Offensive GL Plays

[Justin-Chicago]

Jerry, as I now see you just admitted, what I found when reviewing the logs you mentioned is that you are weakening your argument exponentially. You are picking plays out of context and saying they caused a mismatch of some sort, when that clearly didn't happen.

In the Jets week 7 game, the Jets converted their goal line and -and 1 GLP calls 6 of 9 times.

In the Cards week 18 game, every single GLR call was made nursing a 20-10 lead while running out the clock in the final minutes.

And you are applying your logic requesting even number of playcall options with these plays while ignoring similar offense - defense mismatches elsewhere. How about 4 PLR vs 6 Pass Long D? How about 5 PML vs 6 Pass Medium D? 4 RR vs 6 Run Right D?

I see your concern, in theory, there's TWO of each, and that's why I think THREE of GLP and GLR each is a fair adjustment, but to be clear, the profile rules are already set up in a way that prevents your worst case scenario from becoming a reality. We shouldn't over correct for a problem that's not there, at the expense of limiting the offensive plan options.

Side note, I sure hope Rich gets his dice out soon!

[Jerry-Redskins]

It actually does not weaken it in the actual theory I'm discussing. It is too easy to find only two successful plays and call them over and over. That is what the data shows. I just recognize at the end of the game the nuance is different but it does not change the fact if teams want to call a certain category a high number of times in more that a small unique situation in the game, two plays is too few and leaves the defense extra vulnerable.

I believe even if the PG and RG were limited to inside the five yard line for true goal line situations only, they should be four and not two, but they are increasingly being used in higher numbers and situations which is why I bring it up.

The proposal has no effect on what a team wants to call in the profile. The only effect is working to find four successful plays versus two.

If the current rules were already four minimum, what would be the argument to change RG and PG to two minimum?

[Justin-Chicago]

If the current rules were already four minimum, what would be the argument to change RG and PG to two minimum?

To allow for increased flexibility with the numbers included in other categories across the entire plan. Same reason one would make the argument to change PRD from 4 to 2. But, as you pointed out a few seasons back, PRD are more potentially big play threats, GLP and GLR are far from it. Isn't that why we took PRD from 2 to 4?

Other changes that might make sense in my opinion would be RL from 4 to 3, or PRD from 4 to 3. But I'm not advocating for those. My whole point is that there's not a glaring issue with what we've got.

It is too easy to find only two successful plays and call them over and over.

This comes as a surprise to me, this logic is flawed. First off, you can't simply call them over and over. You can only call them over and over if you're getting into a situation to do so. Winning a game 45-10 like the Jets did in week 7 would qualify. Furthermore, it is just as easy to find two plays that completely suck. But come on, they're GLP and GLR, your likelihood of winning or losing a game on them is very slim.

[Shawn-Giants]

With these types of proposals you should provide the data from a seasons sample to let the numbers speak for themself and compare with seasons past, when the numbers speak you don't have to nitpick situations you optically viewed in a couple of cases as justification.

In our quest for supreme randomness through rules, the game still will call GLP on 3rd and long even though you don't have it programmed in your profile, it's just what the game does if you have GLP in your gameplan. Talk about being random.

Let's not find problems to fix where there aren't any. Nobody is repeating SB's running GL plays exclusively,

[Dean-Atlanta]

I agree with much of what has been stated, that this proposal to mandate 4 each of GLP and GLR is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. I will vote NO on this should Charlie choose to call for votes on this.

[tmurph-Jets]

I tend to lean with Jerry in that I would support a balance of the goal line offense/defense.
I think it would be reasonable to require 3 GL runs/passes if you use them.
And teams should be required to use 3 GL run/pass defenses if you use them.

And to be truthful, I would not be opposed to limiting GL to inside the 5s only and 4th-1.
I am guilty of using it more on other downs with 1 yard to go and I am not sure how realistic this is.
I have no data but are NFL teams running a GLR on 3rd-1?

I would vote yes to tighten it up and even it up. It would not even be that drastic of a change.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I would be fine with 3 GLP and GLR each o offense if we limited the defenses to 3 each. Raising the GLP to 6 was an over-reaction to what happened in that one game. The answer there was not make another rule, but for GMs to scout his team and exploit the fact that he was using 2 GLP plays on first and second downs.

[Rich-League Officer]

The rumor out of the league office is that this will be equalized 4/4 if you use them.
Commissioner will not return calls and put a lid on it

[Dean-Atlanta]

The rumor out of the league office is that this will be equalized 4/4 if you use them.
Commissioner will not return calls and put a lid on it

If this means 4 GLP and 4 GLR for a total of 8, I think this should NOT be done, because we are already at the point where using all categories is nearly filling up the 64 play slots available in the game plan, and those who believe in using 6 or 8 each of PSL/PSM and/or PML/PMM will be unable to do that within the 64 play limit imposed by the game itself. Requiring EIGHT plays for goal line offense, a category that is rarely used, is excessive and an over-reaction to alleged abuse of goal line offense. If there is a problem with usage of goal line offense, then maybe make a rule to restrict when GLP/GLR are used in the profile.

Additionally, a rule of this type, if changed, has far-reaching implications and should ONLY be added to the rules if 2/3 of team owners agree to it, the same way rules are changed in the NFL, which we are trying to emulate and simulate.

[Dean-Atlanta]

And about the idea about equal number of defenses for the number of offense...not really. Current rules require we used a total of 15 short pass plays and 15 medium pass plays because of the use of left, middle, and right for first, second, and third downs. It would RIDICULOUS to require 15 PS and 15 PM defenses in the defensive game plan.