Ah, but what you're talking about Mike is more situational. Sure, on third and long, no team is going to come in in a one back, two tight end set. You're going to bring in a third or fourth receiver. And sure teams game plan week to week to take advantages of mismatches against their oponents, but they do not change their offensive philosophy every week. Say a team has 200 plays. They look at their opponent and find the best 50 that they think will work against their opponents perosonell and thats what they focus on that week (I'm pulling those numbers out of the air, don't flame me for inacuracies).
But going with the flex lineup is like changing their whole offensive phliosophy every week. Take the 49ers. Are they going to meet a team, say the Bucs, who play well against the west coast offense and change what they try to do? I don't think Mooch sits in his office and says "uh oh, we're playing team x this week, so scrap those timing patterns, its4 wide and bombs away this week." Nor do teams change their philosophy just cause someone is injured. The only time a change is made is when a QB gets hurt and they scale back the playbook, but I've never seen a gameplan change made due to injury. The colts still ran even though they were handing off to, what a 7th rounder? Same with the Broncos with Gary and Anderson. Best player goes down? You keep pluggin away cause you have confidence in your system.
Now of course this isn't real, and it isn't the NFL but I always like to try to get as close to the real thing when possible.
If we do go with flex, I would think we'd have to also have a 1/3/2/1 as an option too. I don't think it would be fair to someone who is stacked at RB not to let them play more than 2 when someone who is stacked at WR could play four if they wanted to.
|