Question for thought

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Same with RR, RL, and RM. Would be great if they could all be called on any down and we used them to control the type of running play instead. For example, make it so QB keepers can only be in RM, not RL and RR. And make it so RM only contains run plays between the tackles including QB keepers (4/3/2/1/0). RL then becomes all the sweeps (8/7) and RR becomes all the pitches and off tackles (6/5). If you can call any run play on any down and regroup the plays as I just mentioned, it gives us better control over the play calling of run plays. We would then shift from the RM10, RL4, RR4 requirement to RM6, RL6, and RR6 with the caveat that RM can only have 50% QB runs. If someone wants to run their QB all day by going RM10, RL1, RR1, let them. Their opponent just has to find a way to stop them.

[Dean-Atlanta]

@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?

Such as the restrictions on when PSL vs PSM vs PSR plays can be called and the tendency to "clone" good PSL plays also into PSM and PSR plays?

There are two ways this could be addressed, one is lift the restrictions and allow any of the short pass categories to be calls in any of the down situations that currently allow any of the three pass short categories, and so the same with rules on when PML, PMM, PMR can be called. This would have pros and cons and no doubt could be debated extensively.

Or require that plays be unique among the categories, a PSL plays also cloned into the other two (PSM and PSR) would be made sufficiently unique or deleted. That way a PSL play is not cloned into PSM and/or PSR. But how much it must be changed to be considered unique is very subjective and open to debate, and more head aches for Charlie in reviewing plays when one of us says "well I changed the WR4 in that play to run 2 yards shorter pattern, so by definition it's unique" when it is still almost a clone.

How many of you think the way it is now works and doesn't need to be fixed?

[Dean-Atlanta]

I completely agree with these changes Steve suggests and would definitely vote for this if we are asked to vote on it.

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).

[Shawn-Giants]

These are all Novel ideas, and I'm not against any of them. However I don't think it's necessary to attempt boiling the ocean implementing these changes. Nothing is really broken to fix.

If the juice is worth the squeeze then implement. It would require over hauling the current playpool, reviewing 1500+ plays for compliance. Who's the volunteers for that task?

Maybe it's something we transition to over time and gracefully purge out the old plays that don't meet the criteria of the proposed metrics for specific formations.

[Jerry-Redskins]

This accomplishes nothing in the end that I can see. The successful plays will still be called in the same situations I think. I see a bunch of work for no actual value unless I'm missing something.

[Dean-Atlanta]

These are all Novel ideas, and I'm not against any of them. However I don't think it's necessary to attempt boiling the ocean implementing these changes. Nothing is really broken to fix.

If the juice is worth the squeeze then implement. It would require over hauling the current playpool, reviewing 1500+ plays for compliance. Who's the volunteers for that task?

Maybe it's something we transition to over time and gracefully purge out the old plays that don't meet the criteria of the proposed metrics for specific formations.

WE can make the changes Steve suggested without changing a single play. Just change the profile rules to any any short or medium passing play category on first and second downs. Simple profile rules change. No need to edit a single play or create any new ones. This would allow us to call 100% passing on some downs if we want, and also do the same for running, allow all three run categories to be called on first and second downs, so some can run the ball 100% on first down.

I want the juice, I'm tired of kool aid. I want what Steve suggested as I mentioned above, I want PLR Lob passes, shorter but similar to what we allowed in PRD.

More juice and less kool aid. Let's embrace change. That which works now is broken tomorrow.

[Shawn-Giants]

We can do those things already with less than 5 min left, without any rule or profile changes.

I'm not understanding what is there to fix, what is the issue we would be addressing? Is offensive scoring down?

Do we need to stack the offense even more vs the defense? What are we gaining by implementing these new rules?

[Dean-Atlanta]

We're gaining coaching flexibility. Right now you have to have a 3rd category that is either running or passing, you can not have your profile set to go 3 categories of running, or all three passing, on first down. As as we've seen, set the profile set 10 PML, 1 PSL, 1 RM in first down, a heavily disproportionate amount of PSL and RM can be called, which limits the effectiveness of your coaching decision to go heavily medium passing on first down, for example.

THAT is a problem. What Steve proposes FIXES that problem. I say let's embrace change.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I do not want to play in a league where a team calls 100% run one week and 100% pass the next. This is a sim league. You cannot react to what you see on the filed during a game. I was so happy to find a league that tests coaches abilities closer than any other. The PNFL has always been different and guess what, it is still standing. I want less gimmick and more coaching. The more open the calling from the original goals of this sim league the less fun and more reason for zero prep. The day we move to be like all of the other leagues back in the day is the day I move on.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I agree with Jerry.

I started this thread to better understand why we restrict offensive categories since they contain multiple personell packages, but we don't really do the same on defense.

Like Jerry stated, since this is a sim league and not a H2H league, we have to have some restrictions on PPPs because coaches are not able to react during the games.