Pass short defense required?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Our rules require PS defense be called on 3rd and 2-5, PM on 3rd and 6-10, and PL on 3rd and 10+. Yet some teams are able t play an entire game without calling a single PS defensive play. How can this be?

I did an experiment. I put this profile setting, which is legal by the rules, in for 3rd and 2-5:

Run Left 10
Run Middle 10
Pass Short 1

This insures PS is called at most 5 percent of the time, and possibly not at all. I simmed a game, and sue enough, my defense did not call a PS play a single time.

At just 5 percent, this “requirement” that PS be called is not a requirement at all. Either this rule should be eliminated or PS should be required 50 percent of all 3rd and 2-5 so the rule actually means something.

[Mitch-Oilers]

It's because the sample size of 3 and 2-5 scenarios is small in an individual game. I refuse to debate this stuff anymore.

[Dean-Atlanta]

The sample size of ANYTHING is small in a single game, that doesn't change the point I made. Is just FIVE percent of PS on 3rd and 2-5 enough to mean anything?

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, this is not an insignificant point, and Dean is correct! However, we are into a new season, and pretty much opposed to making mid-season rule changes, especially one that would require Profile changes for literally every team.

If we are going to try to balance the Pass Short requirement, then we need to consider the balance of all other calls in the game, which would include, but not limited to the Half, the Clock, and very possibly Field position. Since I believe (correct me if I am wrong) our rules only require a minimum of two (2) defensive categories on each play, then ten Run Left, ten run Middle, and one Pass Short meet the current rule requirement. If the rules required three defensive categories, the above combination would still be within the rules.

If the current rules or portion thereof appear inequitable, then constructive alternative should be posted on the Message Board so that we can discuss. With all the randomness associated with the game, you are always going to see your team call something that you would not have called had you had control. I cannot tell you how many times I have watched my game where I am yelling at the screen to RUN inside the five on First & Goal and the Damn QB throws a pass.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The rule as currently constructed hurts nothing either way and has existed for ever. You don't like it go 10-10-1. You do, then do a higher %. No reason to debate or change it in my opinion. Lets save the debate time and energy for something actually having a real affect on game play, which BTW has been pretty good for a lot of seasons lately. The it isn't broke don't fix it idea has merit.

[Dean-Atlanta]

My point is...if there is a valid reason to require PS defense for 3rd and 2-5, realism or whatever, allowing it to be called just 5 percent and almost never, does not accomplish that.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I actually kind of agree with Dean. I think the PS, PM, and PL requirements on 3rd down are meaningless. I don't want to require a higher weight for these categories on these downs though because I know it's just a pain for the commish to enforce.

A better option would be to set some category usage limitations on defense to ensure the categories are meaningfully used as originally attended. I think something like this for next season is doable and easy for the commish and coaches to verify and enforce in log files:
1st/2nd/3rd down 0-5 from O5 to D5 - Can only use RZR, RR, RM, RL, PS (basically can't use PM, PL, PRD)
1st/2nd/3rd down 6-10 from O5 to D5 - Can only use RM, RL, PM, PL (basically can't use RZR, RR, PRD)
1st/2nd/3rd down >10 - Can use anything
PRD can only be used < 2 min left each half
GR/GP can only be used in goal line situations

I don't think the weighting matters as much on defense as limiting the categories available to use in yardage situations. Forcing RR to only be used in short yardage situations keeps it more aligned to its intended purpose of stopping the run with 8+ run defenders. Forcing PM and PL not to be used in short yardage situations would increase the value of the PS category as pass defense option.

I know everyone will hate this and shoot it down, but just throwing it out there.

[Mitch-Oilers]

We had a big debate on another thread about play category requirements/restrictions last season. However, I think it was determined it was easier to keep things "as is".

[Dean-Atlanta]

Then we need to create stronger PS plays.

[Dean-Atlanta]

This makes sense and we should seriously consider this, after limiting use of 2-DL defenses, in the off-season.

I actually kind of agree with Dean. I think the PS, PM, and PL requirements on 3rd down are meaningless. I don't want to require a higher weight for these categories on these downs though because I know it's just a pain for the commish to enforce.

A better option would be to set some category usage limitations on defense to ensure the categories are meaningfully used as originally attended. I think something like this for next season is doable and easy for the commish and coaches to verify and enforce in log files:
1st/2nd/3rd down 0-5 from O5 to D5 - Can only use RZR, RR, RM, RL, PS (basically can't use PM, PL, PRD)
1st/2nd/3rd down 6-10 from O5 to D5 - Can only use RM, RL, PM, PL (basically can't use RZR, RR, PRD)
1st/2nd/3rd down >10 - Can use anything
PRD can only be used < 2 min left each half
GR/GP can only be used in goal line situations

I don't think the weighting matters as much on defense as limiting the categories available to use in yardage situations. Forcing RR to only be used in short yardage situations keeps it more aligned to its intended purpose of stopping the run with 8+ run defenders. Forcing PM and PL not to be used in short yardage situations would increase the value of the PS category as pass defense option.

I know everyone will hate this and shoot it down, but just throwing it out there.