2-DL Defensive play Poll

[James-Eagles]

Personally I rather see us go away from percentages and just go with set numbers of plays allowed. I think some we t numbers would be a way to simplify rules.

I think not fixing old plays will hurt new play development. We have a bunch of unrealistic defensive formations in the PNFL. I think that is something I find very frustration about a lot of these discussions. People site wanting realism when it fits their point but seem to ignore it when it doesn't.

LB/DL outside the numbers is very unrealistic. Only rushing 3 on passing downs is also.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Disagree changing more old plays. We made the decision to grandfather those as is. The prior last minute changes will more impactful than it originally seemed. Lets just set the new % and leave everything else the same. The only issue in my opinion is the %. The rules are good otherwise

Have to use 6 in most categories on D

I disagree. If the rules change is going to mean anything, and we are not going to thoroughly disincentivize new play creation, we have to change all the old plays that need changing to comply with the rule changes. Otherwise, the old plays unchanged will clog up game plans of all teams and render the rules change meaningless.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I beg to differ. Only rushing three on passing downs is very realistic. Saw it all the time when Barry Odom was at Arkansas.

[Donovon-Steelers]

Disagree changing more old plays. We made the decision to grandfather those as is. The prior last minute changes will more impactful than it originally seemed. Lets just set the new % and leave everything else the same. The only issue in my opinion is the %. The rules are good otherwise

Have to use 6 in most categories on D

I agree w/Jerry here. I use some old gameplans and don't want to have to go thru them because we changed a bunch of plays - that's time-consuming. If we've grandfathered them in, they should be left alone as they're not overly impactful. Leave the 2-DL rules as they are as well.

Not sure I agree with the new % limits just because it forces a minimum, but I'll live with it and we'll see if it gives us more realistic injuries and big plays.

[James-Eagles]

I beg to differ. Only rushing three on passing downs is very realistic. Saw it all the time when Barry Odom was at Arkansas.

I could be wrong on the NFL. but that is college which is a different game. I dont think that is really happens in the NFL. I dont think a3 man rush isnt getting pressure in the NFL and I think most NFL QB would pick that apart. I looked for stats in rushing 3 and couldnt find any.

[James-Eagles]

I did more searching and I was wrong there was atleast 5 coaches that have used it regularly. I am sure there is more.

[Jerry-Redskins]

This is one of the issues when we discuss things. They grow a bigger life. The only point to this is should we increase the % allowed of the 2 DL type plays in the pass categories. Everything else already exist. Nothing else needs to be touched. All of the rules restraining them when built already exist and they have been in use this way for over 10 seasons along with the addition of the 3 LOS attackers.

Simple change proposed by Mitch. Lets just keep it simple.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I beg to differ. Only rushing three on passing downs is very realistic. Saw it all the time when Barry Odom was at Arkansas.

I could be wrong on the NFL. but that is college which is a different game. I dont think that is really happens in the NFL. I dont think a3 man rush isnt getting pressure in the NFL and I think most NFL QB would pick that apart. I looked for stats in rushing 3 and couldnt find any.

The point of a rush 3 - drop 8 type of defense isn't necessarily to get a pass rush. It's to provide enough rush so that the QB can't escape and run. The idea is more leaning towards a coverage sack or an INT. There was a guy in Denver who ran a newer style of defense called a cover 6 I believe that may have had some similarities to the 2-3 DL defenses we are talking about.

With that said, I'm 100% in favor of Charlie's proposals. It is a good compromise.

[Dean-Atlanta]

The most simple and meaningful change in the use of 2-DL plays is to remove the limits on their use in passing categories and make sure all 2-DL plays comply with current play design rules. That's it, real simple.

Editing the rules to slightly increase their use is not worth the effort at all. Increasing their use in PS and PM to 50% (from 33%) is changing ONE out of 6 plays used. Not worth it, don't even bother.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I personally don't like hard-to-track percentages like 75% and 66.7%. Needs to be simple like 50%, but I think PL should be unlimited like PRD. My argument is simple. The goal should be to limit the use of 2DL to 50% for categories heavily used on core downs only i.e., 1st 0-10 and 2nd 0-10 yards. Both PL and PRD are not allowed in these situations unless its less than 5 min in the half. There really is no need to restrict PL to 75% because it is called on a limited basis similar to PRD.

I would prefer this to keep things simple while factoring in the fact that profile restrictions also play a part:
PS & PM: 50% can be 2DL
PL & PRD: Unlimited use of 2DL.