2-DL plays and EDGE players

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I've always viewed these as being similar to Barry Odom's defense rushing 3 and dropping 8. I'd be in favor of allowing 2 dl plays generously in all passing categories.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

My ideal version of the rule I proposed would be:

DEs can be anywhere between or on the field numbers and have no limits on dropping back into pass coverage. Before the snap, they cannot be further than 5 yards from the LOS. DE1 must always be the furthest DL to the left.

DTs must always defend the LOS and are not allowed to drop into pass coverage. Before the snap, DTs must always be in a 3-point stance between or on the hashmarks.

Not in favor the way it is written as I think many of these plays may not even have a DT. I'd add two words to it.

If used, DTs must always defend the LOS and are not allowed to drop into pass coverage. Before the snap, DTs must always be in a 3-point stance between or on the hashmarks.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Isn't the current rule for a minimum of 3 players to defend the LOS? If so, keep that in place, just allow more 2-DL plays to be used in gameplans since the NFL is using more hybrid/edge players vs traditional DEs.

No one has given any strong argument explaining how having more 2DL defenses in a gameplan and allowing them in the run categories equates to DEs being treated as EDGE.

I don't think that is the answer.

The only way to truly do this right is to edit the play design rules to give DEs more flexibility to be further away from the OL in 4DL, 3DL and 2 DL plays.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think what Mitch is getting at is the NFL is using smaller DL/LB type guys in what were traditionally DE positions. The idea I believe is that what are LB's in the NFL are the edge guys now. It simple puts a player with more speed on the end of the DL. You would sacrifice ST for speed. The rules already require the extra LB with 2 DL plays.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I think what Mitch is getting at is the NFL is using smaller DL/LB type guys in what were traditionally DE positions. The idea I believe is that what are LB's in the NFL are the edge guys now. It simple puts a player with more speed on the end of the DL. You would sacrifice ST for speed. The rules already require the extra LB with 2 DL plays.

Absolutely correct, Jerry.

@Steve - I'm not advocating for 2-DL plays to be included in run based defenses (RM, RL, RR), only PS, PM, PL and PRD.

[James-Eagles]

I am with Mitch and Jerry on this. This is addressing that the NFL is more of a hybrid player, if not a true position shift from the 90s.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Okay. I get it now.

Then what do want?

1) Allow unlimited use of 2DL plays in game plans for PS, PM, PL and PRD or
2) Increase from use in PS and PM category to 50% (from 33%) and unlimited use in PL and PRD (instead of 50%)

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I'm supportive of unlimited use of 2-DL plays in pass based defenses. However, I believe there are 4 options we can put in a poll for a vote:

1) unlimited use of 2-DL plays in PS, PM, PL and PRD categories
2) 50% max 2-DL plays in PS, PM, PL and PRD categories
3) 50% max 2-DL plays in PS and PM with unlimited usage in PL and PRD
4) No changes

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I haven't voted yet but I can see there have been 2 votes in the poll against unlimited use of 2DL and one no change vote.

Would love to hear some arguments against here. I'll vote for unlimited unless someone can convince me of the darkside of unlimited 2DL plays.

Keep in mind nothing would go into effect until the 2049 season and this whole thing could be vetoed by Charlie any time.

[Justin-Chicago]

I know there were reasons we cut back and limited the use of 2 DL plays several seasons ago. I can’t remember, what were the reasons? I bet Charlie remembers.
And what’s changed since then? I’m not sure.

One trend I do see is that our overall completion percentages are 51-63 this season. That’s notably below the NFL range and traditionally has been. And more 2 DL plays is likely to reduce that further.

So to me this is a pursuit of realism that leads to less realism. I don’t think it’s inherently bad, I just don’t know that it’s something we need.

Steve’s initial idea of getting DL more involved resonated better with me.