PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Change the Active / Open Active requirement for centers (C) from 1 to 2

Yes
3
27%
No
8
73%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Steve-LA Chargers
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:43 pm

PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Steve-LA Chargers » Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:46 am

The rules currently only require 1 Center to be in Active or Open Active status on rosters. This is unrealistic. This position should require a second backup center to be active or open active so an injured C1 is realistically substituted with a backup center C2 in the game, not a tackle or guard.

This rule change proposal is being submitted now to give teams time to adjust their rosters in the offseason if it passes.
Los Angeles Chargers
2041 Super Bowl XLIV Champions
Former commish of the XFBS, XFL, and CCFL

User avatar
Matt-Jacksonville
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:58 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Matt-Jacksonville » Sun Jan 21, 2024 11:47 am

I think this makes sense as we have ratings in place to differentiate between each OL position. They are distictively C, G, and T and not just generic OL. By having the 2nd C be IR or I, this effectively is forcing someone to play out of position against the spirit of the ratings defined for each position. If we ARE going to allow for C2 to be IR or I, then we need to rework the ratings and make the OL generic to account for this.

User avatar
Dean-Atlanta
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:46 pm
Location: Lynnwood, WA

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Dean-Atlanta » Sun Jan 21, 2024 12:32 pm

Question...

If a teams carries one C, 3 G, 3 T on open or active, which is what the current rule requires, and the C is injured, does the game substitute a G or a T for the injured C?

A G is more similar to the C in ratings, so if it is a G, that makes sense.

Many of us think prudent roster management means having a backup for all 3 OL positions on open/active (2 C, 3 G, 3 T) which means a total of 8 OLs on open or active.

The same issue exists on the DL, where some teams choose to carry only 2 DTs and 3-4 DEs, causing a 4-3 defense to feature 3 DEs and 1 DT in cases of injury or substitution. Again, many of us believe it is prudent to carry 3 of each on open or active.

These are clearly issues of what each of us think is sound roster management. The question is whether they should be required by league rules.

I want to hear more debate on this before voting on it.
Dean
The Atlanta Falcons

"We may win big or lose big, but we don't dodge anybody and we don't makes excuses when we lose."
- Jerry Glanville

User avatar
Steve-LA Chargers
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:43 pm

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Steve-LA Chargers » Sun Jan 21, 2024 12:43 pm

@Dean - At least you have a good chance of decent substitutions with DT because you are required to have more than one DT in A/O. Comparably, our current rules don’t ensure this at all for C. I see this as a disparity. I don’t think we should have Gs backing up Cs in game unless C2 is shaken or injured in game too.

@Matt - Great points in support of the proposal! thanks!
Los Angeles Chargers
2041 Super Bowl XLIV Champions
Former commish of the XFBS, XFL, and CCFL

User avatar
Matt-Jacksonville
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:58 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Matt-Jacksonville » Sun Jan 21, 2024 1:21 pm

I would think this could be extended to all positions where there could be a disparity if a different position is subbed. As we differentiate between positions, this will have a bigger impact.

User avatar
Jerry-Redskins
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Sumter SC

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Jerry-Redskins » Sun Jan 21, 2024 1:29 pm

What is stopping a team now from carrying two active? I see a G or T being the C as a disadvantage due to the HA and AC ratings. OL is the hardest position to manage within the roster. I sure do not want to be forced to get a 3rd center if mine goes D-3 mid season. I say this with a 3rd center on my roster, but just not sure forcing a 2nd center on the 48 active roster since I see a negative and not a positive.
2013, 2036 PNFL Champion

Image

James-Eagles
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:52 pm

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby James-Eagles » Sun Jan 21, 2024 2:35 pm

I agree with Jerry on this one. There is no reason to require it. Heck I have seen the starting guard move to center when the center gets hurt. I agree in PNFL having a guard play center is a disadvantage but if a team wants to why not. There is way more important issues that need to be dealt with.

User avatar
Charlie-49ers
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:36 pm
Location: Anthem, AZ

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Charlie-49ers » Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:03 pm

The suggestion of having a second Center as Active or Open during each game is quite practical and is likely already being implemented by NFL teams. Although it may add complexity to team management, it certainly makes the game more realistic. According to the latest roster updates, 12 out of 18 teams would already be following this recommendation. It seems like a logical choice for the League to adopt.
Image

User avatar
Charlie-49ers
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:36 pm
Location: Anthem, AZ

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Charlie-49ers » Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:07 pm

Instead of requiring a third center, the game will manage the situation if both centers go down.
Image

User avatar
Jerry-Redskins
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Sumter SC

Re: PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

Postby Jerry-Redskins » Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:22 pm

Not the following weeks. Remember NFL teams move OL players around. This seems to be another solution with no problem. I do not want to cut another OL or some other player if my All Pro center is injured for multiple weeks. This rule does that. We are losing a flexible roster spot. Do we need to mandate 2 FB's for teams with them. 4 T's or G's because of subs? What is the problem to fix here?
2013, 2036 PNFL Champion

Image


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 139 guests