Rule discussion - starting D requirements change

[broncobilly]

Should we change D starting requirements to:

2-3 DTs
2 DEs
1-3 LBs
2-3 Ss
2-3 CBs

This would account for mfl’s move to the DL/Edge position alignments while maintaining the DT/DE designation. 4-3 DTs and DEs have maintained their positions with OLBs and MLBs being LBs. 3-4 NT and DEs are now labeled DTs and OLBs are designated DEs, with the 2 ILBs maintaining LB designation.

All comments welcome, for or against or to modify the proposed requirements.

[Gringoloco]

If it accommodates MFL, then yes.

[drake]

Im fine changing it but would like to keep the option of starting 1 DT. Maybe 1-3? Starting 3 DTs seems strange but im all for more flexibility.

[TTAC]

I feel we have to make this change. Just based on how versatile actual NFL defensive lineups have become and how a guy's official position can change so much. No brainer IMHO

[broncobilly]

Feb 15, 2024 17:52:19 GMT -5 drake said:

Im fine changing it but would like to keep the option of starting 1 DT. Maybe 1-3? Starting 3 DTs seems strange but im all for more flexibility.

Yeah, I understand your point. This has to do with the trend in labeling positions to accommodate what is now being termed “Edge” players. mfl straddled the fence last year by redesignating 3-4 OLBs as DEs. That’s why you see guys like Watt and Mack were redesignated as DEs last year by mfl even though they play predominately outside the OT and off the LoS. And on those same teams the DLs that were previously labeled as DEs got redesignated as DTs - it doesn’t make sense to have 4 DEs on the field and 3-4 DEs (now DTs in mfl) traditionally play either head up on the OT or with inside leverage on the OT with a hand in the dirt.

This trend to using the term “Edge” keeps player designation of 4-3 Ds intact as DTs and DEs across the line but essentially label what were called 3-4 Ds as 5-2 Ds, and honestly the 3-4/5-2 Ds are kind of a morph between the two at the edges.

So even though mfl has not adopted the “Edge” position, they have redesignated DEs to capture 3-4 OLBs as DEs and then 3-4 DEs as DTs to use the “Edge” concept without using the actual term.

To be even simpler, this is what 4-3 DLs look like now in mfl (as they always have):

DE DT DT DE

but this is what 3-4 DLs look like now in mfl:

DE DT DT DT DE

hence using 2-3 DTs as starting requirements. mfl could have shortcircuited all this confusion by simply changing DTs to DLs and DEs to Edges last year when they changed player designations but apparently decided to get half pregnant instead, and they have still not changed their labeling this year despite maintaining the DL/Edge philosophy in designating players. It just increased the confusion that we are now discussing to try to alleviate.

This change really negatively affected some of our teams last year when mfl changed some players to DE and DT as their OLBs from the previous season were changed to DEs and they were left shorthanded at LB, but the change happened so late that it would have potentially screwed up our teams even worse if we had changed starting requirements when mfl changed their designations, which is why we had the discussion last year so that our owners had an opportunity throughout the season last year to prepare for the rule change we’re now proposing here.

Hope that explained the situation more than confusing it.

[stryker]

I'm ok with this.

[drake]

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.

[foos]

I'm all for more flexibility, the constant shifting of designation on DE/DT/LB has wreaked havoc on my the last few years.

[decleater2]

I have been screwed as much as anyone in drafting DEs for years and then have them re-classified to LBs making them worthless. I would not be in favor of starting 3 DTs because that would lower defensive scoring. We just added points for TFLs and PBs to raise the defensive scoring a few years ago to balance defense to offense. Not a big deal either way but I am for more defensive scoring.

[House of Pain]

If you have to start 3 DT then you are fucked off the get go. I’m going with an extra S if I’m looking at starting 3 LB in the rules as is. I don’t like capping LB at 3 then forced to use a DL

[Gringoloco]

Does this mean we can't start 4 LBs?

[broncobilly]

Feb 28, 2024 15:20:57 GMT -5 Gringoloco said:

Does this mean we can't start 4 LBs?

That’s correct. With 3-4 OLBs being moved to DE in mfl, the maximum number of LBs on the field at any given time would be the 3 in a 4-3 alignment.

[malaise]

I vote for the change.

[TTAC]

I heard Hop was looking for some different D.