Idea for timed PLR passes

[Dean-Atlanta]

Our current rules allow timed passes to be 15 yards or shorter using bullet passes, and 30 or longer using lob passes, but only in the Pass Razzle Dazzle category.

What about using lob timed pass of 15-25 yards of length in Pass Long Right plays, and allowing only 2 of those per 4 PLR plays.

What do you think of adding this to give coaches an option in creating effective PLR plays?

[Mitch-Oilers]

My initial thought to this idea was, "sure, why not".

However, as I thought more about it, I'm now more cautious about making such a change. With PLR being allowed in 3 & 1 situations as well as 3 & 5, i believe this could cause some unrealistic play calls and results on 3rd and short situations. Especially, since PRDs are allowed on 3 & 5.

[Charlie-49ers]

For Lob passes to be effective the receiver must attain and maintain separation from the defender. The downside to Lob passes is that it gives the defender time to close that separation, which is why we have not had Lob passes in the League until a few seasons ago when I saw that it could work on PRD plays. I am not opposed to the idea but would suggest that first, no more than one could be in a game plan, and two, any team using the PLR Lob must have five PLR plays in their game plan as opposed to the current minimum of four.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I also believe the lob has to stay inside the zone. I'd like to see a batch of plays and test them as well to see the results before I would say yes. There is a reason every league I have been in had rules for times passes.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I also believe the lob has to stay inside the zone. I'd like to see a batch of plays and test them as well to see the results before I would say yes. There is a reason every league I have been in had rules for times passes.

Isn't 15-25 yards within the zone for PLR plays?

[Dean-Atlanta]

For Lob passes to be effective the receiver must attain and maintain separation from the defender. The downside to Lob passes is that it gives the defender time to close that separation, which is why we have not had Lob passes in the League until a few seasons ago when I saw that it could work on PRD plays. I am not opposed to the idea but would suggest that first, no more than one could be in a game plan, and two, any team using the PLR Lob must have five PLR plays in their game plan as opposed to the current minimum of four.

I think 2 out of 4 is fine, that is what is already allowed in PRD.

The problem with increasing the number of PLR plays to 5 is the fact that we are already at 64 plays total if all categories are used, which should be possible in a full game plan. If we are going to increase the number of plays in a category, it's an issue of budgeting those 64 play spots, we will need to decrease the minimum in another category.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - it doesn't mean we have to decrease the minimums in other categories, it means a coach has to decide which plays and play categories make the most impact on the game.

If you think 5 PLRs with a lob is going to impact the outcome more than 3 GLPs, go with 5 PLR.

[Dean-Atlanta]

@Dean - it doesn't mean we have to decrease the minimums in other categories, it means a coach has to decide which plays and play categories make the most impact on the game.

If you think 5 PLRs with a lob is going to impact the outcome more than 3 GLPs, go with 5 PLR.

Raising that number over 64 limits coaching choices, something I think has more serious consequences than any perceived benefits.

We don't actually NEED to raise PLR to 5 plays, we can limits LOBS to 1 out of 4 (25% of PLR) rather than 1 out of 5, which is 20%, that 5% difference is not enough to justify blowing the play limit budget. 1 out of 4 PLR being a LOB is still plenty sufficient a limit, right now we can used 2 timed PLR out of 4, so that would means you could use one LOB, one bullet timed pass, and 2 regular check receiver PLR plays.

That is NOT a radical departure from current rules. There is no real gain from raising PLR to 5 plays.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm still evaluating the concept. Dean. Please send a sample play or two. I'm testing to see what I think overall. I'm also like Mitch and not married to the minimum can't go over 64. I agree their should be a basic set of categories under, but things like PRZ, GL, etc. do not have to be part of that numerically. In reality, having above 64 would create more diversity, not less. It would promote slightly different styles.

I'm still open on all aspects still at this point. More testing and thinking to do

[Dean-Atlanta]

I have not developed any of these plays yet, I wanted to post the idea here and see if it attracted any interest first. When I do get one created that looks promising I will send it to you so you can test it also.