PNFL Injury Idea

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen—diversity is a beautiful thing. As several of you have noted, the gap between the top players and the bottom players doesn’t feel very large; most (if not all) operate within roughly 95% of their potential. That was intentional in the early seasons to keep coaches engaged and keep the PNFL alive: compete on plans and profiles, not by waiting six seasons to finally draft a decent LB or CB. Recent drafts have produced more mid-range players and fewer true superstars. Stars still have an edge—just not a big one. The bigger issue, in my view, is that we don’t see enough injuries to force teams into their secondary and tertiary depth.

From the statistics I’ve seen, a typical team may have 10–12 players listed as Probable-to-Questionable heading into a game, and an average of about two players per team miss up to two games. The PNFL is well below those numbers across the league. If more players were being replaced each week—and especially if more players were playing through Probable/Questionable status, we’d see much more on-field disparity.
Because of that, I don’t think introducing more 90–95% players in the draft achieves the goal. Those players still won’t get drafted or used unless the overall pool is so small (say 150 players) that coaches have little choice in the later rounds. And since we can’t change the game’s injury algorithm in the programming, is that the end of the story? I don’t think so.

One option is for me—or any volunteer coach—to propose a simple, transparent “supplemental injury” process that adds a small amount of random attrition on top of whatever the game generates. For example, each week we could: (1) randomly select a number from 1–5 for each team (number of additional injured players); (2) randomly select that many players from the team’s roster; (3) assign each a status (e.g., Probable, Questionable—possibly others once we define them); and (4) for the more severe cases, randomly assign 1–3 games missed. The idea is to push teams into their depth chart often enough that roster construction and coaching decisions matter more.

This would be an off-season project with details to be worked out, but I think it’s worth discussing now. If there’s interest, I’m happy to draft a one-page proposal with clear definitions (statuses, selection method, timing, and commissioner oversight). What concerns, tweaks, or alternatives do you all suggest?

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Not really something I have an appetite for at this time. I think this adds a level of complexity when many may want things to be simpler.
Also, in the NFL several players play through various injuries. In the PNFL, the game drops ratings so much it’s not feasible. This would require a holistic revamping of essential roster management. We would have to revisit everything from practice squads to how free agent bidding is done.
If I have a HB1 that is injured, and this process suddenly adds HB3 to that injury list, I have to sign a couple guys just to make the roster. Not everyone has time to build a competitive PPP AND add extra roster management.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Let's bring back CEI with this if we do it.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

Agree with Matt here. If I could, I would turn injuries off completely

[Justin-Chicago]

This is the way!
Love the idea, I’ve suggested it before.

Simply “multiply” the injury severity number for new injuries. Could be done almost instantly with the right script.

No CEI though.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I welcome more injuries and penalties. I'd prefer reducing EN to increase injuries and fatique factors.

[Brian-Broncos]

This is completely bonkers to me. Not at all worth the work to manage and for very little difference, especially when all of our backups are so closely ranked to the starters.

Want more injuries? Just require larger spread of sub IN/OUT percentages. That should make stats more realistic too.

Want more penalties? Spread out DI, and it's possible sub % could have an effect as well.

Want more diversity? Increase the spread of player rankings. (Although I understand more now about why we don't, despite the frustration of it.) I wouldn't be surprised if that also increases injuries and/or penalties.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

For those posting in support of this,, are you ready to up the amount of rookies in the draft pool to allow more Free agents to fill rosters after this injury addition?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

This is completely bonkers to me. Not at all worth the work to manage and for very little difference, especially when all of our backups are so closely ranked to the starters.

Want more injuries? Just require larger spread of sub IN/OUT percentages. That should make stats more realistic too.

Want more penalties? Spread out DI, and it's possible sub % could have an effect as well.

Want more diversity? Increase the spread of player rankings. (Although I understand more now about why we don't, despite the frustration of it.) I wouldn't be surprised if that also increases injuries and/or penalties.

Why not universally reduce EN? That creates more injuries. What I mean is no more 86 Max EN for DEs - change it to 76 MAX. No more 87 max EN QBs, now it's 77 Max. Use percentages to ensure all players are modified equally with the new max pot ENs. I guarantee injuries will increase.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

This is completely bonkers to me. Not at all worth the work to manage and for very little difference, especially when all of our backups are so closely ranked to the starters.

Want more injuries? Just require larger spread of sub IN/OUT percentages. That should make stats more realistic too.

Want more penalties? Spread out DI, and it's possible sub % could have an effect as well.

Want more diversity? Increase the spread of player rankings. (Although I understand more now about why we don't, despite the frustration of it.) I wouldn't be surprised if that also increases injuries and/or penalties.

Becareful... you sound like me...