so what are your solutions to this...

[Dean-Atlanta]

Look at these stats:

Top four QB ratings in the PNFL are 105.1, 94.3, 93.9, and 92.7

Top four QB ratings in the NFL are 116.4, 115.9, 110.5, and 110.0

Charlie's proposed rule is a reasonable idea to address this. Those who are opposed, what are your ideas?

[Mitch-Oilers]

No 2 DL plays on 1st or 2nd down. Continue to differentiate the ratings between top players and average players.

Have atleast 2 arbitrary roughing the passer penalties on each team per game and atleast 3 PI calls per game per team.

[Justin-Chicago]

With the QB ratings as evidence, I don't see a problem.

I don't believe we should compare FBPro 98 to NFL 2020. Compare it to NFL 1998.

And adjust for 18 teams vs 30 when looking at stats. The range of the top quintile in one should be roughly the same as the range of the top quintile in the other, for example. The mean QB rating and the median QB rating should be similar too.

The PNFL numbers are only as flawed compared to the current NFL numbers as the current NFL is flawed to the NFL of two decades ago.

And I believe there's a reason we enjoy playing this game and not something newer!

[Dean-Atlanta]

Here are the 1998 stats:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/passing.htm

* FOUR QBs out of 29 over 100 QB rating to our ONE out of 18

* TWO at 90-99.9 to our 3 out of 18

* 12 out 29 80-89.9 to our 5 out of 18

* 5 out of 29 70-79.9 to our 9 out of 18

* 6 out of 29 below 70 to our zero

If 80 is considered an adequate QB rating, 18 out of 29 qualifying QBs in the NFL in 1998 were 80 or higher, while 9 of 18 are in the PNFL

[Mitch-Oilers]

In 2035, Charlie required us to have 3 defense play categories per profile scenario with more than 5 mins in each half and between the 5 yard lines. Look at those QB ratings... 6 of 18 teams at 93.8 or higher. 3 of the 18 were above 100. 15 of 18 teams were above 80. Maybe Charlie had it right.

However, whether you look at this season, last season or a few seasons back, the same coaches tend to be the league leaders in passing rating, points scored and points allowed. These guys have figured it out. Maybe its proper play selection, profile generation and complementary football that has the biggest impact on the stats. Ah, can't be....

[Charlie-49ers]

In 2035, Charlie required us to have 3 defense play categories per profile scenario with more than 5 mins in each half and between the 5-yard lines. Look at those QB ratings... 6 of 18 teams at 93.8 or higher. 3 of the 18 were above 100. 15 of 18 teams were above 80. Maybe Charlie had it right.

However, whether you look at this season, last season, or a few seasons back, the same coaches tend to be the league leaders in passing rating, points scored and points allowed. These guys have figured it out. Maybe it's proper to play selection, profile generation, and complementary football that has the biggest impact on the stats. Ah, can't be....

I did a lot of testing before I made the requirement of three defensive plays with more than 5-minutes to play in each quarter, and better QB stats were the objective. Although, too many people complained. The question becomes, do we want better QB stats, or are we satisfied with the current results? Limiting the 2-DL defenses to Pass Dazzle will help, but do we want to go further? DLs dropping into pass coverage is also becoming an issue apparently. NFL teams do use it in special situations, but it is clearly not the norm. Not to restrict innovation, I would be willing to consider DL drops to pass coverage (one DL only), but restrict those plays to Pass Long.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I dont see an issue with someone dropping DLs into pass coverage as long as they have atleast 3 DLs on the field. I'll take my chances with my WRs against a DL anytime.

I was against the 3 defensive categories a couple of seasons ago. I'm still not necessary a fan of the idea. However, the way we are able to use 2 categories now, you can set it up where 96% of the time a particular defensive category is called in any given situation (ex PM 10, PM 10, RL 1). Theoretically, that's really on using 1 defensive category.

I wonder how much impact it would have to keep the number of defensive categories to 2 would be if you were only allowed to use 2 category slots (ex PM 10, RL 1). That would guarantee atleast 9% of the time an alternative play would be called. Is it worth the trouble to govern?

[Charlie-49ers]

It is not whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game! Contrary to many coaches, I have always used the three categories with more than 5-minutes to play, since the game was designed that way. That is just me, and maybe that is reflected in my win/loss columns each season! I have always enjoyed the game, and yes, I like to win as much as the next guy. But, I want to play the game as close to the NFL norm as possible.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I use three in the majority of situations as well. I like be more varied in my play calling. More issues for my opponent. Also helps coverup a wrong choice in plays from another category when gameplanning.

[Dean-Atlanta]

... Not to restrict innovation, I would be willing to consider DL drops to pass coverage (one DL only), but restrict those plays to Pass Long.[/quote]

That would be reasonable compromise...there is apparently limited use of this in the NFL. A couple seasons ago I experimented with a defense that used 10 defenders in M2M coverage, two per receiver, and the numbers on it were terrible.