2 DL Defenses ???

[James-Eagles]

I think 2-DL should be allowed in run defenses, but I think this is a step in the right direction. The big change I would make is I don't think we need the requirement for DL/LB defending LOS but there should be a player defending the LOS requirement.

I also think all 2-DL plays should require 2-LB and weirdly I say PRD should require 1-LB if not 2. You almost never see teams drop 8 back in prevent defense.

I also think what really needs to be address is LB and DL outside the numbers.

The problem with 2-DL plays wasn't that they were 2-DL plays but they had too many people in coverage.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I mean you can simplify it and say something like this based on coverage for 2 DL:

GP: requires 3 LBs and no more than 5 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
RL: requires 3 LBs and no more than 6 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PS: requires 2 LBs and no more than 7 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PM: requires 2 LBs and no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PL: requires 1 LB and no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PRD: no LB required but no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders

Pass coverage defenders equates to zones and m2m anywhere on the field and reads that are 5 yards or more from the LOS

[James-Eagles]

I mean you can simplify it and say something like this based on coverage for 2 DL:

GP: requires 3 LBs and no more than 5 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
RL: requires 3 LBs and no more than 6 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PS: requires 2 LBs and no more than 7 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PM: requires 2 LBs and no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PL: requires 1 LB and no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders
PRD: no LB required but no more than 8 players can be considered pass coverage defenders

Pass coverage defenders equates to zones and m2m anywhere on the field and reads that are 5 yards or more from the LOS

Rewording still doesn't work for me
General requirement of 2DL

RR/GR no more than 4 DBs no more than 4 in coverage
RM/GP no more than 5 DBs no more than 5 in coverage
RL No more than 6 DB no more than 6 in coverage
PS/PM No more than 7 DB no more than 7 in coverage
PL No more than 7 DB no more than 8 in coverage.
PRD no more than 8 DB no more than 8 in coverage

This actually addresses the original problem with 2-DL which was too many people in coverage. The issue was never 2-DL it was always how many players were in coverage.

Personally, that is a middle ground
What I would actually like to see is DB change to CB subtract 2 from the DB but capped at 4 CBs Since Safeties filling in for LB is a thing. That being said I think it could be abused and might require more complex rules.


RR/GR no more than 2 CBs no more than 4 in coverage
RM/GP no more than 3 CBs no more than 5 in coverage
RL No more than 4CB no more than 6 in coverage
PS/PM No more than 4CB no more than 7 in coverage
PL No more than 4CB no more than 8 in coverage.
PRD no more than 4CB no more than 8 in coverage

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I like where you are going, but I think we need to make sure each category is distinct and disallow 2DL on GR/GP/RRD/RR/RM. Plus 5 CBs are often used on nickel defenses which are common in our passing categories. So, something like this maybe:

RL No more than 4 CB no more than 6 in coverage; at least 2 LB required
PS No more than 5 CB no more than 7 in coverage; at least 1 LB/S required
PM No more than 5 CB no more than 7 in coverage; at least 2 S required
PL No more than 5 CB no more than 8 in coverage; at least 2 S required
PRD No more than 6 CB no more than 8 in coverage; at least 2 S required

By requiring 2 LBs for RL, it brings it closer to being a run defense play in personnel despite defending the pass more than RM. Requiring PS to have 1 LB or 1 S gives it more of a hybrid focus. PM/PL/PRD should require safeties, not LBs especially considering Cover 2 defenses are common in the NFL and these defenses notoriously use 2 safeties. We obviously won't require coaches to create the Cover 2, but the personnel should be there. PRD should allow 6 CBs, so coaches can go with 100% CBs for dime defenses.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Copying into the correct thread:


I am a firm believer in allowing a LB to be a "edge" and not need 3 actual DL as long as we also mimic real life and still have 3+ getting after the LOS. I do not believe that means all of the other rules to set which category a play is saved to Charlie has built need to be changed. I'm absolutely against additional restrictions on how I set my DB's between CB/S.

I believe in keeping it simple. The first LB playing DL counts as a DL from a category rule standpoint and all the rest of the rules still apply on where to save the play. Not sure if I'm missing anything, but I would be against 2 DL if it means changing a million things.

Also a no to attribute changes

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Copying into the correct thread:


I am a firm believer in allowing a LB to be a "edge" and not need 3 actual DL as long as we also mimic real life and still have 3+ getting after the LOS. I do not believe that means all of the other rules to set which category a play is saved to Charlie has built need to be changed. I'm absolutely against additional restrictions on how I set my DB's between CB/S.

I believe in keeping it simple. The first LB playing DL counts as a DL from a category rule standpoint and all the rest of the rules still apply on where to save the play. Not sure if I'm missing anything, but I would be against 2 DL if it means changing a million things.

Also a no to attribute changes

I like an idea proposed by Dean that only DTs can be the 2 DL on 2 DL plays. I'd take it further and require both to defend the LOS. Also, one "edge" LB would be required to defend the LOS. A second 'edge' LB can go into pass coverage, but not the 2 DTs.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I like an idea proposed by Dean that only DTs can be the 2 DL on 2 DL plays. I'd take it further and require both to defend the LOS. Also, one "edge" LB would be required to defend the LOS. A second 'edge' LB can go into pass coverage, but not the 2 DTs.

What would you suggest as the most simple way to write the rue to allow this on 4-DL plays and allow ONE to substitute for a DE on the 3- DL plays? I assume the LB playing edge rusher must defend the LOS.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

What would you suggest as the most simple way to write the rue to allow this on 4-DL plays and allow ONE to substitute for a DE on the 3- DL plays? I assume the LB playing edge rusher must defend the LOS.

I'd simply call them 2 DL plays. Anything else is confusing.

BTW I'm not a fan of swapping LB and DL logic via substitution. I've noticed these plays can cause the game to crash when used.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Agreed on the logic swap. If you do it in the right order it does not crash, but it's easy to just not.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Steve,

The whole point is a LB on the LOS, inside the hash, and attacking the LOS can count as a Dl to have 3 or 4 DL plays. I do not believe all 2 DL should be both DT's. Why can't I be in a 3-4 with a DE, DT and the LB? The current DL rules already handle it if you simply look at the LB as a DE/Edge and apply the standard rules.

I think this can be simple and realistic with no significant change in rules.