Off-season Play Type Proposal

[Charlie-49ers]

Every week in the NFL we see the Goal Line Timed LOB pass into the end zone. Currently, the PNFL only allows the LOB in the Pass Razzle-Dazzle category. I would like to propose that we adopt the Timed LOB in the Goal Line Pass category. These plays, if approved would not be greater than 10-yards from the LOS! You would not want to make them longer and call one on the 1-yard line.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Disagree. If the category was only doable at the GL maybe. Otherwise you are creating a lob short pass with less requirements in the plan and would be used all over the field.

[Justin-Chicago]

I assume these would count towards the 50% timed pass rule, as long as they do, I don’t see anything wrong with trying out Charlie’s proposal. I think Jerry’s concern is out of proportion, it’s not like they’d be getting called every other 1st and 2nd down. Just commit to calling what the profile rules allow and it should be fine.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I don't see any problems with allowing this. I don't see it as something that could be abused, even if a team employs 4 GLP plays in the game plan including 2 GLP lob plays, and calls them in all the situations our current rules allow for use of GLP plays.

What I doubt, however, is that a lob pass in GLP is going to be more effective (higher comp percentages) than plays like the two goal line sloT plays that are in the playbook now. My guess is, that bullet passes are by far the more effective way of using timed passes in goal line situations.

[Charlie-49ers]

I assume these would count towards the 50% timed pass rule, as long as they do, I don’t see anything wrong with trying out Charlie’s proposal. I think Jerry’s concern is out of proportion, it’s not like they’d be getting called every other 1st and 2nd down. Just commit to calling what the profile rules allow and it should be fine.

The 50% Rule would apply as they are Timed passes.

[Jerry-Redskins]

It is another turn to take a lower required play type and make it usable more. GLP's have already increased over the last few years. I personally think they will be INT magnets, but the fact remains that if they are effective then all short pass play calls where GLP's are allowed they would take over and you only need four. This will not be an end zone used play if reasonably effective. We should not be lowering normal play call play requirements in my opinion. The less calls required, the easier to find a higher % of plays to be successful that week.

It seems to me it will only potentially be used to make play calling easier and be used by folks as a single play type to call as much as possible. The PNFL has been such a different beast and great because it is different than every league where you can call a gimmick play or two all game and win that I played in before. The PNFL is unique by having to actually build and defend more of a full game plan.

You may as well add it to all the PS categories instead, unless GLP become only at the goal line or increased to match the other play types.

[Justin-Chicago]

It is another turn to take a lower required play type and make it usable more. GLP's have already increased over the last few years. I personally think they will be INT magnets, but the fact remains that if they are effective then all short pass play calls where GLP's are allowed they would take over and you only need four. This will not be an end zone used play if reasonably effective. We should not be lowering normal play call play requirements in my opinion. The less calls required, the easier to find a higher % of plays to be successful that week.

It seems to me it will only potentially be used to make play calling easier and be used by folks as a single play type to call as much as possible. The PNFL has been such a different beast and great because it is different than every league where you can call a gimmick play or two all game and win that I played in before. The PNFL is unique by having to actually build and defend more of a full game plan.

You may as well add it to all the PS categories instead, unless GLP become only at the goal line or increased to match the other play types.

That's ludicrous. Has any GLP ever represented 20% of an offense's playcalls? 10%? 5% even? Charlie just stated the 50% timed rule applies here as it always has.

Why be alarmist about a problem that doesn't even exist?

[Jerry-Redskins]

You are wrong in my opinion. Multiple teams already use GLP's more than PS on second and third downs. If it is effective (I think they won't work), GLP will become the primary call on 2nd and 3rd downs where they are allowed with no doubt. Charlie wants to emulate plays to the back of the end zone, which is valid; at the goal line. Make them 5 plays required or goal line only and we keep the current balance and can expand the play design is all I'm saying.

As stated last season. I would love a few seasons with no doggone changes or endless discussions about them. Just focus on football and not having to seemingly start over every year would be a refreshing change.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Requiring 5 plays in the goal line categories is a hard NO and it has to be. This isn't a feasible option. We are already at the 64 play limit if one chooses to use all categories. 5 GLP and 5 GLR would put us way over that.

[Barney - Vikings]

Off the top of my head, I don’t see how these would be very effective, but who knows? Charlie, have you discovered an effective short lob?