|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 9, 2017 3:47:59 GMT
1. Whether we should impose end run limits for QBs. 2. Whether we should prohibit an owner of 2 teams from acquiring a defense with Team A that was owned by Team B in the same season. 3. Whether we should continue to allow FS and SS to be interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 9, 2017 3:50:12 GMT
4. Whether we should ban all "computer only" players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 14:05:17 GMT
Announcing your offensive "personal" rather than your "formation" is a rule that should not be allowed - creates mismatches that can't be defended
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 14:07:48 GMT
QB's & FB's should also be penalized for not having the agreed upon number of carries - not just HB's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 14:09:38 GMT
4 WR set - FS should be free to move between short & long when defense stays in a base 34 or 43 defense - not an ounce where he is going to be prior to offense calling its play
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 9, 2017 16:22:32 GMT
1. Limiting the number of Carries for a QB would have to be in line with how many carries he had on the year. What would be the breakdown? Who's responsibility is it to keep track of? Also, IF we are willing to do that it should be reflected for ALL runners. Why do we allow a Tyreek Hill type card to carry the ball 400+ times a year yet we are trying to limit carries for a different position? The game engine has a rule for fatigue for these type of players.
2. I agree. As a side note: If we eliminated using team defensive cards and went with Generic cards this problem wouldn't exist.
3. I think FS/SS should remain interchangeable.
4. Just because SOM doesn't print a card for a particular player doesn't mean that player is non-existent. They took the time to generate a rating as well as a digital card, therefore I believe that player should be accessible to our league.
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 9, 2017 16:37:55 GMT
Announcing your personal is just like looking at the offensive huddle. you only know who's on the field, you don't know where they are lining up. If you have a player that creates a mis-match depending on where you line him up, that should be to your advantage.
If the defense stays in a standard 4 defensive back look with 4 WR's on the field the FS would have to match-up with the 4th wide(FS stationed in the short) or the offense would throw it to that guy on a 1 step drop (FS stationed in long=receiver is open).
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Aug 9, 2017 20:58:35 GMT
I like the idea of the generic draft team cards...makes your team more representative of who's on the field. Makes the draft more important in my opinion.
Hypothetical - if you have an ILB/S or OLB/S or something of that sort, would you be allowed to announce "these are my guys" just as if the offense would with a TE/WR guy?
I am against the "these are my guys". I vote for a formation being declared. I vote for NOT allowing FS and SS to be interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 10, 2017 3:05:38 GMT
1. The new flat pass rules make limits overkill. 2. makes sense 3. going back to old rule of minus 1 to pass rating only for FS playing SS or SS playing FS is ok by me... to start next season. (2018) 4. I agree with Pat. Strat rated these players. Teams limited by printing format. Should also be available to draft.
I also agree w/Pat on announcing personnel is much like a huddle.
4 wide set puts extra pressure on a standard defense.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 10, 2017 15:22:10 GMT
1) I can go either way on QB end runs, but I don't think it would hurt to apply the same rule to them as we do to the 50 carry runners. On a side note, I believe the 50 carry rule should apply to FB's as well.
2) I have no poinion on this. Personally I think our whole defensive card format should be changed as others have mentioned above.
3) I think we should go back to the rules where a safety is not interchangeable.
4) I think computer only players are OK as long as we print the card. I didn't see any issue with this last season.
5) The "these are my dudes" is BS. That's just a rule we made up and it should not be allowed on either side of the ball.
6) What is the SOM rule on 4 WR sets?
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 10, 2017 16:22:23 GMT
Just a quick note . . . I didn't propose any rules changes . . . I merely set forth some items that I think are worthy of discussion.
Some of my thoughts: running limits = I concur with John. The new flat pass/run rules make run a much more likely defensive call so End Run QBs generally face negative consequences on their card -- less so for the "Pistol" rated QBs -- but perhaps they should be able to run more often.
For FB only -- how many are there? If a player is only rated as a FB it is unlikely that he will have 50 carries. It is a nice option to be able to run with a FB to stop the key. If the FB is already right 1/3 of the time then you will be less likely to use them in a short-yardage situation. The concern, of course, is that a FB with 8 carries will run wild. A compromise might be that if there is no HB then the 50 rush rule applies to the FB. If you are going to play a traditional FB, then he must ber in a traditional backfield (or full house).
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 10, 2017 16:25:55 GMT
Team Defensive Cards.
I like the variety of defensive cards. I do not like the idea of awarding excellent defensive cards for excellent numbers (like some leagues do). It seems like the rich get richer. I think everyone can compete in our league. However, if someone puts forth a good plan, I will review it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2017 20:59:56 GMT
I vote no change to the current safety rule. The reason we made the change is that SOM sometimes gets the Strong and Free Safety designation wrong. We also don't distinguish other positions, such as Left and Right Offensive Tackles, even though Left Tackles are vastly more important (blind side protection for right-handed throwing QB's).
I would also keep our current defensive team setup. These can be valuable assets for teams. The Seattle defense was recently traded for a significant number of draft picks. It adds more strategy and general manager responsibilities. It also has the possibility of making a "super" team vulnerable in some area. The "old" Bucs come to mind. They had the Seattle defense, which was terrific, but had a ultra-negative penalty differential.
I would do the same thing for defensive cards as we do with players. Right now, players from one of your teams can't play on your other team. It should be the same for defensive cards.
Fullbacks and Quarterbacks should follow the same rules as halfbacks. If they have less than 51 carries, they should be treated the same way as HB's. SOM has created running QB monsters the last two years. Also creates more strategy around the goal line if the QB has less than 51 carries.
These issues have generated a lot of responses. They should be voted on before/after the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Aug 10, 2017 21:21:22 GMT
There is a couple different ways the draft defensive cards can go... The draft team defensive cards have way more player rolls than the stock team cards. The draft defensive cards also have several different grades for both run and pass just like the stock team cards (excellent, good, average, poor, very poor) The first way is using a formula that calculates an overall run and pass rating which is dependent on your players ratings. The run formula is a combination of your defensive linemen's run rating and part of your LB's run rating. The pass formula is a combination of your DBs pass rating and part of your LBs pass rating. This is the system that Rich H. is referring too above where the rich could get richer. In that system, it is possible for someone to have an "excellent" run D against someone who has a "poor" run D and other scenarios like that. This system would be more rewarding for players that draft well. The system I think would work better is the one where everyone uses the "average" rated cards for both run and pass. This way nobody is getting a hefty advantage or being put at a severe disadvantage. These cards have an equal amount of player rolls as the other system but the yardage is just different. (more or less depending on which grade you're comparing to) These cards would just reward the better numbers slightly. I prefer the draft defensive cards because it makes the players you draft more valuable and makes your defense more indicative of who is actually out there. Right now in our league, a team full of 0s and 4s could out perform a bunch of 5s and 6s because of the stock team cards that is attached to them. Another advantage of the draft defensive is that everyone can choose whether they want to be a 3-4 or a 4-3 before the season starts, which would be a nice luxury to have without possibly having to sacrifice anything rating-wise. Overall, I like them more because I believe they are more realistic to your team that is on the field. For anyone interested in the formulas for the first system or the different draft cards in general, I have copies of both. Let me know if you would like that info. Defensive Draft Cards.xls (73 KB)
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 11, 2017 13:25:46 GMT
I don't believe we made the safety rule change because SOM sometimes gets it wrong. I believe it was based on the fact that we use the loose substitution rule for lall other positions. I also believe that is the one are where SOM does not allow for looser substitutions.
I would prefer it go back to the regular SOM rule. We already allow for much more powerful nickel and dime situational substitutions by allowing any CB/SS/FS to be a nickel and dime back, whereas the game only allows you to use a true DB in those situations. That being said, i'm not sure that the rule of anybody being a nickel and dime shouldn't be looked at a bit closer.
|
|