Allowing MORE plays to be used in commonly used categories

[Dean-Atlanta]

Some coaches believe it strengthens a game plan to use more than the required minimum in play categories that are used more often. This is more possible on defense where the league minimum is 6 plays each in 6 categories. Some teams uses as many as 8-12 in categories like RL, PM, RM, and/or PS.

This is less possible on offense and part of the reason, current rules requires the use of 5 each in lesser used categories like PMR and PSR and 3 each in GLP/GLR. Some teams will call the league minimum for PSR/PMR in the profile (such as 10 RM, 10 PSL, 1 PSR on 3rd and 2-5) which means in many games only 1-2 plays are called from those 2 categories that must take up 10 play spots in the game plan. This is a waste of play spots and leads to more repetitive calls of the other categories used in the 10-10-1 profiles alignments used. If we allow fewer calls of those play categories, and more plays to be included in the game plan, a coach will have the flexibility to use MORE, not fewer, plays in a game.

Here is the current league minimum for offense:

RM 10
PSL 5
PSM 5
PSR 5
PML 5
PMM 5
PMR 5
PLR 4
PRD 4
RL 4, RR 4, GLR 3, GLP 3 are optional
total 48 plays mandatory, 62 with all optional included

Here is what I think we should adopt, to allow coaches the flexibility to include more PSL, PSM, PML,PMM in the game plans, the most commonly used play categories in passing:

RM 10
PSL 5
PSM 5
PSR 5
PML 5
PMM 5
PMR 5
PLR 2 (50% timed or rollout)
PRD 2 (50% timed or rollout)
RL 2, RR 2, GLR 2, GLP 2 are optional (50% max QB runs or timed or rollouts)
total 48 total plays mandatory, 56 with all optional included

I think a game plan should still have at least 48 plays, but by lowering the lesser used category minimums, coaches will have the flexibility to use more PSL/PSM/PML/PMM which are used more often, allowing more plays overall to be called in a game.

I think we should seriously consider making this change for next season.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Then we need to restrict the use of the lowered play types more. Using less plays in a category simplifies the ease to hit on plays that work in a given week and increases the ability to only call one type play that category. This creates a way to call way less plays in a given week, which in my opinion dumbs down the game in ways and allows minimal play calls. As noted before it pushes the league toward all the failed leagues.

The sentiment is correct in the proposal, but it is a fact teams will take advantage instead and use even less.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Ij don't see anyone doing anything unrealistic with PSR and PMR but they could be restricted to use only on third downs wioth more than 5 minutes left in the the half.

Should GLP and GLR be restricted to use for downs like 2nd and 1, 3rd and 1, th and 1 and within 5 yards of the goal line?

Don't we already restrict PLR/PRD to 2nd and 10+ and 3rd and 10+ with more than 5 minutes left in the half?

Are these the kinds of ideas you have in mind that we should do if we lower the minimum number of plays in these lesser used categories?

[Jerry-Redskins]

You assume everyone will do normal calling. There will be folks who set it up to call the minimum plays and do the extreme. Just the way it is. This is part of why the PNFL has been better in my opinion.

[Dean-Atlanta]

If we want to prevent coaches from using minimalist game plans, which the current rules do allow, maybe we should adopt minimums like this:

RM 10
PSL 8
PSM 8
PSR 3
PML 8
PMM 8
PMR 3
PLR 2 (50% timed or rollout)
PRD 2 (50% timed or rollout)
RL 4, RR 4, GLR 2, GLP 2 are optional (50% max QB runs or timed or rollouts)
total 52 total plays mandatory, 64 with all optional categories included

The above numbers would cause ALL of us to use and call more individuals plays than the current rules require.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I think this idea has merit but no way the league allows any drastic changes like this unfortunately. I will try to test it out on my own though. Curious to see what happens.

[Charlie-49ers]

I think this idea has merit but no way the league allows any drastic changes like this unfortunately. I will try to test it out on my own though. Curious to see what happens.

We anxiously await your findings!

[Charlie-49ers]

I think this idea has merit but no way the league allows any drastic changes like this unfortunately. I will try to test it out on my own though. Curious to see what happens.

We anxiously await your findings!

Still waiting!