Various Proposals

[Matt-Jacksonville]

4. Redefining the use of Offensive PRD plays is a good thing. Initially adopted as the NFL version of the “Hail Mary” the PNFL has expanded its use. So, let’s get back to the original intent, which will take a little work on the Offensive side of the ball. BTW, what I think we are talking about is the PRD Lob passes. As such, only new custom PRD plays will be the Timed Lob passes. So as not to disrupt current PPPs, existing non-PRD Timed Lob passes will remain in that folder, unless there is an overwhelming request to move them to the PLR folder. For now, I suggest the following for the use of Offensive PRD plays:
a. Under two minutes and any down in either half.
b. Any time and any down where a team is behind by 8 or more points.
c. Any time and any down where the yards to go is greater than 10 yards (not 10 yards).

I can agree with a, but b and c have got to go. If we want to get back to the intent of this category to be "Hail Mary" type passes, then these two make no sense. B and C would allow me to throw deep if my opponent goes down on the opening kickoff and scores and gets a 2 pt conversion. At that point, I can use PRD anytime till I score and cut that lead to less than 8 pts. This is not a Hail Mary situation. If I take a big sack on 1st down and it ends up 2nd and 15. I can then throw deep until I get a 1st down or cut that distance to less than 11 yards. This is not a Hail Mary situation.

[Charlie-49ers]

I got distracted and lost my train of thought! It must be age-related!

I am going to revisit this in a couple of days after I take my meds!

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

This is why I'd rather not start these things every offseason. They just spiral out of control more and more with ever increasing changes and tweaks. Hence the Shawn thoughts and James mostly. The league is strong and competitive. There is actually no need to make any changes in my opinion. This makes it better for folks to keep learning to get better. Ever change starts some of the getting better learning curve over.

We should have true focused discussions I believe. It is better as I stated before to get agreement of a problem versus competing proposals right away. If you have no consensus on a problem, you will never get consensus on a solution, as you are trying to solve different things and we are humans looking at things all differently. I see no problems to fix, but have no issues with a minor thing here or there that has little to no effects on game play which is mostly what Steve is doing.

He is trying to discuss things, but we are rushing to votes probably and dropping fixes for a problem we have not agreed on. I also like the offseason to destress. Discussing changes in a hurry just creates a little stress when we should be tweaking and analyzing data to tweak our PPP's with out the weekly game deadlines. We could have these discussions over a long period even during the season to help develop a consensus on the what and then move to how.

Shawn has thoughts?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Apologies on making it feel like I was rushing things. After it seemed like we had some good debate, I wanted to get some voting done before the real offseason began. Ironically it was done with the intent of getting it over with so coaches could focus on PPPs and GMing. My bad.

[Jerry-Redskins]

You are right, if there are going to be changes, the sooner the better. I just think we should have longer term discussion slowly during the season. Take our time. What is currently happening has been more the norm.

[Justin-Chicago]

I hate all of this. This league has had pretty much the same profile rules all along, and it's never been an issue. Everyone here has agreed to it because it makes sense, or we can make it make sense. Leave the profiles alone.

Where we've run amok, if we have, is by tinkering, not with profiles, or plans, but with plays themselves. For instance, the problem with PRD, if there even is one, does not exist in isolation, and shouldn't be addressed as such. We allowed a new type of PRD on a trial basis a few seasons back, and it's been successful (my opinion but perhaps a minority opinion?)

By tinkering with what's allowed as PRD some of those plays have been made superior, in aggregate, to PLR plays.

We should have other priorities, such as looking to improve PLR plays to better compete with PRD.

Or adjusting ratings to actually allow run after catch so that bombs aren't the best/only way to gain chunks of yards.

Do it with plays.

My 2 cents.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I hate all of this. This league has had pretty much the same profile rules all along, and it's never been an issue. Everyone here has agreed to it because it makes sense, or we can make it make sense. Leave the profiles alone.

Where we've run amok, if we have, is by tinkering, not with profiles, or plans, but with plays themselves. For instance, the problem with PRD, if there even is one, does not exist in isolation, and shouldn't be addressed as such. We allowed a new type of PRD on a trial basis a few seasons back, and it's been successful (my opinion but perhaps a minority opinion?)

By tinkering with what's allowed as PRD some of those plays have been made superior, in aggregate, to PLR plays.

We should have other priorities, such as looking to improve PLR plays to better compete with PRD.

Or adjusting ratings to actually allow run after catch so that bombs aren't the best/only way to gain chunks of yards.

Do it with plays.

My 2 cents.

I agree we may need to look into ways to make PLR more efficient and relevant than they are now. I've been trying to make new ones the past couple of seasons, but their success has been hit and miss. If we do anything to help the category, maybe we allow not so deep lobs in PLR (the endpoint of the Timed Lob pass cannot touch or exceed 30-yards or from the LOS). This would differentiate their lobs from PRD because for PRD the endpoint of the Timed Lob pass must be 30-yards or greater from the LOS. Charlie would have to be the one to make that call. Dean, Charlie and I could create some test plays to pilot it. Maybe test them in the PCFL first even. I think we need to take advantage of the PCFL as a testing ground a lot more.

[Brian-Broncos]

5. NOT MENTIONED: QB run play design. I think we should only limit the design of GLR to be under center. Leave the other categories 'as is.' Only requirement is must be under center for GLR. If you want to rollout or dive forward, do what you like.

But then how can we mimic Matt Eberflus' Chicago Bears offense? They ran shotgun on 4th and 1 all the time. One time for a 12 yard loss. If people want to do dumb things, we should let them.

You have to pause your ad blocker, but it is worth a watch:
https://www.colts.com/video/highlight-colts-defense-denies-bears-with-huge-12-yard-loss-on-4th-and-goal

Here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=valTfHBnB1Q&ab_channel=HighlightHeaven

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

5. NOT MENTIONED: QB run play design. I think we should only limit the design of GLR to be under center. Leave the other categories 'as is.' Only requirement is must be under center for GLR. If you want to rollout or dive forward, do what you like.

But then how can we mimic Matt Eberflus' Chicago Bears offense? They ran shotgun on 4th and 1 all the time. One time for a 12 yard loss. If people want to do dumb things, we should let them.

You have to pause your ad blocker, but it is worth a watch:
https://www.colts.com/video/highlight-colts-defense-denies-bears-with-huge-12-yard-loss-on-4th-and-goal

Here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=valTfHBnB1Q&ab_channel=HighlightHeaven

Yeah you and James made valid points. I think the QB run play design proposal is dead.

We could explore the game plan side of it (currently gets called up to 50% of the time for RR, GLR and RL and only 20% for RM). Maybe we consider allowing 3 QB run plays for RM instead of 2. This would bring it up to 30%. I think James even mentioned we are behind the curve compared to the NFL statistically.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The issue with going to 30% is the NFL only has a few QB's that can do that on a routine basis. At one time, the rule was the QB had to be over 75 SP to have two QB runs in a plan. This is where Mitch is correct, because our QB's are all Lamar like kinda and over the 75 SP. I wonder what others think?

Anyone have data they put together that shows the QB use % in RM ? The QB runs are also relatively successful. As James noted we had a high scoring season, so does a change make since in that perspective? Not sure.

I know I only use 1 or 0 normally. I have no proof, but my QB seems to be less effective passing when they run more. If a team appears to be susceptible, I will have 1 in RM and RR for sure, but RM is 0 sometimes.