2 DL Defenses ???

[Charlie-49ers]

Since Dean has been cleaning up the nooks and crannies of run-vs-pass focused plays (his grandfathered plays to conform to current rules), I have taken a hard look at the 2-DL plays. In the R&S folder, we have 2-DL plays for both Pass Short and Pass Medium, as well as Pass Long and Razzle-Dazzle.

In the real world of the NFL, would any team use 2-DL formations in a Pass Short situation or maybe even a Pass Medium? A QB in the NFL in a short-yardage situation, seeing a 2-DL formation, would call an audible run, or short slant, which we cannot do! Many seasons ago, we had 2-DL run plays and determined that they were unrealistic in the NFL world, and elected to delete them. I see the same issue here with 2-DL Pass Short, and maybe 2-DL Pass Medium. 2-DL for Pass Long and Razzle-Dazzle is understandable, but I am having a problem getting my head around 2-DL Pass Short, especially, and even the 2-DL Pass Medium defense.

For serious discussion (please stay on topic), I would appreciate your thoughts on eliminating the 2-DL Pass Short and possibly the 2-DL Pass Medium plays after this season.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Teams in the NFL us 2 DL formations regularly as their Nickel formation for passing downs. The key is not to get caught up in only 2 DL. They are just using LB's as DE's. Hence the 3 attacking the LOS rule we added to allow the 2 DL with is a routine formation on pasing downs in the NFL with the reality they are not dropping 9 into coverage.

Based on recent trends, NFL teams use formations with two defensive linemen (DL) with increasing frequency, particularly in nickel packages, which feature five defensive backs.
This defensive alignment is often seen as a countermeasure against the rising popularity of spread offenses in the NFL that utilize formations with three or more wide receivers (e.g., "11" personnel with 1 running back, 1 tight end, and 3 wide receivers).
Key points
Nickel as the new base: While traditional base defenses like the 4-3 (4 DL, 3 LB) and 3-4 (3 DL, 4 LB) still exist, many teams are spending a majority of snaps in nickel personnel groupings like the 4-2-5 (4 DL, 2 LB, 5 DB), 3-3-5 (3 DL, 3 LB, 5 DB), or 2-4-5 (2 DL, 4 LB, 5 DB). The 2-4-5 specifically employs two defensive linemen, according to Reddit.
Adaptation to offensive trends: The prevalence of offensive schemes featuring three or more wide receivers and concepts like RPOs (Run-Pass Options) has prompted defenses to prioritize having more defensive backs on the field to improve pass coverage and match up with offensive personnel.
Increased usage of two-high safety looks: The percentage of two-high safety looks (which are often employed in 2 DL packages) on passing attempts has increased from 44% in 2019 to 63% in 2024, according to NFL Operations.
Purpose: The goal of using 2 DL formations, particularly with 5 DBs, is to improve coverage against passing plays while still being able to defend against the run.
While the exact percentage of snaps NFL teams spend in pure 2 DL formations is not readily available, it is clear that these formations, particularly within nickel packages, are a significant and growing part of NFL defensive strategy.

[Jerry-Redskins]

What the above means is, yes, teams are using 2 DL in a meaning of two with hands in the dirt and more traditional DL types with hybrid DE/LB's standing at the LOS. NFL teams can audible to a run, but NFL teams are not doing it is short yardage situations, but passing downs within their Nickel formations. Hence less option for an NFL team to audible due to yardage needed and there are still players set up to stop a run. They are just a few pounds smaller, but a few ticks quicker. The formation while called a 2 DL is more of a 4-2-5 in alignment.

It's the extra players out on the edge in the original PNFL 2 DL and the 9 coverage players that created the problem. The current PNFL rules set up mostly like the NFL version now. 2 DL shoul be involved in all passing downs. If you are talking true 2 DL and 9 in coverage, that should only be in PNFL pass raz, but nickel personnel packages should be allowed in all pass play categories.

The Chiefs ran 2 DL in a playoff game a few years ago almost 90% of the time. I can't remember who against but they stayed in it the majority of the time. It allowed faster rushers and they did similar to the old Pittsburg defense by confusing the QB which of the hybrid DL's dropped into coverage. They still sent 3 guys after the LOS and the QB.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Honestly, it really comes down to what Charlie prefers. If he wants this league to be old school NFL with no 2DL, as commish he can make it so. We’d just adapt.

[Jerry-Redskins]

He is discussing that they are not realistic and asked for discussion. I provided the answer that they are routine in the NFL I think 2 DL with 9 in coverage is being confused as the PNFL rule does not allow that. The PNFL still requires the same as a 3 man line in reality. which is what is routine in NFL nickel formations which are what is used for passing situations. This includes PS and PM categories in the NFL. This means I believe there is no reason to exclude them. The original 2 DL's were before the 3 players attacking the LOS rules and were not realistic.

There are no 2 DL plays in the NFL. They are still 3 DL plays in action. Is Dallas Micah Parsons a DE or LB. He's 6-3 245. Same with Von Miller. They are basically small DE's who stay in a two point stance, but occasionally drop in coverage to confuse the offense. The NFL has been moving to more and more Hybrid type DE's who do not use a 3 point stance, but operate as DE/Edge. The PNFL rules mean what we call a 2 DL play is really a 3-4 play. It's only visual is that it the 3 means hands in the dirt, but the NFL has many DE's that stay in a two point stance now. 4-3, 3-4, 2-4. They are all blurred in the NFL, but what they all have in common is 3 or more players still getting after the QB/LOS which is what the PNFL rules do as well now. How many players with hands in the dirt should not be the key. It is what the players do. The PNFL 2 DL plays allow us to do the same as the NFL and use "edge" players in passing situations the same as the NFL. The PNFL is a passing league. Teams are routinely in 3 and 4 WR sets on all downs. Why shouldn't the defense be able to get a faster pass rusher on the field while risking being run at. I'm all for making sure the rules have the 3 players operating as "lineman, but mandating how many players with the hands in the dirt is not needed in my opinion. We also limit how many can be used.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/how-nickel- ... nal-round/

https://www.seahawksontape.com/p/seahaw ... the-run-in

https://domerdomain.com/topic/54143-fre ... 5-defense/

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/ ... -the-3-3-5

[Dean-Atlanta]

Here is an idea that might balance realism and preference to use 2-DL defensive plays:

1. PS and PM plays that use only 2 DLs still MUST have 3 players defending the LOS. This can typically mean one of the LBs, and the 2 DLs, or at least 1 DL and 2 LBs, will defend the LOS. All illegal plays should be fixed. Nothing grandfathered.

2. The 2 DL plays in PM and PRD only need to have 2 players defending the LOS since they are more pass coverage oriented plays. It is likely nothing in those categories is illegal or needs to be fixed.

Does this balance a degree of realism with the current percentage of 2-DL plays currently allowed?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

If there is no grandfathering, we would have to fix almost every DN play in PS and PM to comply with 3 players defending the LOS. It’s too much. Charlie accepted the one 2DL play I corrected (DN2PM09). Maybe we watch how it does this season before tackling the rest next off season.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I say leave it. There is a coach in the NFL that plays a lot of cover six type defense and I know Barry Odom used a lot of defenses where he'd drop 8. I think they are more realistic than some would think in the modern NFL and even in college football. The current limitations I believe are good enough but, if Charlie or someone wants to make a pass at making sure they have three players guarding the LOS...that's fine with me.

[Shawn-Giants]

Interesting discussion, however with the data that Jerry provided, would further validate it's use and existence, it also gives the defense more options on coverage types and ability to innovate some exotic defenses. These plays are of no great advantage because a simple run can blow these types of plays up, so I don't see any major advantage or disadvantage either way and if it's just an optics thing, I say leave it as the data shows it occurs in the big leagues.

[James-Eagles]

I have always been in the favor of allowing 2-DL in more categories and Jerry breaks it down very well. It really comes down how do we want to represent these hybrid lb/DE. I think we need to becareful just thinking of them as smaller DE. LT would have been one and a lot of the outside LBs in the 3-4 defenses were this guy for years before the smaller DEs started to go to a 2 point stance. My personal preference on this issue has always been more focus on number of people attack the LOS and number of people in pass coverage determining what category a play was in. Jerry mentions nickel a lot but nickel is becoming more of the base defense in current NFL. That is in part to Safeties drifting up to support the run and Nickel backs being more a CB/S hybrid.

I think we should remove the DL restrictions and instead put defending the line and players in Pass coverage restrictions/requirements on plays. I think this would be more realistic. I don't think we should ever have 9 players in coverage. For what I have seen 9 players in coverage isn't realistic.