Offensive Play Pool Issues

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, I would like your opinion on approximately a dozen plays in the Play Pool!

In January of 2012, one of the coaches introduced four plays JJ7ACnrX, JJ7XSmPc, JJ7ZPcrX and JJ7XPcrX. At the time, these were unique plays to the Play Pool.

In February 2015, another owner introduced DB4PcrZ, which I approved. BTW, I approved all of these, and my bad for not checking for dupes better than I did at the time(s). In September 2016, we received DB7AnAZ, DB7AnAX and DB7XdmX. In March 2018, along came OR7ZPtek, OR7XH9Go and OR7XPtek.

All the plays subsequent to the “JJ” plays from 2012 are basically identical dupes for the Primary and Secondary receivers. In this regard, during the playoffs, I noticed teams that had many of these plays in their Plans, in effect, having the same play multiple times in their Plans and defeating one of the goals of the League, variety. Since most of these plays are effective, and used in almost everyone’s Plans, I am raising the issue to the League!

I would like to eliminate all the dupes subsequent to 2012 and just go with the originals. Any opinions one way or the other?

My fan is on waiting for your responses!

[Steve-LA Chargers]

But it would mean I'd have to delete my PCR attack plan. LOL

Don't forget to look at PMM too.

I agree to the proposal.

[Charlie-49ers]

Add DB8Mvr1K, DC8Z01, JJ8ASmPC and JJ8APcrZ to the cut list. The latter two "JJ" plays are virtually identical to two other plays that are staying in the Play Pool.

[Mitch-Oilers]

It makes sense to remove true duplicate plays. However, I'd like to have some additional time to reformat my practice PPPs if the change is made.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Is there a plan to reduce the duplicate defensive plays? There are a lot of PM and PS plays that are very similar. Usually, they have 2 DL with DBs on each hash mark that move forward about 2 yards before going to read logic.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

I personally would prefer to just keep what we have and be more diligent in the future? I haven’t really noticed anyone gaining a huge advantage with the play pool we have. But it’s not a big deal to me one way or the other

[Shawn-Giants]

I echo Dan's logic, those plays have been in the pool and they offer no unfair advantage, there are even some on the defensive side of the play pool as well, as the JJHOT plays on offense created by Eric which were cloned by some who approve of this unnecessary purge. It's not ruining the experience and nobody can win consistently running the same plays, it can be well anticipated. There is no juice from this unnecessary squeeze other than disrupting peoples PPP's. Provide the data and we can make a clear logical decision other than an assumption based off optics.

[Shawn-Giants]

It would be more strategic to go into the play editor and create/design plays that counter the plays in question, than claiming this is a clone and it doesn't create variety. Through out the NFL playoffs you've seen teams live in base formations and run the same plays or slight variations of the plays with different personnel and different directions, those "cloned" plays with different depth and slight variations provide that exact aspect of NFL play calling.

Let's get more innovative and less bureaucratic. Every play in the playbook on offense and defense has counters for them, and if not we have enough play creators to create them.

[Shawn-Giants]

Here's an interesting read, it's a 2002 Denver Broncos scouting report vs the Colts and the Broncos playbook/playcalling statistics. As you will see, most of these actual NFL plays are same base formations with slight variations.

https://www.footballxos.com/download/20 ... 1583304436

[Justin-Chicago]

I agree with Dan and Shawn.