PROPOSAL: Require a Center to be Open Active

[James-Eagles]

It most likely replace it with a guard and you have to carry an extra guard.
I just went through the AFC 3-5 teams use a starting guard as the back up Center. Only 8 teams use a center as their backup center. They usually use a back up or starting guard.

No is no realism grounds for carrying an extra Center. Just because you like the rule doesn't make a needed or a realism rule. Teams not playing in the Super Bowl should be working on the draft or fixing your PPP because clearly it wasn't good enough.

Lets be honest the league is great if there isn't a problem stop creating them. This hasn't been a problem is decades why is it a problem now.

[Justin-Chicago]

I believe a C2 should be required if and only if 8+ OL are active. This should not apply to teams with only 7 OL, an injury would cause them to deal with a lack of depth that offsets having a superior T or G play C.

The 8th OL should be a C, OL #9 and beyond could be any OL position.

My 2 cents.

[James-Eagles]

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

The problem with thinking like this. Is it isn't something you can control and is very unlikely to happen. If we make rules for every possible way the game might do something that could give someone a slight advantage we have pages of rules and almost no flexibility.

We should make a rule that Mark shouldn't drive because it gives him a competitive advantage if a deer is trying to cross the road. You don't make rules for obscure things that probably won't happen or happen may be a few time all season.

[James-Eagles]

I believe a C2 should be required if and only if 8+ OL are active. This should not apply to teams with only 7 OL, an injury would cause them to deal with a lack of depth that offsets having a superior T or G play C.

The 8th OL should be a C, OL #9 and beyond could be any OL position.

My 2 cents.

I get this and kinda agree but I think you should do this if you want to win. It should be a rule just smart coaching. I don't believe in make rules to prevent bad coaching.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I urge a no vote on this. We don't need new rules unless there is a compelling need. I don't see that those favoring this new propsed rule have won the argument.

Kansas City and Chicago are preparing for the Super Bowl. The rest of us should be preparing to reduce our rosters to 53, and maybe designing some new plays for the 2044 season. Not making new unneeded rules.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Based on the opposing argument we should reduce the A/O requirement for TEs to 1 then. Why carry two TEs? The argument is literally the same argument. Let people sub WRs for TE all they want. Heck, it’s so realistic to have 8 A/O WRs and 10 A/O CBs … if the PNFL wants to style itself on the Arena football roster.

[James-Eagles]

Based on the opposing argument we should reduce the A/O requirement for TEs to 1 then. Why carry two TEs? The argument is literally the same argument. Let people sub WRs for TE all they want. Heck, it’s so realistic to have 8 A/O WRs and 10 A/O CBs … if the PNFL wants to style itself on the Arena football roster.

Personally I think it should be 0 TE but I agree with the mindset.

[James-Eagles]

Based on the opposing argument we should reduce the A/O requirement for TEs to 1 then. Why carry two TEs? The argument is literally the same argument. Let people sub WRs for TE all they want. Heck, it’s so realistic to have 8 A/O WRs and 10 A/O CBs … if the PNFL wants to style itself on the Arena football roster.

The reality is yoru argument is faulty on all levels.
1. Doesn't stop a competitive advantage.
2. It has no basis in the NFL.

It is stimple in concept most coaches will do this naturally and not doing it will hurt teams. So why make it rule when it should be personal choice.

Lets also address the issue that most of the TE in modern NFL would have been WR in 98.

Jerry is right this means we have to keep 3 C in case there is an injury so we can go to 2 C on the 46 man roster. I mean really we going to restrict PNFL teams roster by something about half the NFL teams do.

Steve the league is good why do you keep wanting to add more rules. Especially needsless ones

[Jerry-Redskins]

But one C is the norm in the NFL. The C argument is just not true. Just looking at the Bills and Chiefs since they are on TV right now. Seems two teams build differently. Their 53 Man rosters:
BUF
C-1
CB-7
DE -5
DT-4
FB-1
G-3
G/C 1
K-1
LB-6
LS-1
P-1
QB-2
RB-3
S-4
T-4
TE-3
WR-5

KC
C-1
CB-6
DB-2
DE-7
DT-5
G-3
K-1
LB-6
LS-1
OL-2
P-1
QB-2
RB-3
S-2
T-3
TE-3
WR-7

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I think enough has been said in this thread for everyone to make their vote. Please vote.

If it fails, trust me, I’m using it as ammunition to make another proposal to reduce the TE requirement.