Play criteria - Open discussion

[Jerry-Redskins]

Agreed

[Dean-Atlanta]

I see two issues to consider in the ideas Charlie discusses below that started this discussion:

1. Whether and how this should be done, and that "devil" is in the details, is one discussion. And havint hat discussion could lead to some agreement on those ideas.

2. Implementing those ideas, which I think is part of Jerry is saying, would be a major change from what the PNFL is currently doing at this time. If this idea has enough support, it is enough of a departure from what the PNFL currently does t warrant the creating of a new league based on these ideas, then it would be run this way from the start, and no need to completely change the PNFL over to this. Given that the PNFL is full, this idea combined with some other idea could be the basis for creating another league, than many of us and others would probably join.

Some ideas to think about...

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.

[Dean-Atlanta]

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

Right, and one would also THINK using the 2-DL defenses would be a liability to give up more yards to rushing as well. But some of those plays, and the weaker CBs, are fairly stout against the running game.

This issue may well just be a shortcoming of FBPro98, it can only be so realistic, within its limits.

[James-Eagles]

Ok my 2 cents

While I find the discussion interesting, I think the ship has sailed on this a decade ago. We currently only have 2 teams with more than 5 wins and only 2 teams with more than 5 losses in week 8. That means 14 of 18 team are within 2 games of each other at the halfway point.

I also agree with Jerry it shouldn't be about personal, but about what they are doing. That is why I thought the 2DL rule change was a bad one.

It boils down to the NFL positions were morphing when 98 came out. Jason Taylor was DE who was 6'6" 244lb had just entered the league for example. FBPro and VNPNFL hadn't caught up to that at the time since it was just starting.

While 3-4 and 4-3 still exist DE are edge guys now so they are more OLB than DE. At least one of the LB is a Safety and I make a case 1 of the Safeties is more CB than safety. That means if you trying to mirror modern NFL defenses with 3 decade old game. You need to be running something closer to 1-2 DL 2-4 LB 4 CB and 2-3 Safeties. This is your basic Defensive package that comes out on 1st down. Just like in NFL now there really is no such thing as a TE or FB anymore. Those positions still exist but the people playing them are what in 98 you would call a TE or FB.

We have competitive league with full membership in a nearly 35 year old game. I don't think we need to be messing with stuff inside the game.

Just to address a few more things since I am sharing my 2 cents. The reason PNFL stats and playing calling are the way they is because that is what works in FBPro. Longer passes generate more points in the long run than short passes even if they have a lower completion percent. Passing is more effect than running since running results seems boom or bust and very little boom. Coverage works better than blitzing because blitzing gives up more big plays than sacks. 2-DL are weaker against the run but if I remember right it is more between the tackle running that works there. It has been since XFBS days since I really looked at that though.

Now I will go back to my cave and return cockpit back to auto-pilot.

[James-Eagles]

Oh and the 2 teams with more than 5 wins are by far the two best coaches in the league. I am pretty sure if we voted by ranked which coaches 1 and 2 in the league no one else would get a vote.

[Mitch-Oilers]

After digging even more into the play pool, I've decided it would take a complete overhaul of both offense and defense to revert back to the VPNFL standards that I have in my head. It's not worth it. I've gone through my practice play pool spreadsheets and notated the RM and RL plays with 3 or fewer CBs to help me going forward.

Maybe we should still look at the LB personnel minimums for RL/PS, but only for new plays going forward.

Also, maybe we add a notation in the play naming conventions for the # of CBs in a play.

[Rich-League Officer]

Is this game really 35 years old?
I'm old but is it really 2033?

[Steve-LA Chargers]

So funny that we eventually circled back to my proposal that we just fix PS/RL with regard to LB requirements.