Play criteria - Open discussion

[Steve-LA Chargers]

We should at least make a personnel distinction between PS and RL.

I think the current 2 DL rule has it backwards even.

Pass Short: Require a minimum of two DLs and three LBs. At least one of the two DLs must defend the LOS. As such, one DL is permitted to drop into pass coverage, but in any event, at least three players (DLs, LBs, and/or DBs) must defend the LOS.

I would think RL should require 3 LBs, not PS. Maybe PS should instead require 2 LBs and 2 Ss?

[Charlie-49ers]

In the early days, we had 30+ teams and a waiting list (the good old days). We were all learning the game. 90% of the pass plays in the old VPNFL were designed by me and doubt if any of them work today. Run plays were mostly duds. Passing ruled the game and the complaints about pass coverage increased to the point that people argued that defensive plays needed to be able to cover all situations. Thus, the Pass defenses crept into the run defenses and whatever worked got cloned and introduced into other categories. Isamu did not care, and by the time I took over the League, defensive restrictions had gone by the wayside.

If I had to do it over again, there would definitely be restrictions. The NFL has it down to a science! They watch the subs on the offense and the defense sends in their subs. The 2-minute offense is designed to keep the defense off-balance. We do not have some of those luxuries but do the best we can. I would prefer restrictions, some of which we have (no 2-DL run or Goal Line defenses) which are unrealistic. I cannot remember the last time I did not see three or four LBs on the field on a 1st down play early in the game or depending on the score. The purpose of the rules is to make the game better or more realistic. The proposed modifications would mess up current game plans, but nothing else! You would still have the option of Pass Medium = 10; Run Middle = 1; Run Left = 1, on any down if you are Pass defense-minded. Some of you guys make a big issue about rules, some rightly so. However, if we went down this road, nothing (emphasis added) changes in how you set up your Defense Profile.

BTW, this could be done in the off-season. Plays would not necessarily be deleted but rather reassigned to different categories. Dupes and clones resulting from the moves however would be deleted.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Charlie - great point! The plays in RL and RM that fit more in rhe PM and PS categories wouldn't necessarily be deleted, they would just be reassigned to the correct category.

Teams will still be able to use the same plays. However, they can't use the same play in 3 or 4 different play categories. Actually, they could use the same play design. However, they would have to use different personnel which impacts match-ups and outcomes. To me, that makes sense unless we plan to have a bunch of 4 WR plays in PSL and PML, which we shouldn't.

[Dean-Atlanta]

There are 109 4-WR plays in PML.

There are 139 of them in PSL.

Clearly there are lots of them and are used extensively. So effective pass defense in ALL defensive play categories requires covering at least 4 WRs.

[Shawn-Giants]

I thought that this was the obvious assumption of what those formations meant.

3-4 formation meant three down linemen and four linebackers, not 3 down linemen and 8 defensive backs.

I mean that's obvious.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I think for most defenses (RL, RM, PM, PS) using 3 DLs, 2 LBs, 2 Ss, 4 CBs is balanced and makes the most sense, especially given the dominance of passing in the PNFL.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Shawn - I assumed the same thing for a long time too. Then, I started pulling a "Jerry" and dug deeper into play design and player impacts. That's when I started to discover that my assumptions weren't necessarily valid.

@Dean - I agree that if a team is pass happy that you should be able to defend them appropriately. However, in those cases, you would use PM and PS defenses more heavily since they would be designed as more nickel and dime defense. RLs would be similar play concepts as PS/PM. However, they would use different personnel.

[Dean-Atlanta]

This is what PNFL rules says about RL defenses:

 Run Left: Must have 4 DBs and no more than 6 Players (ANY) can have RUN FOCUSED defense.

What personnel would you suggest for RL defenses?

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - the personnel I listed in the 1st post of this thread

[Dean-Atlanta]

Many of our assumptions about the differences between LBs and Ss (and how many of them should be required in plays) may well be obsolete and antiquated when considering players like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Urlacher

Would you create him as a S or a LB in a PNFL free agent draft if he was added to the league?

Maybe the issue of whether a RL defensive play includes 2 LBs and 3 safeties or 3 LBs and 2 safeties should be left to the choice of each individual coach, as a coaching decision rather than a requirement by league rules imposed on all teams.