Various Proposals

[Jerry-Redskins]

Forgot to add that what Justin is stating what I feel mostly. No issues with discussions and potentially changes, but we should identify a real consensus issue before any actions. The league is strong and to go along with Justin our FBPRO 98 World does not change. The software will always be the same and we have tweaked to where we are at over many years. There is likely nothing to change in a way. Of course we are humans and may stumble upon something that gets too good as we are all looking for that edge.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I agree with Justin and Jerry here for the most part. The only major issue I see is that we need to define what we want PRD to be. If you intend it to be a hail mary type pass then let's limit it to those situations. I think a good compromise would be to open up the PLR to allow for something similar to PRD and leave the Hail Mary lobs as PRD. Maybe make the PLRs check passes and PRDs the timed lobs? I'm sure we have enough smart guys that we can work out something here. I just don't think something intended as a Hail Mary needs to be thrown ALL the time.

[Brian-Broncos]

It may feel less chaotic if instead of proposing rule changes right away, people post their ideas for a rule change in a General post, and then once things are flushed out and there seem to be several people in favor of that idea, then they would post it in a new forum setup specific for voting on rule proposals. Plus, this new forum would be good to have sort of a history of rule changes, including why a rule was imposed.

Then people can ignore all the talk and discussions if they want until it becomes more serious if they'd like.

Or maybe have two new forums: One for discussing rules ideas (just to keep them out of General since there currently are a lot of rules threads right now) and the other for voting and history of actual proposals.

In general, I like striving to make things match the NFL as closely as possible, so do like that ideas are brought up and discussion occurs.

[Brian-Broncos]

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.

Here is data for Cam Newton and Lamar Jackson in seasons they started 14+ games - ran more often than I realized and with higher average yards than I realized:

Code: Select all

Cam Newton         
Year   Rushes    Team      %        AVG
2011   126       445       28.31%   5.6
2012   127       462       27.49%   5.8
2013   111       483       22.98%   5.3
2014   103       473       21.78%   5.2
2015   132       526       25.10%   4.8
2016    90       453       19.87%   4.0
2017   139       490       28.37%   5.4
2018   101       416       24.28%   4.8
2020   137       502       27.29%   4.3

Code: Select all

Lamar Jackson
Year   Rushes    Team      %        AVG
2018   147       547       26.87%   4.7
2019   176       596       29.53%   6.9
2020   159       555       28.65%   6.3
2023   148       541       27.36%   5.5
2024   139       554       25.09%   6.6

Things should be pretty close to NFL rush amounts as they are, except all QBs are doing this rather than 2 or 3, with up to 20% RM and 50% RL and RR (and 67% GLR? - this isn't clear in the rules!) 30% RM is too high.

I REALLY like the idea of limiting it so only a couple of QBs qualify for running 20+% of the time in order to match NFL, so should be based on skill (aSP+aAC+aAG > 240??). Other QBs would be, in my ideal world, limited to 10% RM, 25% RR, 50% RL. However, something like this would have to have a planned future start date many seasons from now so teams can shoot for acquiring a running QB if they want.

[Charlie-49ers]

I am changing my approach to the suggested changes and adopting Jerry's philosophy; if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it!

Stated differently, make the case that something needs to be fixed and how it will enhance the game.

To address some of the issues presented in other threads, adding additional PRD and RRD defenses does not address an existing problem, and there is no compelling reason to adopt this. As such, I consider this one discussed and rejected.

The modification to the QB runs was interesting and well thought out, but again, it does not address an existing problem, and there is no compelling reason to adopt this one either. As such, I consider this one discussed and rejected.

Use of the Offensive PRD pass and under what conditions is still an open issue. A restriction to existing rules appears to be in order, but I am still considering the possibilities.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Maybe limiting PRD isn't the way to go for now. Maybe it's best to restore the peace and not make any changes. I already made one enemy out of this and don't want any more. Maybe we collectively focus on making better defenses to stop PRD in short and long situations.

In my opinion, the category that needs real attention is PLR. Maybe we focus on making PLR great again. Pun intended. Maybe we simply design better PLR plays. Maybe we allow timed lobs in PLR where the endpoint of the Timed Lob pass cannot touch or exceed 30-yards 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). I sent Charlie a timed lob PLR play to test out. The end point of its lob doesn't touch nor go past the 50 in the Play Editor. Purely up to him to act on this or not.

[Dean-Atlanta]

That's a great idea, if we allowed timed passes on PLR from 15-25 yards, I think this would bring back PLR and cut down on the usage of PRD.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

That's a great idea, if we allowed timed passes on PLR from 15-25 yards, I think this would bring back PLR and cut down on the usage of PRD.

Start with lob only though. No bullets. And end point is between 15-29.

Nailed it about the relationship between PRD and PLR. We shouldn't limit PRD passes if PLR isn't able to provide more than it currently can with regard to deep passes. Let's make PLR great again and if we succeed in that, then we can relook at limiting PRD passes later.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I do not believe timed PLR's is the answer at this point. I get that maybe it could be enhanced some and allow PRD to be restricted and balance things. No issue with sample plays and having people test things. The long slow full look is what is needed. The mixing of ideas get us into the ripple and unintended effects without through testing. I believe we should focus on PRD as it's own issue.

As noted there has always been a reason why almost 100% of leagues limited timed passes. The games defense just does not work right and timed passes have a tendency to be too good. We would need to tread carefully

[Dean-Atlanta]

I do not believe timed PLR's is the answer at this point. I get that maybe it could be enhanced some and allow PRD to be restricted and balance things. No issue with sample plays and having people test things. The long slow full look is what is needed. The mixing of ideas get us into the ripple and unintended effects without through testing. I believe we should focus on PRD as it's own issue.

As noted there has always been a reason why almost 100% of leagues limited timed passes. The games defense just does not work right and timed passes have a tendency to be too good. We would need to tread carefully

What then do you suggest we do to improve PLR?