PNFL Injury Idea

[Jerry-Redskins]

Not against looking at this either. Want to keep things simple as always. Not sure there is a problem here, but I had problems by PNFL standards with injuries the last few seasons. Been blessed this season though.

I have always been a believer in the draft tuning fork being EN, IN, DI. I would like to see data, but bringing down actual EN ratings as players enter the draft may potentially make rookies less effective early in their career and maybe increase injuries a bit as well.

Also good with nothing here. As always this is a side show for our lives. Adding too much complication and prep time to things is always questionable for me.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Brutal injuries definitely happening:

CB2 Greg Newsome O-20 (Denver)

[Rich-League Officer]

Brian's comment is very interesting.
Altering the sub% would not necessarily change the frequency of the injuries all that much but it would target the starters more often.
No attribute changes needed. Stats might look better for starters.
And, coaches can't really complain injuries are out of control.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Something else to consider is leaving EN alone during the AA process. Players would keep their physical and mental attributes. However, they would become fatigued faster and recover slower like an aging player should.

[Rich-League Officer]

Something else to consider is leaving EN alone during the AA process. Players would keep their physical and mental attributes. However, they would become fatigued faster and recover slower like an aging player should.

I like that idea too

[Charlie-49ers]

This is a very productive discussion. In keeping with our usual incremental approach to change, I recommend lowering the IN/OUT threshold as the least disruptive option and the easiest to reverse if it does not produce the desired results.

Substitution Percent – With the exception of the QB, who will remain at the current settings, all other players would have an OUT threshold of 90% and an IN threshold of 100%. In practice, player attributes would gradually decline as they approach the 90% mark, which could lead to more mistakes from reduced IN and DI, a higher injury risk due to declining EN physical attributes, and more big plays on both sides of the ball as random mismatches occur between the offense and defense.

This approach avoids hard-coding lower IN, DI, or EN values for incoming rookies, which would otherwise remain with them throughout their careers. After one season, we can review the results and debate whether to raise, lower, or maintain the 90% substitution floor.

[Jerry-Redskins]

No issue if this ends up proceeding. We have done similar before and it is an easy tweak back and probably a small impact if at all.

We do need to make sure we think about the added randomness. It means less control. While the change is unlikely to have a significant impact. What ever impact it does have will be out of a teams control. I have been lucky this season, but had a couple of rough (by PNFL standards) seasons recently.

May lead to roster construction differences as well.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Clarification question:

Except QB, all other positions would have a mandatory OUT% of 90%. The IN% can be anything above 90%. Is this correct?

[Justin-Chicago]

Strongly oppose, and some are forgetting that IN and DI are not impacted by fatigue.

[Charlie-49ers]

Clarification question:

Except QB, all other positions would have a mandatory OUT% of 90%. The IN% can be anything above 90%. Is this correct?

Nope! IN at 100%