* Committed SIM play

* we play 12 months a year

est 2009
If you have any issues logging on or registering, see if GREENERRRR is in the website chat (and get instant feedback) or contact him directly at greenerrrr@ps3maddengroup.com
groupme


groupme ID 5302641
maddenfantasydraft.com chat

if you want to chat about league text GREENERRRR at (289)241-4968 and he will invite you to groupme chat

Rule change proposal

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Rule change proposal

Post by Mcnair2wycheck on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:38 pm

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.

Mcnair2wycheck
Rookie
Rookie

Posts : 221
Join date : 2010-11-18
Age : 26
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by phantomshark on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:43 pm

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.

phantomshark
Pro
Pro

Posts : 671
Join date : 2010-11-26
Age : 50

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by sam22smith on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:50 pm

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.
avatar
sam22smith
Rookie
Rookie

Posts : 309
Join date : 2010-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by falconfansince81 on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:53 pm

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.
avatar
falconfansince81
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Posts : 2005
Join date : 2010-08-25
Age : 36
Location : Youngstown, Ohio

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by BlaineTheMono19 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:28 am

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.

BlaineTheMono19
Rookie
Rookie

Posts : 184
Join date : 2010-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by jerseydevil321 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:04 am

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

jerseydevil321
Rookie
Rookie

Posts : 115
Join date : 2010-12-31
Age : 23
Location : jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by Mcnair2wycheck on Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:11 am

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.

Mcnair2wycheck
Rookie
Rookie

Posts : 221
Join date : 2010-11-18
Age : 26
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by GREENERRRR on Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:24 pm

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.,..
avatar
GREENERRRR
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Posts : 2705
Join date : 2010-07-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by bigbuddah on Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:05 am

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.

bigbuddah
Pro
Pro

Posts : 928
Join date : 2010-07-20
Age : 30
Location : PHOENIX, AZ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rule change proposal

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum