Rule Proposal: Defense for 10+ scenarios

[Mitch-Oilers]

I propose adjusting the number of required play categories from 3 to 2 for all defensive situations of 10+. Since many times a defense needs to defend PLR and PRD offensive plays, requiring the defense to call a play from a category other than PL and D-PRD gives the offense an unfair advantage.

Curious what other coaches think about this proposal...

[Dean-Atlanta]

I would vote for the rule change.

[James-Eagles]

I am against it because it adds more complexity to the rules. I am not against the idea just don't like making the rules more complex.

[Donovon-Steelers]

Mitch's point is valid. When its 3rd & Forever and PM-D gets called, there's a possibility of a big play. I hate it when that happens to my D, but I love it when I get lucky on O with this occurrence.

Somebody previously made a comment (maybe it was Rich?) that we don't have blown coverages at a level commensurate with NFL games. Mitch's proposal would make this even more rare. Its already extremely uncommon; we don't need yet another rule for it, and it would just make the "blown play" even rarer, causing the games to be more vanilla / less exciting. Voting no on this one.

[Rich-League Officer]

Nice to know someone is listening

As long as we have 90-95 IN/DI players, nobody ever makes a mistake in coverage.
This change could mean a complete shutdown of long/RZD passes to go along with the fact we have no run after catch.
What's left?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Sure won't go well for teams if they only call PL and PRD defense on 2 and 10+ if the other team decides to run or execute a short pass.

[Charlie-49ers]

Nice to know someone is listening

As long as we have 90-95 IN/DI players, nobody ever makes a mistake in coverage.
This change could mean a complete shutdown of long/RZD passes to go along with the fact we have no run after catch.
What's left?

I have to agree with Rich on this one.

[Rich-League Officer]

[size=85]

Nice to know someone is listening

As long as we have 90-95 IN/DI players, nobody ever makes a mistake in coverage.
This change could mean a complete shutdown of long/RZD passes to go along with the fact we have no run after catch.
What's left?

I have to agree with Rich on this one.

I know how painful it is for you to agree with me

[Mitch-Oilers]

Nice to know someone is listening

As long as we have 90-95 IN/DI players, nobody ever makes a mistake in coverage.
This change could mean a complete shutdown of long/RZD passes to go along with the fact we have no run after catch.
What's left?

Have you not watched the 4th quarter of nearly every Green Bay game? There are blown coverages everywhere. LOL!

I get it. I know we sometimes have to "simulate" blown coverages to enhance the game. As Donovan said, I hate when the "once in a blue moon" PM defense gets called against the T-Lob and you look like a fool calling a medium defense. Ha!

Of course, if we want to increase scoring, restrict PM defenses on early downs and require RR defenses on early downs.

[Dean-Atlanta]

If RM and/or RR defenses get mandated on early downs, it will raise the following issues:

1. Older RM and RR defensive players created under the old rules would need to be edited to comply with current rules, otherwise everyone simming will identify the older plays that are not legal under current rules that would perform better because they lack the number of run-focused defenders required for RM and RR under current rules.

2. Editing the RM and RR plays to make them all legal under current rules would lead to creative efforts to create plays with the required number of run-focused defenders that creative use the logic allowed so that they can still have a chance of covering passing plays where 4-5 receivers are checked. This is NOT easy since it means using logic consistent with the run-focused rule and having those players able to cover receivers or otherwise pressure the QB to sack him before he finds an open receiver.

All of this means, a rule requiring use of RM and/or RR defenses on early downs could be at least a short term avantage to teams that design new plays.

Those of you who do nopr draw up new plays, probably do not want such a rule.

Then again, Mitch might be just stirring the pot with the suggestion.