SP ratings compared to the 2025 Draft Combine 40 yard dash

[Dean-Atlanta]

I didn't recommend increasing DE SP ratings to 74. I did recommend the increased usage of 2 DL plays since LBs being used as DEs would mimic the EDGE players in the NFL.

Maybe this idea, to accomplish what Mitch suggests:

Allow formations with 2 DLs of any kind and 2 extra LBs to replace the 2 DEs (those 2 of them must defend LOS) as 43 defense using 2 DLs and 2 LBs as DE type EDGE players. The EDGE LB MUST defend the LOS.

What would you all think of this as a rule change, for new plays only (this does not have to be applied to old plays since coaches can revise old plays as new ones), that would begin in the next off-season?

[Barney - Vikings]

The reason we need skill players on offense to be so fast is that the defenders play faster than their implied times. I wouldn’t monkey much with any of the speed ratings.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I don't think 2 DL plays are needed for the run categories. The original VPFL rules specifically say these categories are meant to be base 34/43 defenses. If you really feel we must bring it back for the run categories, I'd only be open to doping it for the RL category.

That said, I like the idea of LBs acting as a 'faster' DL on 2-DL plays. Perhaps we could require this:

GP: requires 3 LBs if the play is a 2-DL play and at least 3 LBs and at least 2 DL must defend the LOS
RL: requires 3 LBs if the play is a 2-DL play and at least 2 LBs and at least 2 DL must defend the LOS
PS: requires 2 LBs if the play is a 2-DL play and at least 1 LB and at least 2 DL must defend the LOS
PM: requires 2 LBs if the play is a 2-DL play and at least 1 LB and at least 1 DL must defend the LOS
PL: requires 1 LB if the play is a 2-DL play and at least 1 LB and at least 1 DL must defend the LOS
PRD: no LB required if the play is a 2-DL play

[James-Eagles]

I didn't recommend increasing DE SP ratings to 74. I did recommend the increased usage of 2 DL plays since LBs being used as DEs would mimic the EDGE players in the NFL.

Maybe this idea, to accomplish what Mitch suggests:

Allow formations with 2 DLs of any kind and 2 extra LBs to replace the 2 DEs (those 2 of them must defend LOS) as 43 defense using 2 DLs and 2 LBs as DE type EDGE players. The EDGE LB MUST defend the LOS.

What would you all think of this as a rule change, for new plays only (this does not have to be applied to old plays since coaches can revise old plays as new ones), that would begin in the next off-season?

The problem is it is a complete shift. You have a LB basically replacing a DE or 2 then you have a Safety replacing a LB and CB filling in for one of the Safeties. You really end up with 2-4-3-2 defense or 3-3-3-2 defense these are base defense not Pass or defenses used against 3 wide.

[Donovon-Steelers]

The reason we need skill players on offense to be so fast is that the defenders play faster than their implied times. I wouldn’t monkey much with any of the speed ratings.

THIS. How often have we seen a WR or RB caught from behind by a LB in the PNFL that would easily go to town in real-life? Def definitely plays faster than their comparable speed ratings here.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

The reason we need skill players on offense to be so fast is that the defenders play faster than their implied times. I wouldn’t monkey much with any of the speed ratings.

THIS. How often have we seen a WR or RB caught from behind by a LB in the PNFL that would easily go to town in real-life? Def definitely plays faster than their comparable speed ratings here.

Yes, I'd be in favor of reducing speeds of CBs to 78-81 similar to Safeties and LBs to speeds between 70-74 and DEs to speeds slightly higher than their counterpart DTs to around 61-63.

[James-Eagles]

The reason we need skill players on offense to be so fast is that the defenders play faster than their implied times. I wouldn’t monkey much with any of the speed ratings.

THIS. How often have we seen a WR or RB caught from behind by a LB in the PNFL that would easily go to town in real-life? Def definitely plays faster than their comparable speed ratings here.

Yes, I'd be in favor of reducing speeds of CBs to 78-81 similar to Safeties and LBs to speeds between 70-74 and DEs to speeds slightly higher than their counterpart DTs to around 61-63.

I am against any ratings changes without serious testing.
1. One we don't know if it will really help. The catching players from behind might just be something in the code. If it was just a speed thing it wouldn't always seem to happen at the 1. I wouldn't be surprised if when a player breaks away the game randomly decides TD or NO TD and if NO TD down at the 1.

2. Lower stats is just a pain to undo and from the last global lowering. We lowered QB stats because the league was complaining we were too much of a passing league. Few season later there was a whole thing on completion % and QB ratings being too low. Stat adjustments aren't the answer when there are so many other variables.


We need to start considering ripple effects of everything we do. Too many times, I have season rules passed because logically people believe it will do one thing. Most of the time it doesn't do that one thing, and it ends up doing a bunch of stuff that no one wanted.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I am a firm believer in allowing a LB to be a "edge" and not need 3 actual DL as long as we also mimic real life and still have 3+ getting after the LOS. I do not believe that means all of the other rules to set which category a play is saved to Charlie has built need to be changed. I'm absolutely against additional restrictions on how I set my DB's between CB/S.

I believe in keeping it simple. The first LB playing DL counts as a DL from a category rule standpoint and all the rest of the rules still apply on where to save the play. Not sure if I'm missing anything, but I would be against 2 DL if it means changing a million things.

Also a no to attribute changes

[Dean-Atlanta]

I am a firm believer in allowing a LB to be a "edge" and not need 3 actual DL as long as we also mimic real life and still have 3+ getting after the LOS. I do not believe that means all of the other rules to set which category a play is saved to Charlie has built need to be changed. I'm absolutely against additional restrictions on how I set my DB's between CB/S.

I believe in keeping it simple. The first LB playing DL counts as a DL from a category rule standpoint and all the rest of the rules still apply on where to save the play. Not sure if I'm missing anything, but I would be against 2 DL if it means changing a million things.

Also a no to attribute changes

If I understand this correctly, you support 3-DL plays using a DL comprised of DE1-DT1-LB1? Would this play still be saved as regular passing play (not R&S) or a 34 run play?

If I understand this correctly, you support $-DL plays using a DL comprised of DE1-DT2-DT1-LB1? Would this play still be saved as regular passing play (not R&S) or a 43 run play?

[Jerry-Redskins]

They would be saved based on the current criteria in the rules. Just the LB playing DL would not count as a LB