Defensive Formation Issue

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think we are going too far in the discussion. We have a new meta with the successful 2 DL PM plays. I do not believe we should stifle creativity or devalue 3 decades of play files. Things run in cycles and someone will sort out how to work against the 2 DL PM plays. A modest tweak like the proposed 50% rule that ensures all current plays can used and still vary formation to be realistic is a way better way to go if we do anything at all. If we make changes, lets be incremental. HTTR

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Not so sure about limiting 50% of our Pass Medium and Pass Long defenses to 2-DL defenses. That's crazy to enforce. Commishes already have to check for category minimums, number of rollouts on offense, number of QB runs on offense, number of timed passes up to 50% in offensive categories, and making sure def profiles have PS, PM and PL on 3rd downs.

It would probably be easier to just move all the 3 DL and 4 DL Razzle Dazzle Passes to Pass Long and move all 2 DL plays from all other categories (PS, PM, PL) into Razzle Dazzle Pass. Then they are in one category and you can limit its usage to long yardage situations and less than 5 min to go.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Run Right: Long-yardage running Plays disguised as passing Plays (e.g. Draw Plays).

RR is longer running plays, all 2-DL plays there instead and allow the following catories with 2 DLs to be saved as RR:

RL since it covers more passing
RM not as RR
RR 2 or 3 DLs
PS, PM, PL with 2 DLs only

imperfect but it could work

[Steve-LA Chargers]

@Dean - the RR you quoted is for offensive running plays. That would not work. If we put them all in one category, Razzle Dazzle Pass makes the most sense because 1) its 'prevent' intent can be suitably addressed by PL and 2) Charlie wanted to reduce pass rushes in this category anyway (it's possible to have a pass rush in 2 DL plays only if you use other positions to bring it)

[Dean-Atlanta]

ok

[Charlie-49ers]

It would probably be easier to just move all the 3 DL and 4 DL Razzle Dazzle Passes to Pass Long and move all 2 DL plays from all other categories (PS, PM, PL) into Razzle Dazzle Pass. Then they are in one category and you can limit its usage to long yardage situations and less than 5 min to go.

This has some merit, not because it is easier for me to monitor, but because it is more like the NFL. Contrary to any argument that Team X did this on short yardage in 2015, or team Y does this on second and short inside their 20, the NFL norm is that 2-DL is clearly a long-yardage prevent defense and usually late in the half or end of game to protect a win. I am sure that there is 1-DL defenses out there rarely and maybe no-DL defenses too, but we are not going there. The 2-DL Pass Short is most likely gone, and possibly the Pass Medium too, based on the argument above. What we do with the 2-DL plays, when we allow them and where they end up is open for further discussion.

[Mitch-Oilers]

The more I think about it, the more I like the concept of 2-DL plays being in the Razzle Dazzle category. However, I think there is a place for both 2-DL pass short and pass medium.

2-DL plays are unconventional in the concept of the "regular" formations/personnel in the NFL. Razzle Dazzle is meant to be unconventional. I believe 2-DL pass long and pass medium should be in the Razzle Dazzle Pass category. The 2-DL pass short plays should be move to the Razzle Dazzle Run category. Then, you can restrict the use of Razzle Dazzle plays to only 3rd down unless under 5 mins in each half.

[Rob-Broncos]

First reaction is simple 2 DL % limits in PM and PL, along the lines Charlie initially, would be preferable to combing through profile changes... which sound less enjoyable than a Covid test with a 12 inch swab. But as a rookie coach here would defer to others.

[Rob-Broncos]

Did not see the Redskins post, before I submitted my last post (rookie coach error). I think I basically agree with the Redskins. I am also sympathetic to Chargers comment and don't want to create more work for Rich and Charlie.

The reality is the 2 DL defense can certainly be beat and one way (just ask Shawn and Justin) is with inside runs (that it seems the league wants to increase). In a XFBS championship game a couple seasons ago Justin successfully ran a lot of inside runs against a 2 DL defense to win the championship. Other coaches, e.g. Dean, have successful ground games in the XFBS. Shawn has also run offenses that made it look like Jim Brown was in the Syracuse backfield shredding certain 2 DL XFBS defenses. There are inside run plays in the playpool that will defeat a 2 DL defense. Last season in the XFBS Iowa lost its starting QB for the semi-final game and ran a inside runs over 60% of the time (as I recall?) and defeated a good LSU team that ran a lot of 2 DL defense.

It does feel good to pound out a lot of inside runs and win the time of possession. But it becomes a chess game trying to guess if you are going to get a defense that will allow you to do it consistently... and that chess game often occurs in the playoffs. So, bottom line, I think I am just supporting the point the Redskins made in a previous post.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

If we don't put them all in PRD and there is still a strong desire to limit their usage to obvious passing downs, then the obvious fix is to limit us to only using RR, RM, and RL on 1st and 2nd 0-2, 3-5, and 6-10 situations between the off 5 and def 5. This ensures they are only used on obvious passing downs and ensures no changes to the play pool are needed at all.