Offensive Run Plays on Various Downs

[Rich-League Officer]

Dean, technically its the same % but its not.
RL/RR are 2/4 50% but they are far less called because of their restrictions.
RM is 2/10 or 20%

This new idea would mean a 1st down where a QB can run 33% of the time.
It would create quite a few more QB runs.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I'm am pretty fed up with the nothing but change talk crowd. People cannot win and want to tweak the rules to make it easier for them or just change for the sake of change.

This argument is an intellectually weak, not true and non sequitur. If you were on Discord with us Jerry, you would have heard the discussion. I was NOT the one leading this conversation, I listens about 98% of the time for this and kept my mouth shut. The coaches LEADING this talk about changing the running rules were currently WINNING coaches, including some who have defeated you this season.

The push for this change is NOT coming from struggling coaches that think changing the rules will allow them to win more. That statement is simply not true.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Seems part of these may be about the play calling itself. We are commish sim and will always have that limitation. Part of the skill is to determine how many sweeps, off tackle, or inside runs to put into RM and RR each week and how much to defend them. I took most of the sweeps out this week as I though the inside would be better. It was. There were some unsuccessful sweeps as I assumed still called, but I'm glad they were there as I could have been wrong.

I would not be in favor of lowering the RM below 10. I get folks want a way to be more specific, but it is not possible with 3 categories only and keeping the number to be called enough to not let teams minimize play calls too much. Just look at it as your OC making the calls during the game and making you mad. We are commish sim and not head-to-head and not one of the old leagues that would let you run one play all game.

I think this gets into the same as how many defenses to use each week in categories. I see many teams using the bare minimum plays and profile call weights to stop one main thing. My opinion this only works if you guess right on your opponent. If you do not, you opened yourself up to be exploited. Same with the runs. If you could get truly specific and your opponent guessed the same you will lose. Being varied, but calling more of what should work leaves you less vulnerable to being wrong. Throwing your eggs in one basket is very risky.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Dean,

I agree partly. I did assume it was the same people with the same discussion we have had every other season on the run play numbers. So I was wrong on that part which drove the frustrated part of the response. The basics are correct though as expanded in my next reply.

[Charlie-49ers]

Well, maybe we should freeze any further rule change considerations until the Falcons, Giants, or Raiders win a Super Bowl under the current rules.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Jerry said : You can already build anything into any run category.

I will pull out the argument that I like, lol

It's a fair point, why can't coaches create plays for RL/RR right now that mimic what you want to run on offense?
I think Dean said it's a style of offense, so can't you create that in run middle?
Maybe the rule doesn't need to change, maybe it just requires custom plays more closely aligned with RL/RR

It is a style of offense and that was really the ONLY point I made in that discussion last night. I said if someone wanted to run a strictly running and short pass based ball control offense, then using RM. RL and PSL would be the way to do that. By requiring at least 1 PML, it gets called more than enough to disrupt that STYLE off offense. I pointed out this is the same issue if one chooses to employ a run and aggressive pass style of offense, the current rule requiring at least 1 PSL also disrupts that. The currently rule that REQUIRES everyone to ONLY use RM, PSK, and PML on 1st and 10 by its very nature puts us all in a straight jacket and makes use all run basically the same style of offense. This isn't realism, this cookie cutter clone offense. THAT combined with our compressed ratings and clones players that leads to hundreds of clones "custom" plays that we all use the same plays and make cookie cutter game plans, we are all coaching the same style of play and it's becoming regurgitated pabulum. This is not a "solution in search of a problem" but a glaring problem that only the blind can ignore and the idea Charlie put forth here partially solves the obvious glaring problem.

The other point of coaching style Barney made last night was going 6-6-6 would allow a coach to limit sweeps to RR, off-tackle runs to RL, and middle inside runs to RM.This would allow a coach to effectively control, in the profile, which types of runs to employ in different down situations. Current rules do NOT allow this since most runs are in RM and those are what is used mostly, and loading all sweeps or all off-tackle for the 10 RM plays would be very unbalanced and unrealistic. Going with the 6-6-6 plan is both more realism and allows more coaching style flexibility. How often is it that we have a solution that enhances both realism and coaching flexibility when often those concerns are at odds with ideas that we propose?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Dean, technically its the same % but its not.
RL/RR are 2/4 50% but they are far less called because of their restrictions.
RM is 2/10 or 20%

This new idea would mean a 1st down where a QB can run 33% of the time.
It would create quite a few more QB runs.

That's a valid issue. I don't really want 33% of runs on first down being QB runs. What so the rules say cap of 20% QB runs no matter how many runs are used, 25% like we limit timed passes to 50% on passing. On timed passes, 50% means 2 out of 5 or 3 out of 6 in passing. The 25% QB runs means 1 in 4 (I think 2 of 4 is way too high), 1 in 6 runs or 2 of 8 runs.

If we go 6-6-6 the 25% limit means 1 in 6 are QB runs, a limit I am fine with, I think some teams use too many QB runs. If a team want to still do 2 QB runs in RM, they could lose 8 RM plays in their game plan.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Well, maybe we should freeze any further rule change considerations until the Falcons, Giants, or Raiders win a Super Bowl under the current rules.

Let's compromise on ONE of those three teams PLAYING in a Super Bowl under the current rules, not necessarily winning one. That happened in the 2041 season.

I guess that means the Falcons, Giants, and Raiders can play in this debating rules changes game.

[Rich-League Officer]

So, if I have this right, a coach would have more control on what type of run gets called.
Inside/Outside. He could focus in inside runs based on certain criteria and outside runs based on other criteria.

What if hypothetically, I get an email from Thomas saying he wants more control on 1st down to call a medium pass every time he throws?
He wants RM/PSL/PML/PMM/PMR
Justin emails me and says he wants to throw long each pass he throws on 1st down.
He wants RM/PSL/PML/PLR

It's a style of offense they like.

Is this a fair request by them?
Is it a slippery slope?
Is that where we ultimately go where its Run Random/Short Random/Medium Random on all downs?
Why not?

[Jerry-Redskins]

It opens it up to a team only needing 6 right play guesses that week for RM and not 10. There can be good principles and meaning but there are others looking to exploit a situation. Some may want more style which I agree with, but going to 6 max means you allowed a team to only do one thing easier all game. I think people are missing the point. The old leagues let you call like 1 thing the whole game and you cannot react in commish sim. Lowering the minimum plays and calls simply moves things closer to that. I get the want for the style, but the next guy can care less and will use it as an exploit. Ideals do not equal reality and the unintended consequences ruin the ideal.

Kinda like the squatter issues. It is a great idea to try to not have someone temporarily down on their luck go homeless. Others move in and take over your home, destroy it, and you can't get them out. The unintended consequence's of an ideal.

The beauty of the PNFL has been the need to be more varied and not call one play all game. More thought and nuance