PNFL

Currently, no QB2 plays are allowed and profiles must have QB substitution set to 75/80.

It is being proposed to allow the QB substitution percent up to 80/85 for the first half and up to 85/90 for the second half. You cannot exceed these numbers on the upside, but you could be lower (e.g. 75/80).

It might be safer to gradually change this to see what kind of impact it makes, so maybe leave it as is in the 1st half but allow the higher percentage in the 2nd half only.

How do you vote?

If number 3 above wins then I think that we go down the road of 85/90 in the 1st Half and 90/95 in the 2nd Half. I think the following rule proposal would cover where we would like to go, or where we are heading.

F04: Quarterback Rules

9. In the 1st Half, the Quarterback Offensive Substitution OUT% must not be greater than 85% and the IN% cannot be greater than 90%. In the 2nd Half, the Quarterback Offensive Substitution OUT% must not be greater than 90% and the IN% cannot be greater than 95%.

Rich-League Officer wrote:I would rather see the QB% stay the same.
But, would be okay with limited QB2 designed runs.

If the QB% is altered, doesn't this bring up the possibility of QB2 throwing passes?
That's not NFL at all.

I think there have been a few rules where I pointed out. The way we were going wasn't NFL and we still put them in.

Rich-League Officer wrote:I would rather see the QB% stay the same.
But, would be okay with limited QB2 designed runs.

If the QB% is altered, doesn't this bring up the possibility of QB2 throwing passes?
That's not NFL at all.

I agree with Rich's thinking here. QB1 does not come into the NFL game to throw passes other than some extreme trick play or situation. Also seems backwards on the sub % any way. Seems like the number should be higher in the first half and lower in the second half. The guys get tired and will all be lower in energy.

I vote option 4:

Leave sub % alone and allow QB2s in a small package of plays.

I can't hear the PODCAST on my PC's. It is too low so I don't have the basis of the discussion, but it is a fallacy that QB2's are used in the NFL, run or pass. The NFL can't even find 32 competent starters. The QB% was set after testing to have INT's be closer to the NFL stats. Why would we change without a stated goal. James always says there are other repercussions to changes. This would seem to possibly be one


These seem to be changes looking for problem rather than a solution to one. Kinda change for change sake.

I think using QB in runs will turn out to be for EN only.

Mitch-Chiefs wrote:I vote option 4:

Leave sub % alone and allow QB2s in a small package of plays.

If someone wants to draft a 2-3 proposal options for QB2 plays and create a separate poll to vote on like this one, feel free. I simply felt we needed to see where this vote could go first because Charlie actually expressed there was a chance for a change.

I think there is still a wider divergence of opinion on QB2 plays. I only think they make sense if they are gadget, big plays in RR (only QB keepers outside the Ts) and PRD (roll outs only). I for one would vote against anything that lets them do pocket passes or run up the gut. I don't think they need to be RL or GR. Plus we'd have to agree on if they should be limited to 1 per category or limited at all.

Jerry-Redskins wrote:I can't hear the PODCAST on my PC's. It is too low so I don't have the basis of the discussion, but it is a fallacy that QB2's are used in the NFL, run or pass. The NFL can't even find 32 competent starters. The QB% was set after testing to have INT's be closer to the NFL stats. Why would we change without a stated goal. James always says there are other repercussions to changes. This would seem to possibly be one


These seem to be changes looking for problem rather than a solution to one. Kinda change for change sake.

I think using QB in runs will turn out to be for EN only.

Swayed my vote to NO CHANGE