Play criteria - Open discussion

[Jerry-Redskins]

I hate to say it, but I am with Dean. I believe we can discuss the definition of a play by what the players do, but not the players position designation. Just like the NFL, if I want more speed on the field, but still set the D to be more run oriented, that should be a coaches decision in my opinion.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Jerry - with that in mind, if there are 20 RM/RL play designs that I like, but the personnel is 6 CBs, would you consider it a duplicate play if I substituted Ss and LBs for some of the CBs to fit my personnel preference?

[Dean-Atlanta]

@Jerry - with that in mind, if there are 20 RM/RL play designs that I like, but the personnel is 6 CBs, would you consider it a duplicate play if I substituted Ss and LBs for some of the CBs to fit my personnel preference?

Mitch, I can't speak for Charlie or Jerry on this, but it is my view that you should be able to do what you are wanting, in coaching your team, to change the personnel in those plays. for instance, you could "clone" those plays, that is keeping the player logic and design of those plays, but substitute the LBs and Ss where you prefer them to the CBs, and submit those variations as plays using the "Oak" or "Rai" team abbreviation to differentiate them from the OR stuff already there.

For other teams, they might prefer the RL plays with 5-6 CBs and 1-2 Ss and 1-2 LBs.

Both views should be allowed on equal footing. I don't think either one is "more right" than the other, but issue of coaching style. Again I can't speak for Charlie, but I think a particular RL defensive play that employs 6 CBs, 1 S, and 1 LB should be able to be submitted as a second play with the same logic and design but instead use 3 CBs, 2 Ss, and 3 LBs, which is what I understand is what you would want to use.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

My only concern is that PS requires 3 LBs and RL requires only 2 LBs. Just backwards thinking here.

I would prefer that RL requires 2 LBs and 2 Ss and that PS requires 2 LBs and 1 S.

This tiny change focuses their differentiation purely on number of S/CB not LB which makes more sense.

Either that or require RL to have 3 LBs too. This then shifts focus purely on S/CB count to create differentiation,

[Charlie-49ers]

Good discussion so far! I would like to suggest a slight modification (below) to the original proposal.

RR - 4 DBs w/2 CBs max (commitment to short gain)
RM - 5 DBs w/3 CBs max (commitment to medium gain)
RL - 6 DBs w/4 CBs max (commitment to long gain)

PS - 5 DBs w/3 CBs max (commitment to short gain)
PM - 6 DBs w/4 CBs max (commitment to medium gain)
PL - 7 DBs w/5 CBs max (commitment to long gain)

PRD - 8 DBs w/6 CBs max (commitment to max gain)

At some point, we need to determine if this is a good idea or not. We have approximately 875 defensive run plays in our pool (not counting Goal and Razzle) and another 1,000 pass plays, not counting Goal. It would be quite a formidable task to review all of these and reassign and rename what needed to be changed. Not pushing either way, but just saying that I like it.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Steve - yeah, it seems odd that RL would require fewer LBs than PS.

@Charlie - why would you want fewer DBs for PS vs RL?

[Jerry-Redskins]

I do not believe we should categorize by the player positions. The way it is now works. It is what the player does that matters. I can have my S be run or pass oriented which matters. Create more folders for the plays if you want( 31, 32, etc under the main folders, but leave then the same the same RL, Rm, etc for calls. Dean was spot on in his analysis. Coaches can make their plays the way they want by position and put them in their plans now. Why go through 1000's of plays after all these seasons. I believe there should be a clear problem and purpose for changes. What are we trying to solve here????

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Jerry - For me, I believe I've had the "VPNFL" mind-set when looking at PPPs where I'm wanting personnel for offense and defense to "match-up" in situations. As I look into further, we would actually need to change up the offensive as well as the defensive categories in order to achieve the personnel match-ups.

In our current setup, I can have a bunch of 4 and 5 WR plays in my PML, PSL, PMM and PSM. Which means, in order to have personnel to match-up, my opponent would need to run a bunch of 4 or CB plays on early downs on defense. There is nothing wrong with that at all since it's on the defensive coach to prepare appropriately.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that stops me from running a bunch of 2 WR and 2 TE PML, PMM, PSL and PSM plays the following week. As a defensive coach, unless I guessed that my opponent would completely change his play style, there will be personnel mismatches all game.

You are correct, it's a lot of work that might not necessarily bring extra "fun" to the game. However, since personnel match-ups don't seem to matter as much to others as they do to me, should we consider just doing away with mandatory categories for offense as well as defense? Personally, I wouldn't want to do that because I believe it would just make the game into the "wild west". However, what's the difference in the play categories when personnel isn't that big of a factor?

[Jerry-Redskins]

Its has never been the position for me. It has always been what the call is in the play. What the players are assigned to do. I do not care if a team has say 3 WR and 1 TE sets in a bunch of categories. It the primary routes are short it is a short pass play. If it is a run it is a run. If the players all go long it a long pass play. It is what the play is trying to accomplish we match up to. You noted you sat on my shorter controlled passing game. That is exactly what you should have done. Just because I have say 2 WR and 2 TE doesn't mean I can't run PM routes and will run the ball. Yeah it matters some on short yardage, but on 1st down it does not say what I'm doing. We are a sim league and not head to head which to me has always been what are you doing and not who is on the field. I do not feel we should be trying to force formation matches. Maybe it's just me.

[Mitch-Oilers]

You know, you'd think more teams would run the ball better with so many weak CBs on the field in early downs.