PNFL Injury Idea

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

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.

IN and DI are never affected by the substitution % because they are not influenced by EN, so it won't lead to more mistakes. Will lead to lower ST, lower SP and AG, etc. which will lead to mistakes such as mistackles and getting outmaneuvered.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I could see this really have an impact on the T-Lob plays. I’m against this. Im definitely not in favor of lower EN AND forced sub percentages. We need a way to mitigate and counterbalance the change. So, we can’t add plays that are clones of other plays with different personnel, so we can’t handle fatigue that way. If we force lower sub percentages, we can’t mitigate that way. So we are at the mercy of the game. Personally I’d rather have all the control I can to impact my game’s outcome. But, everyone is welcome to their opinion.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

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.

We would need players to come back in less than 100% to achieve the result we are seeking, so the IN% should not be 100%.

Considering QBs currently have a 75% OUT and an 80% IN, they already tell us what we really should aim for. Our QBs rarely get subbed and come back even when they are shaken (which I suspect means being 'shaken' puts a player below 75%). I think all positions should have the same sub% and the one we set for QBs already tells us what actually works.

And this should be the same for both away and home profiles. The 5% EN penalty the game gives to AWAY teams simply means they will hit the OUT % faster than home teams and thus do more substitutions. Because of this, we can have a flat IN/OUT as you proposed. I simply think it needs to be much lower to be truly realistic. We should use the IN/OUT% for QBs as the proven template here.

I counter this with this instead: 75% OUT and 80% IN for all players {not just QBs}.

Does not go into effect until NEXT season.

[Charlie-49ers]

IN and DI are never affected by the substitution % because they are not influenced by EN, so it won't lead to more mistakes. Will lead to lower ST, lower SP and AG, etc. which will lead to mistakes such as mistackles and getting outmaneuvered.

Well, I will see if I can test your assertion! I do know that if I am playing golf in the Arizona heat and the round heads into the back nine, the heat drains my EN, and my focus (IN & DI) goes down. I know what to do and how to do it, but execution gets more difficult as I get tired.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

Im in favor of leaving all of this as is, and making no changes

[Charlie-49ers]

I could see this really have an impact on the T-Lob plays. I’m against this. Im definitely not in favor of lower EN AND forced sub percentages. We need a way to mitigate and counterbalance the change. So, we can’t add plays that are clones of other plays with different personnel, so we can’t handle fatigue that way. If we force lower sub percentages, we can’t mitigate that way. So we are at the mercy of the game. Personally I’d rather have all the control I can to impact my game’s outcome. But, everyone is welcome to their opinion.

I just checked the stats on the SF Lob passes Year-to-Date. Lots of sacks, but the completion rate is above 20%. Obviously, this is contingent on down, distance, the clock, and if the defense is calling some kind of Long or Razzle Dazzle play. In contrast, the NFL completion rate for 40+ yard plays is approximately 2.5%. So, any reduction in T-Lob pass completions as a result of introducing the proposed reduction in substitution percentage would only bring us closer to NFL stats.

[Charlie-49ers]

We would need players to come back in less than 100% to achieve the result we are seeking, so the IN% should not be 100%.

Considering QBs currently have a 75% OUT and an 80% IN, they already tell us what we really should aim for. Our QBs rarely get subbed and come back even when they are shaken (which I suspect means being 'shaken' puts a player below 75%). I think all positions should have the same sub% and the one we set for QBs already tells us what actually works.

And this should be the same for both away and home profiles. The 5% EN penalty the game gives to AWAY teams simply means they will hit the OUT % faster than home teams and thus do more substitutions. Because of this, we can have a flat IN/OUT as you proposed. I simply think it needs to be much lower to be truly realistic. We should use the IN/OUT% for QBs as the proven template here.

I counter this with this instead: 75% OUT and 80% IN for all players {not just QBs}.

Does not go into effect until NEXT season.

First: anything is always next season, so everyone take a breath.

Second: we always move slowly. (75% OUT / 80% IN) might be the right numbers, but too dramatic to start. 90% OUT would be a good starting point, and I will concede that teams would have the option for the percentage IN at a number lower than 100%. We can discuss further, but I like 95%. As stated in the initial proposal, we would debate any further changes, if any, after one season, including the elimination of the change. If it does not work the way we want, the fall back is easy and we have not hard coded lower rookie attributes.

Last: Now that I think about it, Kickers and Punters would go to the QB substitution numbers of 75% - 80%

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I could see this really have an impact on the T-Lob plays. I’m against this. Im definitely not in favor of lower EN AND forced sub percentages. We need a way to mitigate and counterbalance the change. So, we can’t add plays that are clones of other plays with different personnel, so we can’t handle fatigue that way. If we force lower sub percentages, we can’t mitigate that way. So we are at the mercy of the game. Personally I’d rather have all the control I can to impact my game’s outcome. But, everyone is welcome to their opinion.

I just checked the stats on the SF Lob passes Year-to-Date. Lots of sacks, but the completion rate is above 20%. Obviously, this is contingent on down, distance, the clock, and if the defense is calling some kind of Long or Razzle Dazzle play. In contrast, the NFL completion rate for 40+ yard plays is approximately 2.5%. So, any reduction in T-Lob pass completions as a result of introducing the proposed reduction in substitution percentage would only bring us closer to NFL stats.

You got it backwards. If the DB is tired and wore out the WR will have more separation and percentages would go up. A more fatigued DL could equal less of a pass rush so more time to throw.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

We would need players to come back in less than 100% to achieve the result we are seeking, so the IN% should not be 100%.

Considering QBs currently have a 75% OUT and an 80% IN, they already tell us what we really should aim for. Our QBs rarely get subbed and come back even when they are shaken (which I suspect means being 'shaken' puts a player below 75%). I think all positions should have the same sub% and the one we set for QBs already tells us what actually works.

And this should be the same for both away and home profiles. The 5% EN penalty the game gives to AWAY teams simply means they will hit the OUT % faster than home teams and thus do more substitutions. Because of this, we can have a flat IN/OUT as you proposed. I simply think it needs to be much lower to be truly realistic. We should use the IN/OUT% for QBs as the proven template here.

I counter this with this instead: 75% OUT and 80% IN for all players {not just QBs}.

Does not go into effect until NEXT season.

First: anything is always next season, so everyone take a breath.

Second: we always move slowly. (75% OUT / 80% IN) might be the right numbers, but too dramatic to start. 90% OUT would be a good starting point, and I will concede that teams would have the option for the percentage IN at a number lower than 100%. We can discuss further, but I like 95%. As stated in the initial proposal, we would debate any further changes, if any, after one season, including the elimination of the change. If it does not work the way we want, the fall back is easy and we have not hard coded lower rookie attributes.

Last: Now that I think about it, Kickers and Punters would go to the QB substitution numbers of 75% - 80%

Kickers and Punters suck enough as it is. I would say leave them out of this. I think the biggest push would be for non-K and P.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I don't see us talking about this again if it fails. This league makes a change and acts like it is law forever.

If we do this, we can't do it softly. We do it full throttle. 90/95 is too weak. Should be 75/80 like QB across the board.