PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

[James-Eagles]

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.

I think the point that is being missed here is Most OL players actually play at least 2 position. Putting in this rule would move us farther from the flexibility of NFL roster management not closer.

We have the PRD pass issue which has lead to unrealistic 3rd situation. One of which no one seems to notice. How often does 3rd and impossible gets converted in PNFL.

Jerry is completely right in this. We spend too much time worrying about things that aren't problems and ignoring the problems. I pointed out the PRD problem to the league officers after week 6 to watch. It only got worse. Focus on broken things. When you fix things that aren't broken you tend to break things.

[Charlie-49ers]

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?

We don't need to mandate additional spots for guards, tackles, and fullbacks, but we should consider other positions. For instance, we could have a third safety designated as active or open. This would allow us to replace a safety who gets hurt or tired during a game with a faster cornerback, giving us an advantage in passing defense. Also, we should think about having a sixth linebacker as active or open for the same reason. Lastly, I know this one might be controversial due to the 3 DL defenses, but we should also think about having a third DT as Active or Open.

I can see that the first two suggestions make perfect sense. The third suggestion may not be necessary for teams that consistently use a 3 DL (Defensive Linemen) line. However, all of us occasionally use a 4 DL line, and some even use 5 or 6 DL lines for Goal Line plays and Run Razzle Dazzle. Although it may require some minor changes for some teams, it is definitely in line with the NFL standards.

[Jerry-Redskins]

So we need our roster as a cookie cutter based on one vision? Maybe I like small faster D players. Maybe I'm willing to risk an extra fumble not having an extra C. Plus, it appears we are ignoring the in season (not game) injuries impacts.

This thread seems to be moving toward everyone having the identical roster construction and having to cut players in season to keep up with injuries based on stringent roster construction.

[James-Eagles]

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?

We don't need to mandate additional spots for guards, tackles, and fullbacks, but we should consider other positions. For instance, we could have a third safety designated as active or open. This would allow us to replace a safety who gets hurt or tired during a game with a faster cornerback, giving us an advantage in passing defense. Also, we should think about having a sixth linebacker as active or open for the same reason. Lastly, I know this one might be controversial due to the 3 DL defenses, but we should also think about having a third DT as Active or Open.

I can see that the first two suggestions make perfect sense. The third suggestion may not be necessary for teams that consistently use a 3 DL (Defensive Linemen) line. However, all of us occasionally use a 4 DL line, and some even use 5 or 6 DL lines for Goal Line plays and Run Razzle Dazzle. Although it may require some minor changes for some teams, it is definitely in line with the NFL standards.

You are missing the point I think. Yes NFL rosters have 2 players that can play C that doesn't mean they have 2 C. Lions are a prime example. The backup center is the starting right Guard.

https://www.detroitlions.com/team/depth-chart

[Barney - Vikings]

The proponents are really missing something. Right now every team has two centers on their 63 man roster and a couple have three. Every team would need a third center because of the potential for injury in season, if one gets hurt you still need to have two in the A/O slot. That’s roughly 15 new Centers needed.

Take a look at the current free agent pile of Centers, pickings are slim and none and slim is leaving town. It will take roughly 3 seasons before teams can reasonably put three decent centers on the field. This is a solution without a problem. Also Centers suck.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

If you carry only two A/O TEs and both get injured, you have to get two TEs or play them injured. How would that be any different if we required two C? I’m asking to make this change for realism which this league seeks to achieve. Yes, it’s possible all three Gs or Ts get injured and the game subs in your C2, but guess what - that’s realistic.

[James-Eagles]

If you carry only two A/O TEs and both get injured, you have to get two TEs or play them injured. How would that be any different if we required two C? I’m asking to make this change for realism which this league seeks to achieve. Yes, it’s possible all three Gs or Ts get injured and the game subs in your C2, but guess what - that’s realistic.

Again All NFL teams don't carry a second center. This is fact so why require it in the PNFL

[Jerry-Redskins]

The real Washington has 1 C active, Lions 1, Buffalo 1, Dallas like 5 or something LOL. Stopping at 4 teams as 3 out of 4 is enough for me. What's realistic?

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Actually, I was looking at it more from the advantage/disadvantage that having say a T play C might give a team.

[Jerry-Redskins]

It's a disadvantage in my opinion. I believe the lower HA is likely to lead to more fumbles and I believe it is better to have slower guys inside. The faster they are, the faster they move out of position on the snap is what I have always thought. I have felt the OL in the software open up the middle to a pass rush to quick. Advantage running, maybe, but no one is carrying enough OL to not have have sub issues during a game if a T or G has to assume the C role.