Hypothetical: Rules Change

**Rain Man** · 11-01-2006, 12:31 PM

Imagine that you're an NFL coach - a good one, not a Mike Tice or anything.

The NFL creates a new rules change that all 11 players on offense are now eligible receivers. How would that change your strategy on offense? On defense?

I'm thinking that it would spell the extinction of large players in football. You'd just line up 11 jackrabbits and tight ends and throw the ball 80 percent of the time. On defense, that would mean that you would also go small, and run with about 8 or 9 defensive backs and 2 or 3 linebackers.

I'm not proposing this change, just wondering. The NFL works so hard to help out offenses that I bet someone has mentioned this in a meeting at some point.

CoMoChief · 11-01-2006, 12:35 PM

That's called 7 on 7 football.

King_Chief_Fan · 11-01-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Imagine that you're an NFL coach - a good one, not a Mike Tice or anything.

The NFL creates a new rules change that all 11 players on offense are now eligible receivers. How would that change your strategy on offense? On defense?

I'm thinking that it would spell the extinction of large players in football. You'd just line up 11 jackrabbits and tight ends and throw the ball 80 percent of the time. On defense, that would mean that you would also go small, and run with about 8 or 9 defensive backs and 2 or 3 linebackers.

I'm not proposing this change, just wondering. The NFL works so hard to help out offenses that I bet someone has mentioned this in a meeting at some point.

and have the opposing D have to count 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi before they can rush the QB.

Redrum_69 · 11-01-2006, 01:00 PM

I'd switch around and make my defense my offense and my offense my defense

Basileus777 · 11-01-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Imagine that you're an NFL coach - a good one, not a Mike Tice or anything.

The NFL creates a new rules change that all 11 players on offense are now eligible receivers. How would that change your strategy on offense? On defense?

I'm thinking that it would spell the extinction of large players in football. You'd just line up 11 jackrabbits and tight ends and throw the ball 80 percent of the time. On defense, that would mean that you would also go small, and run with about 8 or 9 defensive backs and 2 or 3 linebackers.

I'm not proposing this change, just wondering. The NFL works so hard to help out offenses that I bet someone has mentioned this in a meeting at some point.

It wouldn't help the NFL if all their star qbs couldn't survive getting hit on every play.

listopencil · 11-01-2006, 01:10 PM

It wouldn't really change all that much.

boogblaster · 11-01-2006, 01:11 PM

All could catch the ball..no brainer....

Demonpenz · 11-01-2006, 01:14 PM

The speed in the nfl your recievers need to be 5 or 6 yards apart or a saftey can cover two recievers. So everyone going out for a pass would bunch people up the defence would have a field day.

Stewie · 11-01-2006, 01:30 PM

I bet it would be alot like my electric football game I had as a kid. And we all know that electric football was anarchy. I remember Mick Tinglehoff (center, Vikes) was the best running back out of all my players. He was the one that didn't run in circles. And if Tinglehoff can play running back then it's not too far fetched to have everyone be an eligible receiver.

StcChief · 11-01-2006, 01:36 PM

OT period rule change

Equal # possessions if you kick Field goal.
TD wins game if it's the tie score breaker.

4 point field goals over 60 yards

Full period played to a TIE is a TIE.

**Rain Man** · 11-01-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

I bet it would be alot like my electric football game I had as a kid. And we all know that electric football was anarchy. I remember Mick Tinglehoff (center, Vikes) was the best running back out of all my players. He was the one that didn't run in circles. And if Tinglehoff can play running back then it's not too far fetched to have everyone be an eligible receiver.

Yeah, those guys that didn't run in circles were very valuable.

trndobrd · 11-01-2006, 02:34 PM

On offense I would be inclined to use the shotgun. On defense I would have to line up in my "$10 bill package" quite a bit.

Fish · 11-01-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

I bet it would be alot like my electric football game I had as a kid. And we all know that electric football was anarchy. I remember Mick Tinglehoff (center, Vikes) was the best running back out of all my players. He was the one that didn't run in circles. And if Tinglehoff can play running back then it's not too far fetched to have everyone be an eligible receiver.

Uhh huh huhhh...... Tinglehoff................

11-01-2006, 12:31 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3218491 VARSITY	Hypothetical: Rules Change Imagine that you're an NFL coach - a good one, not a Mike Tice or anything. The NFL creates a new rules change that all 11 players on offense are now eligible receivers. How would that change your strategy on offense? On defense? I'm thinking that it would spell the extinction of large players in football. You'd just line up 11 jackrabbits and tight ends and throw the ball 80 percent of the time. On defense, that would mean that you would also go small, and run with about 8 or 9 defensive backs and 2 or 3 linebackers. I'm not proposing this change, just wondering. The NFL works so hard to help out offenses that I bet someone has mentioned this in a meeting at some point.
Posts: 141,536

11-01-2006, 12:35 PM	#2
CoMoChief Mahomes Dynasty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $8052254	That's called 7 on 7 football.
Posts: 39,163

11-01-2006, 01:00 PM	#4
Redrum_69 Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: your nightmares Casino cash: $10004900	I'd switch around and make my defense my offense and my offense my defense
Posts: 6,358

11-01-2006, 01:10 PM	#6
listopencil Immanentize The Eschaton Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In Partibus Infidelium Casino cash: $2125880	It wouldn't really change all that much. __________________ Good friends we have had, oh, good friends we've lost...along the way. In this great future, you can't forget your past. So dry your tears, I say.
Posts: 55,962

11-01-2006, 01:11 PM	#7
boogblaster MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Verdigris Valley Campsite Casino cash: $10004900	All could catch the ball..no brainer....
Posts: 10,305

11-01-2006, 01:14 PM	#8
Demonpenz I got Rice cookin in the micro Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Apartment "G UNIT!" Casino cash: $3082136	The speed in the nfl your recievers need to be 5 or 6 yards apart or a saftey can cover two recievers. So everyone going out for a pass would bunch people up the defence would have a field day. __________________
Posts: 54,280

11-01-2006, 01:30 PM	#9
Stewie MVP Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West of the Equator Casino cash: $1809901	I bet it would be alot like my electric football game I had as a kid. And we all know that electric football was anarchy. I remember Mick Tinglehoff (center, Vikes) was the best running back out of all my players. He was the one that didn't run in circles. And if Tinglehoff can play running back then it's not too far fetched to have everyone be an eligible receiver.
Posts: 13,620

11-01-2006, 01:36 PM	#10
StcChief Playing for #1 Draft Pick Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Just West of Lambs land Casino cash: $10004900	OT period rule change Equal # possessions if you kick Field goal. TD wins game if it's the tie score breaker. 4 point field goals over 60 yards Full period played to a TIE is a TIE. __________________ sig test for this screwy schema
Posts: 25,901

11-01-2006, 02:34 PM	#12
trndobrd 'Stachecicle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Tolerance Box Casino cash: $4885087	On offense I would be inclined to use the shotgun. On defense I would have to line up in my "$10 bill package" quite a bit. __________________ "I don't really think there is a need to raise or debate this point." -jAZ
Posts: 7,080