2-DL Defensive play Poll

[Matt-Jacksonville]

What should our rule be for 2-DL defensive plays?

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

[Charlie-49ers]

Well, I am doing this on my phone, so my focus is not as good as if I was on my computer, but here goes.

1) Unlimited across the board is off the table!
2) The DLs can line up on the LOS anywhere from the Center to, but not touching the field numbers. As such, as they move to the field numbers they do not have to be in a 3-point stance. At or inside the Tackles they must be in a 3-point stance.
3) PS and PM go to 50%.
4) PL goes to 75%.
5) PD goes to 100 %.
6) Three players MUST be defending the LOS (DLs in run or pass rush or read. LBs and DBs MUST be run or pass rush or blitz, NOT read.

I do not have access to the rules, so #6 might need tweaking. In short, LBs and DBs defending the LOS cannot in any way be covering a receiver, a zone, or reading the play. They have to be rushing the QB.

[James-Eagles]

Personally I think 2 should restrict all DL and LB between the field numbers.

While I am in favor of unlimited. I think any movement on this issue is a step in the right direction. IF we are going to use DE to address edge players, then I believe their attributes need to be changed. OLB of the 98 era would be edges in today's game.

As for 6 I believe there still should be max of 8 DBs and the number of people defending the LOS should never below 3 and but should have a different requirements for PS PM, PL, PD . I am not sure what they should be. I don't think PS and PM should have 8 people in coverage.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I think our rules for the 2049 season should include the following:

1. Unlimited use of 2-DL defenses in all passing categories

2. 3 men defending the LOS and our current rules on run-focused and pass-focused defense applies to all defensive plays

3. DEs, DTs, and LBs within the field numbers on all plays

I think these rules should apply to all plays, current and new, ad older plays adjusted as needed. If we have to fix some old plays again to make this happen, it is worth it if we really want these changes implemented.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I have always believed the option to get into a pass defense with an edge type makes sense. I'd rather do it this way than mess with attributes. This way still leaves the same issue. Going to smaller but faster guys opens up both space and size to run the ball at the 2 DL defenses. What they gain in speed and maybe (who knows) confusion for the OL, they lose in running in my opinion. Style options and more answers for teams that throw a lot is a good thing and makes the run game more of an option.


I support what the Commish wrote above.

[Charlie-49ers]

I agree with DLs & LBs inside the numbers.

I do not like unlimited to start with.

I do not like 2-DLs for PS & PM but will go with the group for some increase.

[James-Eagles]

While I like to see us move to where 2DL can become a base defense. I agree with Charlie in that it probably is better to not do it right away. I think the bigger thing is bringing LB and DL in. I agree numbers are a good start, though I have always thought it should be just outside the OL. This should open up sweeps.

I also agree with Dean that old plays need to be fixed for the DL/LB positioning.


I might be in the minority in this, but I like to see the number of players required to defend the LOS in PS and PM (maybe PL) moved up to 4. I don't think it is realistic to drop 8 in coverage outside of prevent defense (I could be wrong, but even in prevent they usually send 4). Standard pressure is rushing 4 after all, even in 3-4 defenses. This could help offset some of the negatives that could be generated by allowing 2-DL.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

@James - I'm glad you brought up LBs and DEs outside the numbers. I'd like to see it required for those positions lined up inside the numbers vs mysteriously coming off of the sideline on a sweep or rollout play.

Also, if we don't move to unlimited use of 2-DL plays, please use a percentage easily multiplied into 6. EX: Instead of 75% of plays using 2-DL, use 67% (4 of 6).

[Justin-Chicago]

Mitch, not everyone just uses six of each category in their plan. 75% would encourage those who want to include more 2DL to include more plays for that category to begin with.

Personally, still OK with 50% though. I was the leave as is for now vote.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Disagree changing more old plays. We made the decision to grandfather those as is. The prior last minute changes will more impactful than it originally seemed. Lets just set the new % and leave everything else the same. The only issue in my opinion is the %. The rules are good otherwise

Have to use 6 in most categories on D