|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 3, 2021 17:15:13 GMT
Gentleman,
A topic for discussion-There are a few teams out there who are in need of KR, PR, K, P, 2nd QB etc. While in the past we've just had Pat assign a player to fill the void to make the teams roster valid (The game will not let you play without one) we should try and get away from that if teams are offering players via trade to fill those necessary voids. The team with the void should have to make a trade to obtain the necessary players to validate their roster.
Now I know some smart ass will think that they'll just hold some poor guy for ransom to obtain a bad KR, PR etc. to fill the void. As a league we should not allow that either. I think these trades should have to be made, but watched to make sure nobody is being fleeced.
Thoughts? Keep in mind that you cannot generically just use the worst guy in the above situations as they may already be part of somebody else's roster.
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Sept 3, 2021 19:15:35 GMT
Agree on actively trying to fill each position
And agree on the price tag not getting exaggerated ... made it only on player worth, not need unless a bidding war
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2021 22:50:10 GMT
We should consider a rule that prevents teams from drafting more kick/punt returners "only" than they need. I happened to notice that Brian is offering 3 returners "only" that he does not need. This creates this type of problem and should be prevented. An owner should not profit even a little by hoarding these type of fringe players. That is why we had the fall back of generic players in the old world. It is my belief that the owners that need these players should just be given them. No trades should be required.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 3, 2021 23:24:03 GMT
I didn't draft three I didn't need for the purpose of hoarding, I drafted three in the later rounds to compare who I wanted to keep since my existing guy was average at best and now out of the NFL. Nobody should deliberately hoard players, but there is some strategy as to when to draft a Kicker, Punter, Returners etc. even if you have one already in case yours gets cut (See my Jaguars K Randy Bullock) or My Jaguars KR (Ameer Abdullah). I also deliberately drafted Donte Moncrief as he normally is a WR as well and is only 28. I didn't realize Tremon Smith was carded this year (Pat would verify that).
As far as profit, the "fringe" players are still players. This has gone on for years. The real issue is people who deliberately Don't/Won't draft a K or P or KR etc so they can draft a better football prospect to compare rather than a "fringe" player. I realize people also make mistakes when drafting and just miss this sometimes, but hey, that's on them. Failing to draft a position should not be considered a strategy. What if I had a KR/PR already and a Devin Hester type was in the draft? I can't draft him because I already have one if he's only a KR/PR?
Besides all that, The generic player is usually the worst player in the set at a position. So for example, I'm guessing this years QB may be Robert Griffin III. What happens if I decide to keep him on my roster if I believe he catches on somewhere? Who would we then assign to the Colts as a backup since their backup is not carded?
I understand what your trying to say, I'm just saying the intent of the generics were for situations where injuries have occurred and there's no additional backup available. C&D allows for the entire league to use the same dude. PC does not.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 3, 2021 23:28:33 GMT
We should also determine who the worst of the KR, PR, K, P are etc.
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 4, 2021 0:42:37 GMT
I strongly disagree that these players should be given to owners who do not complete their draft due diligence. We have 20 rounds of draft picks. That is more than enough to address any hole on your team. I also disagree with creating a draft rule based on a subjective opinion about whether or not players are "needed" as this is short-sighted. If you have four bottom of the barrel returners on your team are you then prevented from drafting one because you are already at the maximum? Far too many exceptions to this rule will need to be spelled out. Draft a complete roster or find another way to acquire your missing pieces. If anyone reaches this point and has an invalid roster, there is no one to blame but themselves. As an owner, a valid roster is your responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Sept 4, 2021 1:44:48 GMT
If the team doesn't acquire a player for the needed position and has to be "assigned" a plyer, maybe a penalty of a draft pick the following year, say maybe a 10th?
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 4, 2021 1:59:48 GMT
I would be in favor of that Pat
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 4, 2021 2:34:03 GMT
Or lose a roster spot for that year. I believe we already have a rule that does that. So you may as well acquire a crappy returner that’s as good or better than the generic because it will cost a roster spot if you don’t. For the computer game we need to identify the worst unowned player(s).
Hoarding and overpricing players will be easily spotted and unfair trades can be objected to within 72 hours. I doubt it would happen.
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 4, 2021 3:14:40 GMT
I agree with John. The likelihood of some bad actor mass acquiring players is minimal and the league has the power to counter anyone who acts in bad faith. Identifying the worst unowned players for every position would not be necessary if we police ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Sept 4, 2021 3:22:00 GMT
Or lose a roster spot for that year. I believe we already have a rule that does that. So you may as well acquire a crappy returner that’s as good or better than the generic because it will cost a roster spot if you don’t. For the computer game we need to identify the worst unowned player(s). Hoarding and overpricing players will be easily spotted and unfair trades can be objected to within 72 hours. I doubt it would happen. Agree
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Sept 4, 2021 14:31:49 GMT
It is possible that you cannot draft a player or make a trade at a reasonable price. For an extreme example, if 16 teams kept 2 kickers we would have a problem.
I think the owner simply needs to weigh the cost of acquiring a player vs the cost of losing a roster spot for not having a complete roster. Generally, it is better to have 53 active players v. 52 players and a "generic" player completing your team (but not a part of your roster going forward).
If someone does not have a QB or a K or a PR or a KR and there are none available in the 2020 game (2021 release) because they are all on the rosters of other teams -- we can give that team the worst player(s) from the 2019 game (2020) release. If two owners are both missing a PR then we randomly give each team the worst two PRs from the previous set -- and the team loses a roster spot. Brian's concerns about not being able to use the same generic for each team is correct -- but we have a great pool of "generic" players from which to choose.
Forcing trades is bad. It will lead to hording and artificial increase the price. Simply let the owner lose a roster spot if the owner doesn't want to pay the "price."
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 4, 2021 14:55:11 GMT
You're right about the kickers as an example, but it's likely an extreme example. You could add KR, PR and punters to that example as well.
I'm not opposed to the roster spot idea, but I think it's a method that we've tried before without real success. We imposed this type of penalty for turning your roster in late, lose a spot for each day late. Those who were late didn't seem to really care. My guess is that's because we have such large rosters that those bottom spots are not all that meaningful on most teams.
As far as adding players from a prior year, I'd defer to Pat on that one. If we ran with that idea, I think it should be the worst or the worst that we can find from any time frame. This could be fun and a major deterrent to those who fail to achieve roster validity.
Again, I don't have a heavy opinion on this but if you're going to "penalize" somebody, draft picks may be more effective, whether they're lost by penalty or trade necessity.
Anyways, just spitballing. My guess is a few trades will happen as always that solves these issues without anybody being fleeced.
BTW-Ameer Abdullah (KR) is available for two future 1st's, lol.
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 4, 2021 15:03:04 GMT
Trades aren’t being forced. The trades are elective. Either you elect to draft a valid roster or you elect to trade for one. “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.”
If 15 owners had 2 kickers and 2 owners drafted the remaining 2 kickers then the 16th team has 13 owners to work out a trade with (assuming the owners who drafted a 3rd did so maliciously). The odds of finding one single reasonable owner out of 13? Quite good. Especially when you consider 80% of this league knows each other. We aren’t strangers on the internet who can hide behind anonymity when being a dick.
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 4, 2021 15:06:19 GMT
I’m not a fan of creating work for a member of this league to accommodate poor planning. Someone has to create lists of the worst players at multiple positions going back years and update it each year. Why are we punishing that league member and rewarding bad behavior by giving the owner of an invalid roster a get out of jail free card?
|
|