People who liked this post
Spoilers

  • Paydirt Footba...
    • League Home
    • Power Rankings
    • Hall of Champions
  • League Forums
  • Players
    • Search
    • Draft History
    • Trades
  • Coaches
    • Search

  • Community
  • Log In
Rule Porposals
League News/General Discussion
  • ‹
  • 1
  • 2
  • ...
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • ›
Wolveraider
Re: Rule Porposals
by Wolveraider @ 9/28/2021 5:51 am
I'm in favor of the proposed positional/weight rules.
Liked by Meatmen
CoachNorm
Re: Rule Porposals
by CoachNorm @ 9/29/2021 8:32 pm
Wolveraider wrote:
I'm in favor of the proposed positional/weight rules.
Ditto.
Meatmen
Re: Rule Porposals
by Meatmen @ 9/29/2021 8:50 pm
I also agree. The tough part is enforcement. Lets hash it out. I am starting a new rule proposal and debate thread for the 92 season. I feel the old threads are outdated and just adds to the confusion. I her you guys and I am with ya. I just want the 1991 s***show to be over................MM
CrazyRazor
Re: Rule Porposals
by CrazyRazor @ 9/29/2021 9:07 pm
MVRowner wrote:
I would like to propose an experimental rule for the 1991 season. I propose the ability of using a linebacker as an defensive end ("edge rusher") on 3rd/4th down situations. Now rule, 6-7 clearly state that, "Defensive line players may only include players whose primary position is a defensive lineman who weighs at least 276 lbs." and "LB may only include players whose primary position is LB or S." My proposal is on all 3-4 and 4-3 defenses, users have the ability ONLY on 3rd and 4th down situations to use an override to position ONE linebacker to a defensive end. Hopefully this will prevent a season where a LB got 34 sacks* in an entire season but also at least provide a decent amount of pressure without having to call on a blitz in order to use a LB to go after the QB and leave one area open for a wide open receiver.

I will detail further in the rules debate if this is seconded and third.

* https://paydirt.myfootballnow.com/player/7455

I'm against this. It'll leave too much opportunity for violations. We have enough to police already.
Last edited 9/30/2021 1:08 am
Liked by Meatmen, trslick, dd35
marinarul10
Re: Rule Porposals
by marinarul10 @ 9/30/2021 1:23 am
Against this rule, it will be very hard to follow and imo does not accomplish anything
Liked by Wolveraider, dd35, Meatmen
vcr5150
Re: Rule Porposals
by vcr5150 @ 9/30/2021 11:51 am
I would be against the LB at DE rule. It would be tough to enforce/monitor and the rule is in place because there is a flaw with the game that gives way too much of an advantage for smaller/faster/quicker pass rushers. This rule exception would green light that flaw on the most important pass downs.
Liked by Meatmen, Wolveraider, tjbevilland 3 others
Meatmen
Re: Rule Porposals
by Meatmen @ 10/02/2021 7:03 pm
vcr5150 wrote:
I would be against the LB at DE rule. It would be tough to enforce/monitor and the rule is in place because there is a flaw with the game that gives way too much of an advantage for smaller/faster/quicker pass rushers. This rule exception would green light that flaw on the most important pass downs.

I think that was an issue in the past. It was part or the reason why we have the limits we have now. It's an old exploit. Smaller faster guys on the outside yada yada yada....nothing new. I second (or sixth) this rule not be considered. motion carried..................................MM
Liked by trslick, CrazyRazor, Wolveraider
  • ‹
  • 1
  • 2
  • ...
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • ›
Copyright ©2013-2026 Catalyst Productions | Weather data powered by Visual Crossing
Game Engine Version 4.6 | Website Version 5790fa3
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy