Play Design - Just curious...

[Mitch-Oilers]

Let me start off by stating I'm not advocating for a rule change...

I'm curious to why we don't require DLs and LBs to all line-up between the numbers and within 5 yards of LOS inside the play editor. The exception would be in M2M coverage logics.

It seems odd to have LBs lined up on the sideline in some plays and lining up 10 to 15 yards off the ball in non-prevent formations in other plays (which I use so I'm not saying it's wrong to use them since they are approved in the play pool).

As I think about it, this is more like using the LBs as Ss which might be why we see a lot of formations with 5 to 6 CBs and a lack of Ss being used. Especially since most LBs are only a few points shy in SP of most Ss but have a much higher ST rating.

I'm just curious why it hasn't always been a restriction.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I'd actually love to see more realism like this on defense. Basically a reverse of the QB/RB box, but for LBs and DL. It would definitely require us to use more Safeties to be able to do what all those LBs and DEs are doing now outside the "LB/DL starting box." The clean up would take forever though, so would only be able to be a going forward thing.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I think it has to do with game limitations.

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, this is a good point worth discussing! Ideally, NFL-like LBs are no deeper than 5 yards from the LOS and definitely inside the field numbers. However, I have probably messed up over the years by allowing too much flexibility with the LBs. In a very quick review of the game's stock plays I did not find LBs deeper than the LOS nor outside the field numbers, which is not really a motivating factor, but NFL-like.

For example, let's take one of the SF plays, SF34RM3C. Although the LBs are not deeper than 5 yards of the LOS, they are clearly outside the field numbers. With their superior ST, they are clearly protecting against the off-tackle and end run and possibly the screen pass. In the NFL this formation would have Safties covering this area of the field. To make it more NFL-like, the SF LBs should probably be where the CB1 and CB2 are positioned, which would not restrict them from moving to their originally designated logic point. This would probably give a slight edge to the offensive play and make for a few longer runs.

Play design going forward is an easy fix; all plays utilizing LBs must be within 5 yards of the LOS and must be inside, not touching the field numbers. If that is acceptable, we can implement it with Week #9 Custom plays. Now, the question becomes do we modify existing plays or grandfather them? Some of these plays might be difficult to modify, so the alternative is to delete them, maybe based on past use. Thoughts are welcome.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

With anything we need to think about BOTH sides of the ball in order to maintain balance.

I would say implement the new style moving forward only and grandfather these in for now pending more data. Then I would take some time to get some data as to what effect this change may have. Are our current S's able to stop the sweep and off tackle plays we have currently or would we need to adjust the offensive side as well. Decide in the offseason or postseason for implementation in the offseason, whether we want to modify/remove existing plays.

Above all we need to make sure we maintain the offensive/defensive balance, so we don't have scores/stats too high or too low.

[Jerry-Redskins]

This is the 2 DL discussion again. Where do we draw the line for design around current NFL? We cannot recreate the current NFL as the line is blurred with S/LB and LB/DL. Current NFL edge type players are FBPRO LB's and current NFL LB types are FBPRO S's. That was the 2 DL discussion. The NFL is only using 1 or 2 DL a lot today and putting smaller faster players as the edge. You have max 2 traditional LB's at most and usually 1 these days as again the NFL is user larger S's as LB's and having them also cover.

I'm not sure we want to go thru the same disagreements again. We also have our roster built for the current rules and the game forces 5 LBers min. These rules would need additive S's to maintain balance against offensives and make you want less LBers probably. I'm a PNFL idealist, but not sure we should turn the boat around this far. I see us in a very good spot at the moment. I'm interested to see the discussion, but this might tip the balance big to the offense.

[Neil-Raiders]

I have all kinds of thoughts…although I don’t know that they make any difference.

First, I’m generally in favor of rule changes that reflect trying to simulate the NFL as long as they are reasonable and don’t negatively affect gameplay.

That being said, why would a significant play design rule be implemented in mid-season? Once a season begins the season should be completed under the rules that were in affect when the season started (that should actually be a league rule). Teams trade, draft, and DESIGN plays guided by the rules, how is it fair to change the rules on a whim? Of course, if the problem was a newly discovered AI-buster than that would make sense, but this is primarily an aesthetic issue.

In addition, a rule is a rule, and a play is either legal or it isn’t, you can’t ethically grandfather illegal plays because it’s too much work to change them. This is another reason that if this change were to take effect, it should happen during the off-season when there is time to make a good decision and to effectively implement the solution.

Perhaps an even bigger issue is how is overall gameplay going to be affected? From my perspective there currently seems to be reasonable parity between offense and defense in the PNFL. While I don’t have a problem with this rule suggestion per se, my concern is that it would devalue LB’s. Even with the PNFL’s relative position ratings, DB’s are still way too good as multi-purpose defenders compared to LB’s. If we want to make the PNFL more realistic we should be stricter in limiting how many DB’s can be in a play. The typical PNFL plays has at least six DB’s and there are many with 7 which is completely unrealistic (outside of prevent defenses). Limiting DB’s (and further decreasing their ST) would potentially increase the value of LB’s and would help off-set a placement limitation.

And if we’re going to address LB placement as unrealistic, why aren’t we also addressing 50-yard timed passes? What NFL team has a 50-yard timed pass in their playbook that has a 25%+ completion percentage that they can pull out in a ‘Hail Mary’ situation?? Why do we allow ‘starters’ on special teams plays? Although that happens in the NFL it is the exception, not the rule. I had a home league where I restricted the players (within reason) that could be used on special teams. It made for some interesting (and not unrealistic) results and from the GM perspective it forces you to keep some guys on the roster because they would be useful on special teams (just like a real coaching staff does).

The PNFL is a great league, and with some changes it could be even better. But rule changes shouldn’t be taken lightly and they shouldn’t be implemented piecemeal if a more comprehensive plan would achieve better results. A good example of how this should be approached were the changes primarily proposed by Jerry that stopped the trading of players without a contract and the new practice squad rules. While they weren’t directed related, they were rules implemented as a coherent package and they were done in the off-season which at least gave us some time to prepare for the upcoming season.

And finally, in a league as established as the PNFL I shouldn’t have to worry that a play that I literally designed this week (and was approved) is going to be illegal next week.

[Jerry-Redskins]

To answer Mitch's original question. In my opinion, it is because of the pass happy online league thing and the min 5 LB active in the software. It all boils down to you are kinda stuck using some LB's and FBPRO is easy to get to the edge on sweeps and the general tendency of all online leagues to pass all the time. The evolution is:

1. I have to use LB's somewhere
2. I need to stop outside runs and the angles taken by D players is a negative
3. Teams pass a ton
4. Teams will throw 5 yard passes all day

The final evolution; LB's on the edge and being outside in passing lanes to defend offensive tendencies

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Actually six and seven DB defenses are more common than you think. Modern day Quarter defense uses seven DBs.

[Mitch-Oilers]

As I said in my original post, I'm not advocating a rule change.

Though I think it would create some additional realism by restricting LB placement, I think ultimately it would cause more issues than it's worth.

If we were still using a "purer" version of the VPNFL system, I think the adjustment would be easier because there were more restrictions on personnel within the play categories. However, it likely would create a mess now.