Question for thought

[Mitch-Oilers]

On a past forum thread, I suggested we put more emphasis on personell packages when creating defensive and offensive plays since that was my understanding of the intent of the VPNFL. It was shared that personell packages shouldn't matter, only the logic of the play design.

With that in mind, why do we still restrict offensive play categories to certain down and distances? With VPNFL, the player personell and play designs were created in an effort not to have 5 WR formations against a base 4-3 defense on early downs. However, as pointed out in my earlier thread, we have 100s of 4 WR plays in the PML/PMM/PSL/PMM categories. Originally, these types of plays would have been PMR/PSR/RR plays.

Why not allow all play types to be called on any down except for PLR and PRD if personell doesn't matter?

I'm not advocating that we make this switch. I'm just curious why it hasn't been made.

[Dean-Atlanta]

With that in mind, why do we still restrict offensive play categories to certain down and distances? With VPNFL, the player personell and play designs were created in an effort not to have 5 WR formations against a base 4-3 defense on early downs. However, as pointed out in my earlier thread, we have 100s of 4 WR plays in the PML/PMM/PSL/PMM categories. Originally, these types of plays would have been PMR/PSR/RR plays.

Why not allow all play types to be called on any down except for PLR and PRD if personell doesn't matter?

I'm not advocating that we make this switch. I'm just curious why it hasn't been made.

It hasn't been made because it would restrict coaching decisions that each team should make about their style and strategy of types of offense. Choices of personnel as well as how many WRs are issues of coaching choice.

We have so many 4-WR p lays in those categories precisely because first and second downs are the BEST times to open up the offense with 4-WR passing plays. Once can argue that third down conversions are better accomplished with 2-3 WR plays, exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Again, there are coaching choices, not matters for rules and regulations. As I suggested with the Spider plays, let the "market" decide.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - I think you missed my point. My question is why do we still have restrictions on which downs you can call certain offensive plays since there is a lot of overlap between the play categories now?

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think the main driver was the change with what was "Run and Shoot" offensive plays. They were a separate category at one time. If you were RS you could not have a TE an FB I think and could not use Non-RS plays. As the NFL went more open in passing with more 3 WR and 4 WR plays the rule was dropped and the plays incorporated in. They were the SC plays at that time. Once the category was dropped people starting making non SC plays into all categories.

Overlap in formation is not overlap in the play calling. They are two different things. They categories are designed to give the ability to create plays for a purpose. PSL and PSM are short passes, but PSR needs is meant for 3-5 yard 3rd down situations. Same as PSR should be looking to maximize getting exactly 10 yards. People may not be designing them to do it, but the categories give the ability to design and make your calls based on down and yardage situations, which is what the NFL definitely does.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I think you are onto something. There is really no distinction between the PML & PMM and PSL & PSM categories. PMR and PSR, however are usually plays that have a better chance of converting a 3rd down.

There is an opportunity for our league to rethink this categorization to drive more distinction and help Charlie reduce duplications across the categories (thus free up space).

For example, maybe PML can only be used from OFF5 to OFF35 and these plays have deeper passing zones (i.e. 30 yards from LOS instead of 20). And only PMM can be used from OFF35 to DEF5 but these must meet the current passing zone requirement.

Or maybe we use them to make the distinction by type of offense (e.g. spread vs pro). PML/PSL become 4/5 receiver plays only and PMM/PSM become 2/3 receiver plays. All 4 can then be used on any down as they really are just about offensive style/preferences.

I like where you are going. These are just some ideas. I'm sure others have other great ideas on how we can create better distinction for these categories.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The point is there is already the ability to use down and distance as it currently is. No change is needed. People choose to call the same things, but do not have to. Recently my clones are only to set the position grouping. I have my roster set to better run 11,12 formations, but I'd rather keep it all down and distance setup than formation.

Plus been doing this so long I have it ingrained in my brain.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Jerry has essentially declared this discussion over. No changes needed.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Nah. This one is my personal preference only and yes I don't want to rewire on this one . The changes you noted are valid. I just do not think it will change the play calling much and I do prefer it as it is. I'm not against it just not for it either.

[Mitch-Oilers]

As I said, I'm not advocating for a change. Im fact, for defensive planning purposes, I prefer to keep things "as-is" because it's easier to gameplan when you know the offense is limited in play categories.

I was just pondering what the real difference is between some of these offensive pass categories now, especially PML/PMM and PSL/PSM.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

There is no real difference at all. The main difference is that they are different pools of plays with only a few duplicates or flips. This is why I would not be too terribly upset with allowing the use of any PML/PMM/PMR/PSL/PSM/PSR on any down. Because we require 3 categories to be used in profiles and 5 plays per pass category, the game plan and profile restrictions ensure we avoid coaches calling 3 plays over and over.

Look at it this way. On defense, we only require PL, PM and PS to be used on 3rd down. Considering PML/PMM/PMR/PSL/PSM/PSR have become oversaturated with similar plays, I don't see why we can't loosen up the offensive restrictions similarly and require PLR(10+)/PMR(6-10)/PSR(2-5) to be used on 3rd down but allow allow PML/PMM/PMR/PSL/PSM/PSR to be used on any other down.

This approach would ensure that all 3rd downs always involve PLR(10+)/PMR(6-10)/PSR(2-5) but like the defensive profiles, lets us do stuff with less restrictions on other downs like using PMM/PML/PSL on 2nd down and 6-10. It adds a lot more variety to our game planning. If I wanted to go all Pass Medium on 1st down PMM/PML/PMR, I should be able to and should be able to have my profile call PML1, PMM1, PMR1 weights which lets the game choose from 15 pass medium plays. Our current profile restrictions force me to do this PML10, PSL1, RM1 to get the same result but limits me to 5 pass medium plays (or more if I load up PML in my game plan but remove GP/GR to make room).