Issue regarding unrealistic defensive plays

[Dean-Atlanta]

This is an issue I have noticed while working on developing new defensive plays and making sure those new plays are in compliance with our play design rules.

The issue is regarding defensive plays like MNRL312, MNRL313, MNRL323, KC32pm3Z, KC32pm8Z, MN32MB2, etc.

These plays are in violation of the rule requiring three players defending the line of scrimmage. Additionally, they use defensive line players to play forms of logic that in football pro are reserved only for linebackers and defensive backs. The issue is that these plays are unrealistic, which is why I think you implemented those rules on defending the line of scrimmage, but because of that they are very effective so they are becoming just as common and defensive game plans as the slashing Defender Plays had become last season. This is causing two great a degree to which most teams defensive game plans are starting to look alike and be filled with several of these plays that several teams have submitted variations of them.

The overuse of these places is also stifling new play development. Because when we try to make new effective defenses they can't compete and Effectiveness with these plays because the new place have to comply with the rules on defending the line of scrimmage and other rules that these plays violate. So the new plays are more likely to either not be submitted or if submitted not be used because they're not as effective in stopping offenses as these plays with the defensive lineman in zone coverages.

My suggestion to you is that these place should be dealt with in the same way that you handled the situation with the slashing Defender plays last year. Well I understand that these plays being in violation of the current rules on defending the line of scrimmage we're grandfathered in, the existence and dominance of these plays over others as I said is stifling newly development and stifling coaches using a diversity of plays in their game plans to construct effective in realistic defenses. Should we do with these the same we did with the slashing Defender plays, that those coaches who submitted these be given a chance at some point to either revise them to bring them in compliance with the defending the line of scourge rules or that they be deleted from The Playbook as where the slashing Defender plays?

These plays also raise another issue in the use of logic that is not available to defensive lineman such as Zone coverage that the game doesn't allow defensive lineman to use. There is a workaround where this can be done in the play editor where a linebacker is substituted and the Zone coverage is put in place and then the defensive player in the other spot is the linebacker substituted for them and it erases their logic but then it puts the defensive lineman back in place with the defensive lineman should be but doesn't erase the logic of that player. I think this is a glitch in the play editor which is exploited to allow a defensive lineman to use passing coverage that is not available otherwise to defense alignment. I think if you wanted to stop this practice the easy way to address that is simply put in the rules that substitution of players cannot be manipulated in a way that allows defensive line players to carry logic that isn't available to them in the play editor the menu for defense line players. This rule in addition to keeping the enforcing the rule on defending the line of scrimmage would cut out a lot of these kinds of unrealistic place and being designed and submitted as they have been in the past. I wanted to raise this issue because it's something that you may want to think about primarily because it is severely stifling development of a new place to have a number of commonly used plays in the Playbook that violate our current rules and that have a strong competitive advantage over new pleasure to submitted in compliance with the current rules.

The rules regarding having 3 players defending the LOS were put in place for realism. If this realism is important, should these plays be modified or deleted to make them compliant with the rules as well?

[Mitch-Oilers]

These plays do not have the same impact as the slasher plays. The slasher plays had a zone end inside the box and due to the how players move to zone logic, made it nearly impossible to block the player.

There are plenty of DL that drop into zones so I don't see an issue with using the work around to make plays act more like NFL plays.

Simce these plays work so well, it doesn't sound like we need to create new defenses. It sounds like we need to create offenses to beat them.

[Justin-Chicago]

As Mitch said, DL do indeed drop into pass coverage at times in the NFL. I see no issue with this, as long as the other aspects of the rules are enforced.

A bigger issue, and much simpler to enforce, is when the active position requirements (i.e. 2 TEs, 3 Ts, 2 DTs) go unchecked.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I agree with Justin.

[Rich-League Officer]

As Mitch said, DL do indeed drop into pass coverage at times in the NFL. I see no issue with this, as long as the other aspects of the rules are enforced.

A bigger issue, and much simpler to enforce, is when the active position requirements (i.e. 2 TEs, 3 Ts, 2 DTs) go unchecked.

I will add that to the list of things I need to do before I press the button to start a game.
There was 1 violation for only have 1 TE this week, all other teams/positions were good.
Not sure it rises to the ranks of a felony but it is a rule.
The owner was emailed and scolded appropriately

[Jerry-Redskins]

Yes, they flood the short passing lanes. We do use them a little different than the NFL. The Comish could consider they do not have three players attaching the LOS like the NFL would still do when dropping the tweener DL to confuse QB's and still rush three. They act like 2 DL plays in that respect. They are not AI busters though. BTW. They have weak points. You run at them and throw over them. A DT in a deep zone does not scare most WR's

[Bryan-Rams]

As has been stated several times, NFL defenses do employ DL dropping into short zones from time to time. Maybe what needs to be adjusted is ensuring that another player (LB or CB/S is attacking the LOS) is meeting the rule requirements. Attacking should be defined as either blitzing or run rush. Reading would not meet the requirement.

[Bryan-Rams]

Another consideration would be to limit how many of this play type can appear in a profile across different play categories like one each.

[Charlie-49ers]

As has been stated several times, NFL defenses do employ DL dropping into short zones from time to time. Maybe what needs to be adjusted is ensuring that another player (LB or CB/S is attacking the LOS) is meeting the rule requirements. Attacking should be defined as either blitzing or run rush. Reading would not meet the requirement.

This is done on all new plays (unless I miss it)

[Charlie-49ers]

Another consideration would be to limit how many of this play type can appear in a profile across different play categories like one each.

At some point, it is an honor system, like the number of Timed passes that you can have in any given category! There is no way that I am going to look at a team's Defensive Plan (some teams have two), and open 5, 10, 20, or more plays to see if they have the required number of defenders covering the LOS or if they have the correct number of plays in that category. You have to do some self-policing by reviewing the Logs. Find a problem and let us know and we will do the necessary or appropriate notifications. We do it now.