PROPOSAL: Rewrite the definition of some defenses

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

@Charlie Is the 2LB requirement for PM only for 2DL or is for all PM regardless of number of DLs - same question for PS.

I wasn't sure because the way the rules read on the game plans page it seemed to originally require 3LBs for all PS, 2LBs for all PM and 1LB for all PL. I was not 100% sure if this was for all DL situations or only 2DL.

I'll update the cheat sheet based on your response. You are the law here.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Be patient guys. I've reached out to Charlie directly to get additional clarity on his LB requirements for pass defenses and if it's only for 2DL formations or if it's for all formations. We'll get this nailed down once I hear back.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

These are the rules I'm inquiring about regarding the LB requirement - mainly because it potentially conflicts with the 3DL/1LB and 4DL/0LB requirement for pass defenses. If the requirement below only applies to 2DL formations, I'll adjust my cheat sheet. There is a chance Charlie intended these LB requirements to be regardless of DLs.

Pass Medium: New Pass Medium plays will require a minimum of two DLs and two LB. At least one of the two DLs must defend the LOS. As such, one DL is permitted to drop into pass coverage, but in any event, at least three players (DLs, LBs, and/or DBs) must defend the LOS.

Pass Long: New Pass Long plays will require a minimum of two DLs and one LB. Both DLs can drop into pass coverage, but the execution of the play must have at least three players (DLs, LBs, and/or DBs) defending the LOS.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm all for clearing up the language to avoid confusion and get a RL and PS difference. Not for adding S requirements. DB requirements are enough in my opinion. We are completely changing some of the historically most effective defenses and want to add more position requirements in creating new ones. Not that I will not have the same or more S in any new plays, but I want the freedom to run all CB's as the DB's if I want and not be shoe horned into a category. So I cannot vote for the options as written

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I'm all for clearing up the language to avoid confusion and get a RL and PS difference. Not for adding S requirements. DB requirements are enough in my opinion. We are completely changing some of the historically most effective defenses and want to add more position requirements in creating new ones. Not that I will not have the same or more S in any new plays, but I want the freedom to run all CB's as the DB's if I want and not be shoe horned into a category. So I cannot vote for the options as written

Sounds like you vote for Option B. That said, it has a snow balls chance in hell of winning at this point.

Considering you are essentially a co-Commish, I believe you have the power to VETO this whole thing. You can confirm with Charlie offline and if confirmed that you have that power and he is in agreement, you can come back and reply "Charlie and I choose B for the greater good of the league." I'll then provide Charlie a final, clean write-up of Option B including the cheat sheet.

We do need to know if the LB requirements he outlined in the game plans page is only for 2DL or all DL formations though for PM and PL.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Just my own vote and opinion. Charlie is the all seeing

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Sounds like you vote for Option B. That said, it has a snow balls chance in hell of winning at this point.

I've been staying out of this as I'd prefer NOT to be the deciding vote. However, I think I'll vote with Jerry on this one if for no other reason than this statement above is very premature, pretentious, and arrogant.

18 coaches in the league
8 Option A
1 Option C
1 Abstain

This lowers the threshold to 17 coaches and 9 needed to pass with 7 votes left on the table. Effectively if everyone else in the league voted with James it fails. If everyone else votes with Jerry it's a tie. Also, this poll means nothing if Rich and Charlie disagree.

Now that doesn't mean that someone could vote for Option A in the next five minutes and turn the tide.

I'm like Jerry in the fact that language needs to be cleaned up; however, we need to clarify the language more so than add new requirements. I'm not against mimicking the NFL; however, we need to try to be inviting to new people who want to join up and the more we restrict things the further we get from being inviting to new coaches.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

very pretentious, and arrogant.

Now, I at least know what you think of me. I knew all along though. Don't care much about your opinion on this or of me, but I do care about what James said and even reached out to Charlie last night to get his thoughts. That said, you and I are clearly no longer amicable if you are going to mud sling like this.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

In light of Matt's hostility towards me and to show I do care about James' concern, I am withdrawing this proposal. I will leave it to the commissioners to do what they think is best on this matter.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Steve, you need to calm down a bit. It's obvious I offended you with my comments and do apologize. However, I will get a few things straight. I have never disliked you. There isn't really anyone in the FBPRO world that I dislike. I have a feeling that a good portion of the league wants this rule change; however, it's Charlie and Rich's world and we just live in it. Another thing, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just saying that calling a vote when half the league hasn't voted and you are one vote shy is a bit premature.

We all make mistakes. We are human. In today's society, it is way to common to get easily offended at someone else. As I said above, I don't dislike you. I was trying to call out the idea not the person. But, even I admit that it could have been worded better.

This is something you obviously feel passionate about, so keep the proposal on the table. My intent was not to kill the proposal. It looks like it will pass, but it needs one more vote. All ideas need to be shared no matter what people's opinion on them is. If the league majority wanted to vote to require seven TE's on all rosters, I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd be ok with it because for the most part it's a democratic system and we need to be able to share ideas.

Where are we as a league and society if a person can kill a proposal with one post? That's not right.