GAME PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSAL:

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

The problem is there is a lack of consistency with the required passing categories in that they don't all require 5 plays. This number ensures these categories only meet the 50% requirement for timed passes if coaches exceed the 5 minimum. If you have 5 PML, only two can be timed passes and three must be checked passes. If you add a 6th play, then you are allowed to have another timed pass. The 5 play requirement was intentionally set to ensure that in most cases, our gameplans won't be too heavy with timed passes and rollouts. So long as PRD and PLR only require 4 plays, they are getting special treatment compared to the other passing categories. The ask is that we apply what is required for PML, PMM, PMR, PSL, PSM, and PSR to PLR and PRD as well for consistency.

In a separate thread I have suggested we reduce the PRD play requirement, no longer make them required and limit them to Hail Mary situations. If we go forward with that then we can focus this proposal purely on PLR. No need to reduce RM even.

If PRD is reduced to a 2 play requirement and only used in Hail Mary situations, then I will reduce this proposal to one change only: Require 5 PLR plays to make it consistent with the other required passing categories. Otherwise, I will continue to push for 5 PRD 5 PLR 8 RM,

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I'd like to hear the history if possible as to why they were set to be inconsistent in the first place. While I know the inconsistency drives OCD coaches crazy, I don't think we need to change it till we know the history and the "WHY." Making changes without understanding the "why" may lead to unintended consequences. I agree with Shawn and Jerry. We don't need to make any changes that are purely cosmetic or unnecessary at this point because the league is doing well.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Just in case everyone does not realize it, you do not have to have every category in your game plan. There is plenty of room to call 6 plays in most pass categories if you want to. It is a personal choice already.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

This is not about freeing up slots. That’s just a possible perk.

I’m only trying to make the category minimum consistent for REQUIRED categories so the limits for timed passes and rollouts apply to them similarly. PLR and PRD are currently required, so should require 5.

I don’t think PRD should be required though. We should make it optional. If we do that, then only PLR needs to require 5.

[Jerry-Redskins]

If that is the purpose, it is already doable as I noted. No reason to force it.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

So not getting it.

I give up.

[Dean-Atlanta]

If that is the purpose, it is already doable as I noted. No reason to force it.

Allowing increased flexibility is forcing the use of that flexibility? Really? Do you also believe the freedom of speech is forcing you to speak?

You argue AGAINST flexibility by saying it's already possible, then make increased flexibility sound like it's being forced.

Moxs needs to send me some mushrooms so I can try to understand this inverted and twisted logic.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The reality is I think is that Shawn is 100% correct. There is nothing identified that needs to change and it gets old to have tons of proposed changes thrown out constantly. You have to get people to agree to a reason/problem first. Not change this and that.

It is not added flexibility being discussed. It is different flexibility. Do not get upset when others do not see a current or future issue being solved. The supposed issue was just to make things match. Now at least there is some reason with timed passes, but do we need to lower other things to force the extra room that. Lowering the RM is a major change. It is the category with the most potential play calls. I agree with James on that. Just don't use both RL and GLR in your game plan and you can call more of the pass categories if you want 50% timed in it.

Just get others to see a problem or need first before throwing out proposals on how. With out a true game play problem it appears many of us just want to not rethink some parts of the game and want to focus on getting more out of the current construct. There are nuances in the game plans and PPP's teams put together that you figure out and get better. Changing the rule means starting at 0 again in some ways. Hard to get to the finish line if it is changing.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

It’s obvious that my detractors are only open to changes if it is a reduction or clarification in requirements that won’t affect their current profiles and plans. Any adjustments such as requiring one more PLR for consistency or limiting the use of QB runs in RL/RR to the same % as RM will be viewed as disruptive. It’s not really about wanting a problem to be solved as a requirement for consideration or a resistance to sensible improvements; it’s a dislike for any change that makes them edit their current stuff in any way. They can pontificate all they want about lack of problems to solve as their defense, but the truth is they simply prefer continuity and stability at all costs even if it smothers out innovation and improvement.

As such, I withdraw this proposal so as not to be disruptive to their existing profiles and plans.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Not against change. Why a change? What for? What are we preventing or improving.

The other is yes, even though my PPP and plan change every week as needed. This is a game that only one or two plays makes a difference in outcome in most games. So I care very much about even a small change in game play. I'm will never say no to a change that improves the game play and/or league. Sell me on a why timed pass consistency matters and is important when I can already set them to 50% now with no rule change One change can create issues in others. I work to identify those few play nuances each week and get an edge. Just for consistency sake seems to not create a need for anything in my opinion.

Example is 5 PLR is a category that many teams almost never call. It is used for true 10 to 15 yard 3rd downs in my plans. This rarely occurs and I set the % low as they plays are not as successful as many of the PMR's. Why take away the ability to be more varied in a more called category to increase it. If it is just to be the same amount, that in my opinion makes zero sense. I can see having a discussion on making it easier to get to 6 on pass plays to get to 3 timed at 50% or making it harder to go to 6 if that is seen as too many timed. That would be a valid thing to discuss. I do not see an issue, but it can at least be something to talk about.

Better example is PRD. I saw a trend a few seasons ago and cried about it. No one else saw an issue. Turns out I was mostly wrong. The timed PRD's are still too successful in my opinion, but the trend numbers over time drifted to a lower success rate. I know I spent time studying and slowly tweaking to solve some of the issues, which I assume we all did and that is why the numbers dipped. I'd like to limit them more for the realistic part, but not sure it should happen now.

Throwing out a personal solution and others not liking it based on impacts and non impacts is not the way to handle it. It should be; hey do others see and issue with too many timed passes as it is generating to high a completion % the last couple of seasons. Here is some data I see.

I said this earlier. Its hard enough to get into other owners minds each week. If I see nothing improved why make it harder by changing things every season and starting over in figuring things out. Lay things out. get buy in, then get agreement on a solution. Every off season getting multiple things popped up is just getting old. I'm trying to figure out how others are valuing players to make roster decisions as the weaker drafts are changing how some people are doing things. Do not want to focus on changes to the PPP's already being affected by the weaker players. Plenty to work on and think about to succeed next season as it is.