GAME PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSAL:

[James-Eagles]

I don't see why this is a must. There is no need to adjust any of these. Plans aren't the confusing part of PPP it's profiles.

I agree we should look to make changes but this isn't an area that needs change.
1. We don't need extra slots we already have 2
2. There doesn't appear to be any abusing of the plays with lesser requirements
3. While there doesn't need to be something broken there needs to be a purpose and that is still lacking.

[Charlie-49ers]

The initial proposal is not a solution to a problem that we do not have. If we do not have new ideas for discussion, we never know if there is a possible enhancement to the game that we are missing. For example, a few seasons ago, I floated the new idea of the PRD Timed Lob pass. We tried it, and I think that the majority of the teams like it and use it. We never have to adopt new ideas, but we should discuss them. Now and then we will hit on something that makes the game slightly better.

[Brian-Broncos]

I HATE the idea of increasing the amount offensive PRD plays required. It's a hail-mary, should be a minimum of just 2 as it is. I'd much rather have more slots available for other things.

I also wouldn't like increasing RL or RR minimums since there's just not a need to have 5 of those plays. Currently, for RR, I can have 1 QB draw, 1 outside left, 1 outside right, and 1 up-the middle; increasing to 5 would mean I'd HAVE TO have one of those types called twice as much as the others, instead of it just being an option.

I already have software that can read game plan files - I just need to fix it to handle game plans with less than 64 plays (as I'm sure some of you have encountered in PdbToExcel - look for fix later this week.) For Charlie, not sure if he wants it or not, but I was planning to create a tool to test a game plan (or all game plans in a directory tree??) for play category requirements as well as counts/percentages of roll-outs, timed passes, and QB sneaks, and spit out PASS/FAIL.

For offensive game plans: Version 1.0 could just test play category counts. The other checks are a long way off since play names aren't consistent.
For defensive game plans: Version 1.0 could test play category counts and R&S counts/percentages.

Let me know if anyone would like a tool like this. It would be a Python script.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Pretty cool stuff Brian if you can get Charlie to use it. LOL

We currently require 4 PRD on offense, not 2. And we currently require 3 GLR and 3 GLP on both offense and defense, not 2 or 4 for those goal line categories. You can see the current requirements here:

OFF: https://pnfl.biz/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14
DEF: https://pnfl.biz/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15

I think for the sake of consistency, all 'required' categories should have the same number required. 5 is clearly the magic number on offense. PLR and PRD are the only two categories that currently require 4.

I think we should change it so PRD and PLR both require 5 as well. To make room for this requirement, we should reduce the RM requirement to 8. As James indicated, only 6-7 plays from the 10 currently required are usually called in a game. Reducing RM from 10 to 8 makes sense in light of this.

We are not asking for much here. We are asking to make PRD and PLR consistent with the 5 plays requirement for the other required passing categories and reducing the RM requirement by 2 plays to make room for this,

By requiring one more PRD, it will help address our other concern with the T-lobs being called too often. If I have two T-Lobs and three other pass-check PRDs, it reduces the chance of T-Lobs being called as much as they have in the past.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I've tabled the other asks for now. Not focusing on Defense at all. Not focusing on Goal Line. Not focusing on RL and RR on offense.

Let's focus purely on this proposal:

OFFENSE:
8 RM (-2)
5 PRD (+1)
5 PLR (+1)

[Brian-Broncos]

Regarding increasing PLR from 4 to 5, I don't hate it.
Regarding decrease of RM from 10 to 8, anyone know the history of why it is 10? Did it just seem most realistic or was it to prevent some sort of gaming of the system? It feels more realistic to me at 10 than 8.

Regarding the 15-minimum run plays idea: I was thinking this might work better as requiring 3 different run play categories, unless you want a team to run 8 RM and 7 RL or something. The problem is a team could have 0 RL calls in their profile, so then a team is running just 8 different run plays total, if RM minimum is lowered to 8, which I don't like. I'm guessing this is why RM was set to 10 minimum to begin with. Should remain 10.

Regarding the increase of Defensive Razzle Dazzle minimums, I don't like increasing the minimum. Unlike with other defensive categories, I think the lower number of plays used by a defense in these categories in particular, increases the chance an offensive play can be created that works and can punish teams for not using enough variety.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I think the reason they raised it to 10 was to diminish the QB keeper calls because only 2 QB keepers are allowed. But this is kind of a ridiculous reason when we allow half of the RR and RL to be QB keepers. In fact, I'd actually want to limit RL and RR to only one QB keeper, but that's another discussion.

Requiring 5 for PRD and PLR like the other required passing categories will also align them with the intent of these two other requirements for all of those required categories:
*No more than 2 in any category can be roll outs*
*No more than 50% in any category can be Timing Passes*

Currently, by requiring 4, we can get away with 50% of the plays in both categories being rollouts or timed passes. This is particular ridiculous for the rollouts. By increasing their requirement to 5 plays, we ensure these two categories are not 50% timed passes unless a coach chooses to go beyond the requirement and have 6. Requiring 5 for both PRD and PLR instead of 4 ensures these categories are consistent with what we are doing from a timed pass and rollout limitations of the other required passing categories.

[Brian-Broncos]

Focusing on just the following:
OFFENSE:
8 RM (-2) - NO (due to could have game plan/profile combo so only 8 different run plays are called and I like where it is at.)
5 PRD (+1) - VERY VERY VERY NO (should only need 2)
5 PLR (+1) - SURE

I would like to see changes to the other rules mentioned above regarding # of QB sneaks in RL/RR in particular and maybe the # of rollout and timing passes, as well as, James' idea last year to limit when offensive PRD can be called since it really is for "Hail Mary" situations.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I would be fine with reducing PRD to 2 plays if we want to make it an optional category and limit it Hail Mary situations. We would all need to agree what are considered Hail Mary situations.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Just for a quick drive by comment. I agree with several others. There is no discussion of any actual problem or enhancement in game play. There should never be a proposal to change. The discussion first should be for a need or reason to make a change. Then once everyone agrees there is a valid reason, possible solutions are discussed. I agree with James in this affects game play in a wrong direction. It lowers requirements for the most used categories and increases least used. That is not a good move in my opinion. This includes Charlies reduced proposal.

I agree with Shawn as well. Absent a clear defined need, we should have no talk on changes. The league is strong, competitive, and no game play problems affecting the balance I see. No need for any chances. The changes need to be in the individual owners working there team rosters and game planning. We are already working through the player attribute draft changes that will slowly tweak the teams. We should let that continue to play out as we adjust to determine strategies to deal with it.