|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 16:44:42 GMT
Gentlemen, I would like to propose an optional SOM rule that helps with the RB card abuse that has taken place in our league (Gus Edwards 433 carries vs 133 IRL). The accompanying chart will show what the impact of the rule would have been last year. As you can see, there would only have been a handful of players it would have effected. Even Nick Chubb with almost 500 carries would have impacted by only 3.5 carries a game. This rule would also eliminate the need for the less than 50 carries rule. (note: These totals are before fatigue level 1.) Running Back Fatigue.xlsx (19.28 KB) Here is the SOM rule: RUNNING BACK FATIGUE The “Running Back Fatigue” rule helps limit the number of runs each running back can attempt in a game. Refer to the Running Back Fatigue Chart to determine the number of rushes per game each player is allowed before fatigue starts to set in. Note: For season less than 12-games in length pro-rate the player’s actual usage to 12 games before referring to this chart. For example, a running back who had 125 rushes in a 16 game season would have no fatigue for his first 15 rushes, level 1 fatigue for his 16th & 17th runs, level 2 fatigue for his 18th & 19th runs and level 3 fatigue thereafter. Here are the penalties for each fatigue level: • Fatigue Level 1 – Subtract 1 yard off all positive yardage runs generated from the offensive card. • Fatigue Level 2 – Subtract 2 yards off all positive yardage runs generated from the offensive card. • Fatigue Level 3 -- Always refer to the “Right” column in lieu of the “Wrong Column” and to the “Keyed” column in lieu of the “Right” column This is the chart used: Rushes No Fat Lvl 1 Lvl 2 Lvl3 0-24 1-10 11-12 13-14 15+
25-49 1-11 12-13 14-15 16+
50-74 1-12 13-14 15-16 17+
75-99 1-13 14-15 16-17 18+
100-124 1-14 15-16 17-18 19+
125-149 1-15 16-17 18-19 20+
151-175 1-17 18-19 20-21 22+
176-199 1-20 21-22 23-24 25+
200-224 1-22 23-24 25-26 27+
225-249 1-24 25-26 27-28 29+
250-299 1-27 28-29 30-31 32+
300-349 1-30 31-32 33-34 35+
350+ 1-33 34-35 36-37 38+
I vote YES |
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Aug 4, 2021 17:57:46 GMT
I vote no. The league already heavily favors passing vs running and introducing this a.) devalues RBs further b.) encourages even more passing and c.) opens up the possibility of defensive play calling "abuse" because of the devastating impact of level 3. Also, it actually seems like ball carriers with less than 50 carries can be abused much more often under this chart. A RB with 25 carries on the year can hit 60% of their season total before reaching level 3 but a back with 200 carries maxes out at 13% of their season carries before reaching level 3 - the chart is flawed and needs improvement.
Strat-O does not have a good answer to address QB/RB/WR abuse as a whole and we cannot create our own rules due to playing on their computer game. Matt Moore just played in a Superbowl. That to me is more concerning than Gus Edwards having 433 carries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2021 18:31:29 GMT
I vote yes, but I also agree with Tony that something should be done with quarterbacks. I believe there is a rule that can be applied to all players, including wide receivers and tight ends.
I do believe, however, that the injury severity is increased for players who have fewer carries, catches and passing attempts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 19:52:39 GMT
I vote no. The league already heavily favors passing vs running and introducing this a.) devalues RBs further b.) encourages even more passing and c.) opens up the possibility of defensive play calling "abuse" because of the devastating impact of level 3. Also, it actually seems like ball carriers with less than 50 carries can be abused much more often under this chart. A RB with 25 carries on the year can hit 60% of their season total before reaching level 3 but a back with 200 carries maxes out at 13% of their season carries before reaching level 3 - the chart is flawed and needs improvement. Strat-O does not have a good answer to address QB/RB/WR abuse as a whole and we cannot create our own rules due to playing on their computer game. Matt Moore just played in a Superbowl. That to me is more concerning than Gus Edwards having 433 carries. "I vote no. The league already heavily favors passing vs running and introducing this a.) devalues RBs further b.) encourages even more passing and c.) opens up the possibility of defensive play calling "abuse" because of the devastating impact of level 3. Also, it actually seems like ball carriers with less than 50 carries can be abused much more often under this chart. A RB with 25 carries on the year can hit 60% of their season total before reaching level 3 but a back with 200 carries maxes out at 13% of their season carries before reaching level 3 - the chart is flawed and needs improvement." a) Not true. It makes you use more then one RB on occasion
b) That is an opinion, not fact. There is no evidence of that at all. (goes back to part A, you just can't abuse one card for 300% of their carries)
c) While it is true the low level backs will get a few more carries a game the 200 carry back gets, on average, 12.5 carries a game in the NFL, he gets 22 carries before he reaches level 1 with this rule."Strat-O does not have a good answer to address QB/RB/WR abuse as a whole and we cannot create our own rules due to playing on their computer game." Yes they do, it's called the Running Back Fatigue Rule. We are not making this rule up. It is a SOM rule and it exists for this very reason.
"Matt Moore just played in a Superbowl. That to me is more concerning than Gus Edwards having 433 carries." They are both equally concerning. They have a rule for that called the Player Over Usage rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 19:58:01 GMT
I vote yes, but I also agree with Tony that something should be done with quarterbacks. I believe there is a rule that can be applied to all players, including wide receivers and tight ends. I do believe, however, that the injury severity is increased for players who have fewer carries, catches and passing attempts. The Rule is called Player Over Usage Rule. The injury severity is very marginal as we play in-game injuries only. If we were to play the schedule in order and have multiple game injuries that would help a lot for this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Aug 4, 2021 20:31:53 GMT
I stand by my post. I know it is a SOM rule I just said it's not a good answer. Did not say SOM does not have an answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Aug 4, 2021 20:34:05 GMT
I’m voting against this rule for a few reasons (none of which have to do with Gus Edwards lol)
My major concern is defensive play calling. I play in two other leagues with fatigue on and it is not an enjoyable rule, in my opinion. Often times, opposing coaches will call pass 100% of the time in the first half, which pseudo forces the offensive coach to run the ball to get wrong calls. By doing this, the offense uses up a lot of their non-fatigued carries, leaving them with reduce rushing for the entire 2nd half. Having experienced this first hand, I will never be in favor of RB fatigue or player usage rules.
I can easily see multiple coaches calling “pass” and double teaming 2-3 receivers per play for the entire first half, leaving the offensive coach with little ability in the 2nd half. I say this because I would do this - sadly, it is the right strategy.
Personally, I don’t want to have to be overdrafting RBs because they have a large amount of carries in a given year.
Also, we are not a replay league. We are not looking to replicate stats. How does Strat know how many carries/receptions/throws a player can produce? Why should we stop at just RBs then? I think handcuffing and limiting usage on players will take away from the fun of the game. These “abused” cards are few are far between year to year.
These are just some of my thoughts and concerns on the matter and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Again, these opinions are not formulated with me owning Gus Edwards - should be clearly by now that I vote for what I think is best going forward and not what benefits me most at the time.
My vote is No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 20:51:16 GMT
I’m voting against this rule for a few reasons (none of which have to do with Gus Edwards lol) My major concern is defensive play calling. I play in two other leagues with fatigue on and it is not an enjoyable rule, in my opinion. Often times, opposing coaches will call pass 100% of the time in the first half, which pseudo forces the offensive coach to run the ball to get wrong calls. By doing this, the offense uses up a lot of their non-fatigued carries, leaving them with reduce rushing for the entire 2nd half. Having experienced this first hand, I will never be in favor of RB fatigue or player usage rules. I can easily see multiple coaches calling “pass” and double teaming 2-3 receivers per play for the entire first half, leaving the offensive coach with little ability in the 2nd half. I say this because I would do this - sadly, it is the right strategy. Personally, I don’t want to have to be overdrafting RBs because they have a large amount of carries in a given year. Also, we are not a replay league. We are not looking to replicate stats. How does Strat know how many carries/receptions/throws a player can produce? Why should we stop at just RBs then? I think handcuffing and limiting usage on players will take away from the fun of the game. These “abused” cards are few are far between year to year. These are just some of my thoughts and concerns on the matter and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Again, these opinions are not formulated with me owning Gus Edwards - should be clearly by now that I vote for what I think is best going forward and not what benefits me most at the time. My vote is No. I believe that "Flat Pass as runs" negates the call pass defensive strategy. You would never have to overdraft a RB, there are plenty of them every year. I know it's more "fun" using better cards but that's like playing dice Football. I don't believe that's what SOM's intent is. While we are not trying to replicate the same stats the players should be used accordingly to their actual production. If the Baltimore Ravens ran Edwards 433 times he would avg under 4yds a carry. |
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 20:55:55 GMT
I stand by my post. I know it is a SOM rule I just said it's not a good answer. Did not say SOM does not have an answer. My response was based off of this statement "we cannot create our own rules due to playing on their computer game" |
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 4, 2021 21:00:33 GMT
A quick question,
For the people voting 'yes' for 2 HB's in the same backfield, why would you even care about this rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Aug 4, 2021 22:04:17 GMT
A quick question, For the people voting 'yes' for 2 HB's in the same backfield, why would you even care about this rule? Because believing people should have the freedom to use actual NFL formations is a different question than utilizing a fatigue rule that is, in my opinion, poorly designed. The two have no correlation. |
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Aug 5, 2021 2:39:31 GMT
I vote no
|
|
