Problem - Offensive PRD Use

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, we are no longer going to discuss solutions that are looking for a problem! The use of Offensive PRD plays, specifically the Timed Lobs, has been identified as a problem in certain situations. As such, this thread opens the discussion on how to address the issue that is in the best interest of the PNFL. Be constructive and courteous in your responses. After a week or so of comments, if there appears to be a majority of an opinion or two, we will take a vote.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Maybe others have concerns about the use of timed lob passes in PRD but I don't. I just need to get better at defending them.

For me it was just odd that PRD was allowed in 3rd 2-5 with > 5 min. But after watching Ohio State throw a deep pass from a short yardage situation to end Notre Dame's come back in the national championship game, maybe it is realistic and should be allowed.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Two differences with ND in my opinion. They could see the formation and players to adjust and long pattern options can be built into PS, etc. Issue for me has always been an offence being able to max protect and run a 100% long pattern when you are in a standard time and 3rd and 2. Commish sim has no option for the D to adjust.

[James-Eagles]

Two differences with ND in my opinion. They could see the formation and players to adjust and long pattern options can be built into PS, etc. Issue for me has always been an offence being able to max protect and run a 100% long pattern when you are in a standard time and 3rd and 2. Commish sim has no option for the D to adjust.

This has always been my thing from the beginning. It is the same with 4th down, also. In fact I remember bring this up to Charlie, Rich and Jerry a couple season ago after a couple coaches used them on 4th and short. We have to have restriction on offense because defenses aren't allowed to adjust to the personal changes. I would say my feeling on it over time is that PRD needs to be moved to the final 5 minutes. I don't think it is as effective as people think but it creates a play calling problem for defenses.


I kinda disagree with Charlie saying this is the only problem that needs addressing. There has been many talks about how complex the Profile rules were. That is why if you look at what I proposed it address both of those. I like to add I don't see anyone leaving soon. I think making the stuff simplier without hurting the flexiblity is key. You look at the rules that have been very successful it is the rules that take away the complexity for complexity sake. Let's be honest the Profile rules have been adjust over time to become a choatic mess. I bring this up here because it is connected.

[Justin-Chicago]

No concerns here. It’s a realistic option for the offense. I understand where Jerry is coming from but that’s why 1st and 2nd down are so restrictive. That is the compromise, as the lion’s share of plays happen on those downs.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Do not completely disagree Justin. Been looking hard at data this week and I think part of the issue is I play against a team or two that do it most often more than others over the last couple of years. It is not that widespread across the league based on what I see as I look deeper. I still think it is untenable for the defense to have to defend the 35% to 45% odds on 3rd and short of giving up a 45 yard play with those odds. Easier thing may just be to tune down the % of the timed passes in the category.

Either way at this part of the offseason I'd just like to make no changes and continue discussions for later. This is the time to dig deep in the PPP and not knowing the rules limits my ability to make decisions on it.

[James-Eagles]

While I agree with Justin and Jerry here for the most part. I do think there is stuff to discuss.

[Jerry-Redskins]

My comment was worded badly. It meant to continue the current discussions, but do not want to have to change stuff any later in the offseason now. Does not mean there can't be things but they can wait to next season for implementation.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I don't have any problem with PRD plays (including 50% of them in a game plan being lobs) as they are now.

I think they should be used in 2 min offense, last 5 minutes when a team is behind 8+ or in downs like 2 and 10+, 3rd and 10+ where they are currently legal.

There are plenty of good PL and PRD defensive plays (and ability to create new ones) that stop them.

[James-Eagles]

I don't have any problem with PRD plays (including 50% of them in a game plan being lobs) as they are now.

I think they should be used in 2 min offense, last 5 minutes when a team is behind 8+ or in downs like 2 and 10+, 3rd and 10+ where they are currently legal.

There are plenty of good PL and PRD defensive plays (and ability to create new ones) that stop them.

I think this comes off as a clear not understanding of the problem. Of course we have plays to stop it if we didn't it would be AI issue and be banned. It is about the dispairity of the plays being called. No way is a NFL defense going to be face a hail mary play while in a PS Defense. In the NFL these plays have less than a 10% success rate because defenses called against them.

https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2012/09/hail-mary-probabilities.html