|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Sept 5, 2019 13:21:32 GMT
Changing a rule post draft is a bad precedent to set.
Also, claiming that there were not enough CBs in the draft to change philosophy is arguing against oneself. If you believe there was a scarcity at a position, it would raise the value of that position. In turn, this would affect draft philosophy.
I adjusted my draft philosophy to this rule. Saying that it will still work out for everyone is not true.
This came into play when making a trade this off season. I brought it up to Mark when we were discussing Richard Sherman.
We haven't even tried playing with this rule yet and we are already trying to change it. I am not stating the rule is perfect, but the company who put it out has at least beta tested it? We have literally no experience playing with it to even say if it has a negative impact.
There has be very little/close to nothing done to change the amount of quality defenses we have? In turn, people have been forced to be more creative and coach better/different. If you so happen to have a backup 0, that is just another thing to coach through.
Almost, if not, all teams had a pretty good idea that the rule was coming and had plenty of time to adjust ahead of the draft. Proof is in the first 6 posts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2019 14:29:03 GMT
I believe that John has the most NCB's on his roster so that may be the reason for his rant on this topic. The rule can not be changed this year as everyone knew about it and most agreed with it before the draft. Ryan is correct, the game company felt this change needed to be made. We have to assume they thought it through. Just as we did with SOM's YAC and safeties and linebackers with split run/pass ratings a few years ago, we agreed to follow SOM's updated rules.
Also, we don't know how SOM would have rated these NCB's if this rule were not in play. Would the guys who are rated as a 4 NCB been a 0 instead? If yes, the NCB rating at least gives these players some value. Something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 5, 2019 15:03:00 GMT
No one is proposing a rule change for this year. Your assumption of my motive, Mark, is insulting. My teams are fine w CBs anyway. I know a bad rule when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2019 15:08:15 GMT
Sorry if you felt my comment was an insult. Not intended to be one. You don't address what SOM would have rated these players if they did not have the NCB rule.
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 5, 2019 15:46:39 GMT
Mark and I may not see eye to eye often, but here I have to agree with him. Especially regarding how SOM goes about deciding on their ratings.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 5, 2019 15:52:29 GMT
I'm curious why it's a "Bad Rule"? Why do you think the penalty is too harsh versus SOM's reasoning/ research determining what the penalty should be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 15:59:37 GMT
more comprehensive roster limits are a good idea
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 5, 2019 16:17:58 GMT
What do you mean by "More comprehensive roster limit"? I think our roster limits are comprehensive now. Are you saying to define them more now as X-CB's, X-Safetie's, X-DB's etc?
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Sept 5, 2019 17:58:30 GMT
I am starting a 0 at CB for the first time ever, which will be fine. I don't think we should change it for this year because it was voted in and draft choices definitely were affected based on this. In my case I didn't have the right picks to get one and trading up from the 5th rd to get a last year guy as a 4 didn't cross my mind with not enough picks.
Again, I think we have to play with it as is now. That said, i do agree with John's points and i had privately asked his opinion on it. I don't like the new rule but that wasn't going to stop it getting voted in. Starting a 4 is already not strong, a 0 is 33% worse but one can adjust play calling. Sometimes a nickel is rated a 5 because he's a good corner that can cover outside but had 2 good players in front of him. He may get a chance on the field against a pro set or 2TE set and cover just fine, but he'll be a 0 for us if nickel covers 2nd TE (unless I read wrong, maybe it's just WR).
I hate imposing more restrictions but do think that one will now pay a premium even for a 4 CB, and it is worth discussion. It's all adjustable, needs to stay as is, but is worth more discussion (again, thought last year was better rule).
At the heart of it all ...
let's keep tones civil here and remember we're just a bunch of friends sitting around a table playing a game. Thanks for listening.
I think least year's rule was decent though and addressed the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Sept 5, 2019 18:53:13 GMT
He may get a chance on the field against a pro set or 2TE set and cover just fine, but he'll be a 0 for us if nickel covers 2nd TE (unless I read wrong, maybe it's just WR). Your LCB and RCB -- who cover the SE/FL -- must be LCB or RCB in the strat set or you suffer the minus 2 penalty. If you play a LCB, a RCB, and a CBN against a 2 WR / 2 TE offense -- the CBN may be assigned to cover the 2d TE (the SS has the other). This is our "house" rule. The CBN may play in either the Short Pass Zone or Long Pass Zone. He may move between the 2 zones after the offense calls its play. If stationed in the Long Pass Zone . . . there are penalties when a pass is thrown to the Look - In / Flat / Short pass zones.
|
|