PNFL Injury Idea

[Charlie-49ers]

To Matt's point; and if the OT and OG are fatigued, the DLs will run them over getting to the QB, not to mention the blitzing LB. The beauty of this is the random mismatches. You just never know where people are on the fatigue scale relative to their assignments.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

Is that good though? Are we looking for random results? Or is it better to reward the coach who calls the right play against the right play?

I feel like one of the most frustrating aspects of this old game is the randomness already. We already send in PPPs based on best guesses, where if a guy decides to totally change things up we have no chance to adjust, like we could if we were playing a modern game head to head. The field goal kicking is broken/random. The profile settings are narrow and hard to set really for specific situations. Sometimes the game seems to get stuck on random plays or categories. You might have RM/RL 50/50 and get 10/1 in the game with 1 play being called 5 tines.I have not ever thought that the game doesnt play out random enough. Is this really a problem?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Any measure that increases randomness is results I think is a step back. I think our game has too much randomness built in, which I think was going too far after Sierra had not built enough randomness into the 95 and 96 editions of FBPro.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think a small incremental move like Charlie is discussing is likely fine and will not make a large impact. It's an interesting idea. We are 10 games in and my team has had no injuries this season. Like I mentioned, I had quite a few long term ones the previous few seasons. None is the wrong side of random as well.

I think the major part of the game should be PPP's but the roster should matter and injuries are a part of it. More worried about changes to results by having more substitutions than a sudden rash of injuries with the idea. Do not want PCFL type differences. Contrary to some thought's, there are already legitimate differences in rosters in the PNFL that affects the outcomes of games in my opinion. Not to the level of a team not having a chance at the opening kick, but similar to the real NFL in affecting enough individual plays in a game to matter.

Top to bottom, most NFL teams are close in talent. The margin of error is small. Only position that is critical in the NFL is QB. Current NFL rules and styles make the QB overly important. They also are terrible at developing them. Outside QB, teams keep chugging along with stars at other positions out due to injury.

Chemistry and culture matter in the NFL matter as well I think and the PNFL has zero impact in regards to that aspect. Can't simulate the feeling.

Ultimately a simple/uncomplicated change should be fine and not create significant issues. I want everyone to believe they have a chance going into every season. May have to work a little harder week to week and have favorable breaks, but a no kidding chance to win any given week. I believe anything less would lower the fun and turn people off. A reason why big talent spreads and roster differences would be bad for the league in my opinion.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I want everyone to believe they have a chance going into every season. May have to work a little harder week to week and have favorable breaks, but a no kidding chance to win any given week. I believe anything less would lower the fun and turn people off. A reason why big talent spreads and roster differences would be bad for the league in my opinion.

This! We need this to be the core idea of the league. Instead of turning the PNFL into the PCFL, we need to keep the leagues different. PNFL = closer gap and focus on PPPs instead of rosters. PCFL wider gap and more emphasis on roster AND PPP.

[Charlie-49ers]

This proposal addresses a long-standing concern about the limited performance gap between top players and mid-range or lower-tier players, while avoiding permanent changes that could negatively affect incoming rookies. The recommended adjustment to substitution percentages is reversible without any effect on actual or potential attributes and can be reevaluated if it does not produce the desired results.
Based on limited conversations, a 97% OUT threshold and a 99-100% IN threshold appear to be close to the current PNFL standard. Using the CB position with a maximum SP of 83 as an example, the OUT threshold at would be 80-81 depending on rounding, while a WR with a maximum SP of 84 would have an OUT threshold of 81-82.

For the new season, I recommend adopting a 95% floor as a measured first step. Using the same examples, a 95% threshold would place CBs at an OUT value of 79 and WRs at an OUT value of 80, which aligns with the maximum SP values of players currently at the lower end of the league's range.
A 95% floor is unlikely to disrupt play selection or game planning in any measurable way, making it a practical change to test for one season. At the end of the season, the league can evaluate the results and decide whether to keep, adjust, or discontinue the approach.

I propose a 95% substitution OUT with no limit on the IN percentage for all players except QBs, Ps, and Ks, which will remain unchanged.

[Justin-Chicago]

Logical adjustments, I’m on board for a test season.

[Dean-Atlanta]

95% would be the highest OUT setting allowed for players other than QB, K, P?

This proposal addresses a long-standing concern about the limited performance gap between top players and mid-range or lower-tier players, while avoiding permanent changes that could negatively affect incoming rookies. The recommended adjustment to substitution percentages is reversible without any effect on actual or potential attributes and can be reevaluated if it does not produce the desired results.
Based on limited conversations, a 97% OUT threshold and a 99-100% IN threshold appear to be close to the current PNFL standard. Using the CB position with a maximum SP of 83 as an example, the OUT threshold at would be 80-81 depending on rounding, while a WR with a maximum SP of 84 would have an OUT threshold of 81-82.

For the new season, I recommend adopting a 95% floor as a measured first step. Using the same examples, a 95% threshold would place CBs at an OUT value of 79 and WRs at an OUT value of 80, which aligns with the maximum SP values of players currently at the lower end of the league's range.
A 95% floor is unlikely to disrupt play selection or game planning in any measurable way, making it a practical change to test for one season. At the end of the season, the league can evaluate the results and decide whether to keep, adjust, or discontinue the approach.

I propose a 95% substitution OUT with no limit on the IN percentage for all players except QBs, Ps, and Ks, which will remain unchanged.

[Charlie-49ers]

95% would be the highest OUT setting allowed for players other than QB, K, P?

To be clear, ALL players (except QBs, Ks & Ps) would be set at 95% for OUT. You can set "IN" at anything from 95% to 100%.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I've experimented wirh lower sub%s this year. It hasn't impacted my pass defense but I believe has impacted my run defense slightly.

Offensively... it's hard to tell. My passing stats overall are better. However, i do wonder how much the changes are impacting my OL based on sacks and lower avg yards per run. It has created more carries for my HB1 so his individual total yards are solid.