2-DL Pass Defenses

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, I have given the 2-DL Pass Defenses some additional thought and discussed several possibilities with Jerry, the reigning Super Bowl Champ. In a continued attempt to keep the gameplay of the PNFL as close as possible to NFL play, I would like to propose the following 2-DL Pass Defenses compromise for the upcoming season:

1. The 2-DL Pass Short defenses in the R&S Folder will all be retired as no NFL team would use such a defense in a short yardage situation. An NFL QB would just read that defense in a short yardage situation and just call an audible, probably a QB sneak. Since the PNFL does not have that option, the 2-DL pass formations in these situations are not realistic.

2. The 2-DL Pass Medium, Pass Long and Pass Razzle-Dazzle will remain intact in the R&S Folder, but with restrictions in the game plan! In the upcoming season, 2-DL pass defenses will be restricted to no more than 50% of the plays in that category. For example, the minimum requirement for defensive pass categories is six, and therefore no more than three of those plays can be 2-DL pass plays. This will allow their use, but not abuse.

[Mitch-Oilers]

A couple of thoughts:

1) If 2-DL plays can't be used as PS plays because of QB audibles, wouldn't the same logic apply to 2-DL plays in PM for 1st & 10 and 2 & 1 - 10 play calls?

2) I suggest restricting PM from being used 1st 1 - 10 and 2 & 1 - 10 plays situations or move all 2-DL plays to pass Razzle dazzle.

[Charlie-49ers]

Mitch, I am trying to compromise here! The game will not allow for all variables, and I am trying to find something other than eliminating the 2-DL pass defenses except for Pass Razzle-Dazzle. I agree, 2-DL defenses in the NFL are "usually" Hail Mary situations, or third and a shit-load. We can go your way, but I would like to see some more opinions.

[Shawn-Giants]

I prefer option #2 but even still, I don't like mitigating play selection on defense for fear of abuse, if you suspect someone will load up on 2 DL defenses, the logical thing to do to counter would be to run heavy. Not create legislation.

This whole idea of legislative approach makes the game unessarily complicated. No need to delete anything, create counter plays in the play editor. It's always been my logic behind the analysis of plays "breaking" the league. We don't need more rules, we need more counter/creative plays, that's the whole idea behind strategy.

Let's not remove strategic gameplay for fear of owners not being able to be strategic. If you keep running the same plays expecting different results, doesn't mean we need to create rules so that you can continue being unstrategic. Stop the madness with this.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The idea of the 2 DL is really to mimic zone blitz's and the current trend to add some tweener's that are really LB's to the DL in the NFL. That is the idea behind the 2 DL. So they are used in other situations and things like the offensive spread plays that are more prelavent in college, but are making there way to the NFL. Charlie's compromise is to recognize they are used some, but make sure we have variety in play calling and continue creativity. Using a half the category max accomplishes both I think.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Forgot. I agree with Shawn as well. I had my chance to go against a primary 2 DL defense and now I see some of the points to attack. We need to add some creative plays to beat the gaps. Then it would not matter. I feel like the compromise does both. We have to deal with the good plays, but added a rule that is simple and will not completely turnover defensive profiles.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I'm wondering if it will drive Charlie insane to try to enforce another 50% rule in a category. You already have this restriction for timed passes on offense similar restrictions on roll outs and QB keepers. As the former commish of the XFL told me before he retired, never create rules you can't easily enforce.

So, I think #2 is going to be hard to enforce. A better compromise for rule #2 is to dilute the usage of 2-DL defenses on 1st and 2nd down.

If we don't limit the number of 2-Dl plays in PM and we require RM and RL to be called on 1st 2-5, 1st 6-10, 2nd 2-5, and 2nd 6-10 going forward it automatically dilutes the chance of a 2-DL play being called because RM and RL don't have any 2-DL plays.

Because we still require 3 categories to be called on defense (at least I have been operating like we still do), then coaches would only be able to call one other category in these 4 situations. Yes, if they call PM 10, RM 1, RL 1, the dilution is diminished significantly and they basically become the Broncos defense, but that can be mitigated further by requiring the total weight of RM and RL to always be greater than or equal to the 3rd category. Thus RM 2 RL 2 PM 4 is legal but RM 2 RL 2 PM 5 is not.

Yeah, I know this is still hard to enforce though. If we really want to eliminate the issue, limit those 4 situations to RR, RM and RL only. This makes sure there are no 2 DL defenses ever called in those 4 situations. If a coach really likes a PM play, then submit a copy of it in RL.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Don’t forget the 2-DL plays in Razzle RUN. Those probably need to go as well because that category is meant to be more run focused than RR but provide deeper protection than GR.

[Charlie-49ers]

So, the simple solution is to restrict 2-DL defenses to 3rd and 4th down situations???

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Yeah, you could simply disallow use of PM, PL and PRD defenses on 1st and 2nd down.

If a coach currently likes to use a 3-DL PM play on 1st or 2nd, he can submit it as a PS or RL.

All you'd have to do as commish is spot check every now and then to make sure PM, PL, and PRD plays are not being used on 1st and 2nd downs in the profiles (can also be caught after sims via log file analysis).