the right track. Up to two per category would be more accurate than one per category by my math but I can understand the apprehension. It would need interest from the custom play creators to go anywhere.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I think a few QB2 plays would add a interesting wrinkle to the gameplan. Here's where I'm at on the issue:

- QB2 plays only in GLR, GLP, RL
- Limit QB2 plays to 1 per category
- GLP and GLR minimum of 4 plays

[Barney - Vikings]

The original point of the QB1 only rule was to make QB EN important. Prior to this rule, everyone used QB2 to handoff. Considering all our QBs EN ratings are well into the 80s, EN isn’t much of an issue. The original motivation for the rule doesn’t seem that relevant anymore.
OK, so you put QB2 in a couple of times a game with fresh ratings and have him run for a first down on short yardage. Is there a problem with people making short yardage? This seems like a change without much purpose.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Just saying what is creative about using QB2 in a GL play? Not really anything creative than I can see someone coming up with. Hence my assumption it will turn into just a save EN thing and would need to be very limited to not disrupt the intent to have increased INT with the QB EN and Sub% rule that was established with a lot of testing by the commish. Is there some great creative thing we are missing to potentially affect the QB stats that makes this of any real value. I'm all ears, since I see nothing.

[Justin-Chicago]

If and when the ratings have a little less parity I think it would be more compelling.

Daniel Jones drives the field but Anthony Richardson may come in around the goal line, or on 3rd and short here and there, would be the idea.

I second Barney in thinking all the EN concerns are overblown.

I am against new play types or plan minimums, we are at a good balance between control and variety, and for offense and defense.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

If we use the existing categories, it definitely should be limited to 1 play per category in the 1st half and 2 plays per category in the 2nd half.

As for categories, I think allowing it on RL, GR, or GP would just turn QB2s into fantasy football touchdown vultures. LOL. I would be more in favor of allowing it on PRD and RR only. Considering both are categories with more big play potential, this seems like a better, more exciting fit.

I would not be in favor of QB2 simply handing off the ball. Must be a QB keeper outside the tackles only, a flea flicker or a deep pass.

Alternatively, we could ask the commishes to slightly loosen the substitution % requirement by half to be:
1ST HALF: set to 75/80 (current)
2ND HALF: set to 80/85 (could even be higher like 85/90 - depends on what % setting really does what we are trying to do)

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Amend that: Must be a QB keeper outside the tackles only, a flea flicker or a deep ROLL OUT pass.

We need this guy to actually do something cool. Not run up the gut like the starter QB. Not stand in the pocket and do a regular pass. Must do something exciting and different.

[Charlie-49ers]

Alternatively, no new QB2 plays but make the replacement percent 80/85 for the first half and 85/90 for the second half. You cannot exceed these numbers on the upside, but you could be lower (e.g. 75/80). So, if you want to gamble that your QB2 will not make a mistake while potentially resting your QB1 for a play or two then roll the dice.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Alternatively, no new QB2 plays but make the replacement percent 80/85 for the first half and 85/90 for the second half. You cannot exceed these numbers on the upside, but you could be lower (e.g. 75/80). So, if you want to gamble that your QB2 will not make a mistake while potentially resting your QB1 for a play or two then roll the dice.

This sounds like a good compromise.