QB draws proposal

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I propose the following:

GAME PLAN REQUIREMENTS:
*No more than 2 plays can be a QB draw in RM*
*No more than 1 play can be a QB draw in RL, RR, GLR*

PLAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS:
RL/GLR - The QB must dive forward from under the center to ensure the QB draw is executed like a QB sneak.
RM/RR - The QB must start from the shot gun or sawed-off shot gun to ensure it is executed like a QB draw instead of a QB sneak

My reasoning:
It is absurd that we statistically limit the chance of QB draws being called to 20% when using RM (25% if we change to an 8 play requirement), but massively increase those odds to 50% for RR and RL (if those play categories are used). Are we trying to just limit the chance of QB draws being called on 1st down? What's the goal here?

RL in particular should rarely call QB draws. The 1st season PNFL rules defined RL as: "Short-yardage run, typically with beefed up personnel, most often extra tight ends. These plays are called on 3rd & 1 during the normal course of things or when trying to run out the clock at the end of the game. In contrast to RUN MIDDLE plays, little attention is paid to downfield blocking in the play design." Some will argue that QB sneaks are often called on 3rd and 1, but if so, then the QB should be only allowed to dive forward, not rollout or go off tackle for QB draws to be saved as RL. We have several QB draws in the RL pool that clearly aren't QB sneaks/dives.

Allowing 2 of 4 RR to be QB draws makes it more of a college game than a Pro game so long as we continue to allow RR to be used on 2nd 6-10. If we limited RR usage to the situations outlined in the original 1st season PNFL rules, it makes this loose requirement more realistic, but it's simply excessive when we currently allow RR to be used on 2nd 6-10. This was the original definition of RR: "3rd down runs from spread formations. These plays are from 3- or 4-WR formations and are designed to pick up at least 5 yards against defenses keying on the pass. They are also called in hurry-up situations and sometimes on 2nd and long."

And to the proposal haters. WE WERE TOLD WE CAN MAKE PROPOSALS IN THE OFFSEASON. GET OVER IT.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I'm surprised there are no thoughts on this proposal. This is an easy rule to implement and makes sense for an NFL style league. I'm changing it slightly for GLR because I don't think there should be a QB run restriction on GLR. We should be allowed the option of 100% QB sneaks at the goal line or on 4th 1 with GLR plays.

The changes I'm proposing are:
1. No more than 1 play can be a QB run in RL & RR
2. No restriction on the number of QB runs in GLR
3. RL/GLR - The QB must dive forward from under the center to ensure the QB draw is executed like a QB sneak.
4. RM/RR - The QB must start from the shot gun or sawed-off shot gun to ensure it is executed like a QB draw instead of a QB sneak.

This improves the realism of our league when it comes to QB runs. It ensures QB runs aren't called more than 25% of the time. The specification on what constitutes a QB run by category further drives better realism. The more specific play design requirements would be a 'going forward thing, not retroactive.

Thoughts?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

In deference (capitulation?) to the No Changes Syndicate, I am now focusing this proposal on changes that will not affect their existing profiles and gameplans.

For the sake of improved realism, I propose the following play design rules for QB runs going forward:

1. RL/GLR - The QB must dive forward from under the center to ensure the QB run is executed like a QB sneak.
2. RM/RR - The QB must start from the shot gun or sawed-off shot gun to ensure it is executed like a QB draw instead of a QB sneak.

For the sake of improved realism, I propose we loosen the QB run requirement for GLR in gameplans. A team should be able to go 100% QB sneak in GLR allowed situations. Limiting this to 33% or 50% is unrealistic. The new rule would be:

- There is no restriction on the number of QB runs used in the GLR category in offensive gameplans.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I had not read this yet, but this one has a good rationale and I don't think it has any major impact and definitely gets to the PNFL ideal. I actually agree with the definitions and see no real problem. It would be interesting to see what others think.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Any other thoughts on this? I will formally create a poll post to vote on this if there are no arguments against it.

For the sake of improved realism, I propose the following play design rules for QB runs going forward:

1. RL/GLR - The QB must dive forward from under the center to ensure the QB run is executed like a QB sneak.
2. RM/RR - The QB must start from the shot gun or sawed-off shot gun to ensure it is executed like a QB draw instead of a QB sneak.

For the sake of improved realism, I propose we loosen the QB run requirement for GLR in gameplans. A team should be able to go 100% QB sneak in GLR allowed situations. Limiting this to 33% or 50% is unrealistic. The new rule would be:

- There is no restriction on the number of QB runs used in the GLR category in offensive gameplans.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Chose to leave out loosening the number of QB runs used in GLR in game plans because we realized it could be massively abused under 5 minutes. The vote will purely focus on the play design differences by category for QB runs.

[Charlie-49ers]

I had not read this yet, but this one has a good rationale and I don't think it has any major impact and definitely gets to the PNFL ideal. I actually agree with the definitions and see no real problem. It would be interesting to see what others think.

Holy Crap! If Jerry is in agreement that Steve is not proposing a solution that is looking for a problem, then I am on board

[Jerry-Redskins]

[James-Eagles]

Chose to leave out loosening the number of QB runs used in GLR in game plans because we realized it could be massively abused under 5 minutes. The vote will purely focus on the play design differences by category for QB runs.

I disagree. Not because I think it is a bad suggestions. I just don't think it is need. Besides compared to the NFL our QBs barely run as it is now. Top PNFL rushing QB was Mac Jones 304 yards. That would be 14th in the NFL in 2024. QBs running isn't a problem if anything we need to be increasing them and boosting them. Currently only 1 QB had over 4 yard per carry with more than 10 attempts. That QB only had 11. That isn't even one carry a game. While in the NFL the top 25 QB from rushing yards only 1 is below 4 yard per carry.

[James-Eagles]

I had not read this yet, but this one has a good rationale and I don't think it has any major impact and definitely gets to the PNFL ideal. I actually agree with the definitions and see no real problem. It would be interesting to see what others think.

Holy Crap! If Jerry is in agreement that Steve is not proposing a solution that is looking for a problem, then I am on board

But he is wrong on this one