Rule change proposal

If your opponent is almost exclusively playing man coverage, there shall be no limit to the number of RB flares that can be run until he changes up his D.

Sometimes players can dominate running more or less the same D for the entire game, and for some teams, this is the best way to beat it. I don't think the 20% rule should penalize smart playcallers when the defensive player keeps doing the same thing.

Just run different flares from different formations, to both the HB and FB. Mix in some TE flares and some slot flares. You can run the same type of play without running the same play.

I am not on the council so this is just an opinion. But I agree with this in principal. If some wants to run 2 man u every play - then the offense should have the right to force the defense out of it. However, you have the problem of a slippery slope......."he was running man every play that's why mcfadden had 18 catches for 163 yards!" Other guy "no he is lying blah blah blah"

We would probably have to institute a man-zone percentage rule. Like you can't run one or the other more than 75% of the time.....or something.

agreed, same with the quad crossing routes just cause i'm starting to despise 2 man under this year. i have a hard time even calling man on defense, almost 70-30 zone-man now...just feel its way too overrated and unrealistic...specially when its one d play all game. no thought process goes into that other than drafting high rated corners to do the dirty work, so yes i'll do anything and everything to abuse the shit out of 2 man under at all costs.

falconfansince81 wrote:agreed, same with the quad crossing routes just cause i'm starting to despise 2 man under this year. i have a hard time even calling man on defense, almost 70-30 zone-man now...just feel its way too overrated and unrealistic...specially when its one d play all game. no thought process goes into that other than drafting high rated corners to do the dirty work, so yes i'll do anything and everything to abuse the shit out of 2 man under at all costs.

+1 couldn't agree more.

i mix it up a lot, so i agree with the proposal

sam22smith wrote:I am not on the council so this is just an opinion. But I agree with this in principal. If some wants to run 2 man u every play - then the offense should have the right to force the defense out of it. However, you have the problem of a slippery slope......."he was running man every play that's why mcfadden had 18 catches for 163 yards!" Other guy "no he is lying blah blah blah"

We would probably have to institute a man-zone percentage rule. Like you can't run one or the other more than 75% of the time.....or something.

I disagree with a forced quota for defense, I just think that people need to know that if they're too predictable, smart counters to their D should not be punished by the 20% rule.

their is a caveat to the repetitve play calling rule that could be inturprested in this regard...

it was designed so that offenses couyld COUNTER BLITZES consistantly with the same play or kind of play without reprucussion... for example - if a guy comes out and blitzes a ton - U CAN BLITZ COUNTER PASS TO YOUR INSIDE RELEASOR OR TE ALL GAME WITHOUT BREACHING REPETIVE PLAY CALLING - because your play IS DICTATED BY THE AMOUNT HE BLITZS - if he didnt blitz u wouldnt blitz counter - therefore u could breacjh repetive play calling (theoretically) because of the defense has dictated a blitz scheme and that through no fault of your own - u could throw blitz counter passes to defeat the blitz - in this situation THE DEFENSE HAS DICTATED YOUR PLAY SELECTION - and cannot be held to the repetive play calling standard...

Could this caveat apply in the same regard? I would argue so.,..

the idea of being able to run straight flat routes all game and quick passing beceuase they are in man is some bull. the defense cant and doesnt react fast enough for that. if u let a flare route develope then thats a different point. if someone blitzes real heavy and if your good u can take advantage of that. go shot gun and max protect and tear em up. i think flat routes jus because u cant go up the field on man coverage is a cope out and shouldnt be a preferred strategy to beat 2 man under. as for what CP said on his post of lost art like there are plenty ways to beat man coverage and rb's and te's shouldnt lead your team in receiving yards. u can run flare against zone as well so whats the difference. your allowing ppl to check down all game regardless of coverage. zone blitzes can leave flats open. man blitzes can leave flats open. regular zone coverage can leave flats open and regular man coverage leaves the flats open. honestly its making offense to easy and the best way to combat a blitz is to run at it.