Andre's Rule (the Box for passing) - Part 3

[Ned Flanders]

Post #3 regarding Andre's Rule.

This post has to do with how fair the passing box seems to the opponent. The one thing I don't want to get when using the box is a "cheap win". I physically can't use the TTQB. Standing up and throwing 10-15 times a game just isn't an option (weak legs due to multiple sclerosis). So the Box is great for me. But I want to earn my win, and there's one case where I think coaches can get frustrated playing against the Box, because it takes away one of their defensive weapons. Let me explain...

I can think of five things a defense can do to defend against a TTQB or TDQ.

1) Put pressure on the QB, resulting in a sack or turning off the board before the receivers are open
2) Cover the receivers so they don't get open
3) Get defenders in the passing lanes so that the passer has a tough throw (risk of interception)
4) Hope the passer misses the throw
5) Have a defensive safety in position to make the tackle (limit the gain)

(There are better coaches than me out there who can probably think of more).

With the box, #1, #2 and #5 still apply. #4 applies, except it is "hope your opponent throws a bad dice roll". But, using the box there is no equivalent to #3. Having players in the passing lane doesn't affect the box. As an example, the odds of completion (and interception) for these two passing situations are identical:





This is frustrating to the defensive coach, because it leaves him helpless against the box in these situations. One of his primary pass defense techniques is taken away from him. I've seen this frustration first hand - my opponents are cool about it, but I know they are frustrated -- they did everything right, but I still hit an "impossible" pass. Now you may argue that the high interception percentage of the box makes up for this. But that leaves it up to luck - the defender has to hope for a "12" roll (interception). And over the course of a single game, the dice rolls don't necessarily even out.

I would like to see defenses rewarded for filling the passing lanes. I don't know the exact rule change, but something like this: Measure the pass as usual. But, if there is a defender in the passing lane, within 10 yards of the receiver (between the QB and receiver), that receiver is "covered" and you can't throw to him. How do we define "in the passing lane"? One possibility is this: my measurement "ruler" is about an inch wide. When I line up my QB and Receiver with the ruler, if any defender is within 10 yards of the receiver, and his helmet is within the ruler width, then he is in the lane. So when I measure, if the defender's helmet is under the ruler, he's in the lane. That's just an idea; I'll have to think about this more and experiment.

Now, this will lower the completion percentage for Box QBs even more, and we've already seen that they are below-average QBs. So at the same time maybe we increase the completion dice rolls on the chart to make up for it. Again, more experimenting is required.

I am NOT proposing this rule change for this season. I'm saying we should think about it and experiment, in preparation for the CBSMF 2010 season.

Comments?

Jeff

[Reginald Rutledge]

Earlier this year, I talked with Raidernation about this same thing. RD had some very good substance in what he talked about. It relates directly to what you are talking about. I would like to bring Jim Davis in on this discussion because we will need to tweak this rule.

I've seen first hand when defenders are in the passing lane how the impossible pass was completed which cause a little frustration on the defensive coach's part. Contrastly, the quarterback known as "The Box" for Penn State has been one of the worst passers in the league regarding interceptions. So, there is some give and take there. However, I think you do hit on something that needs to be addressed by the Rules Committee once the season is done.

But some dialog needs to be discussed regarding this. Thanks for bringing it to our front page. Also, in the Big 10, no one has once complained that Jim Davis's wins have been cheap. They have had to learn to play through the impossible throws because it has failed for Jim as well. The system has hurt Jim Davis a lot. He's had to mix up his game more where he would have been more of a power runner.

Now to matriculate the ball down the field may take 8-10 plays which means a fumble can happen. So he throws and for the most part, it has worked against him. But no one has complained that his wins are cheap or his losses are tainted. They just play.

If anyone is thinking that way about your wins, don't worry your head about that as this is a vital part of the league. Furthermore, it is important that we take findings and analyze them. We need guys like you and Jim Davis leading the way on coming up with a solution for everyone.

Reg

[Treks1]

I've seen Jim Box roll an incomplete in situation #1, and man is it frustrating.
But the box makes playing him that much more of a challenge because now you have to respect his passing game as much as his vaunted running backs.
I would say that pass was nearly a gimmie, but then again, I have missed those passes from time to time....

P.S. Ned. Nice team!

[Pirate Rick]

I was speaking with fins fan about this today and we came up with this idea and i think it might work out.
In picture #1 the reciever is wide open...no defender anywhere...with a ttqb...paydirt all day... how about with the box to reward a clean break by a reciever.. you add numbers to the completion side and subtract from the incomplete side..

in pic #2 you have blockers and dbs in the lanes which makes the throw tougher...so then you subtract numbers from the completion side..and if in tight coverage you subtract from the completions and add another to the interception side to compensate the defence for the coverage.

again..just an idea to try to be fair to both sides.

[FrustratedFinFan]

Yeah....if the receiver is wide open, add 1 to the roll...if someone is in the lane subtract 1....that should help it work.

Also, give the opponent the option to use the box to pass if he wants to....just my two cents.

[Ned Flanders]

Good ideas everyone. We'll keep experimenting and refining.

Jeff