|
|
Post by Titans on May 15, 2015 9:55:58 GMT -5
Due to how the MFL site has been handling game-day inactive players in recent years, commissioners have had the duty of increased supervision over game-day rosters. Many owners have been sitting on players that are probable/questionable up until kickoff and sometimes said player gets inactivated. When this happens, the MFL site moves the player to OUT allowing the owner to not have to cut a player, which really defeats the purpose of the IR function of the league as it was intended. This enables owners to pick up players and "stash" them on their roster if they have someone listed as doubtful or out early in the week. When this happens, it removes the player picked up from the eligible player pool for that week (even if the owner as to drop him prior to kickoff because the game day decision by the coach was to keep the injured player on the active roster). This depletes the quality of talent available for pickups throughout the season. Therefore, as commishes, we have discussed and proposed the following measure:
1. Making IR for NFL IR-assigned players only
2. Adding 2 more roster spots
a. 1 more keeper (must be 5 offense/4 defense OR 4 offense/5 defense)
b. 1 more keeper round at the end of the draft (round 9)
This needs to be voted on prior to opening up the trading season, so now is the time to let your voice be heard! Voting ends May 23 @ midnight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 10:16:55 GMT -5
where do I vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans on May 15, 2015 10:40:03 GMT -5
You should be able to click the button for your vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans on May 15, 2015 10:42:35 GMT -5
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 12:41:33 GMT -5
Is there a reason why these were put together? It seems like 2 different votes are in order here. I get the IR only status, & I assume it includes the NFL's short-term IR status (but it doesn't specify that). I understand that the reason is to make the eligible player pool larger. That makes sense. But, if that is the intention, won't the corresponding measure of 2 more roster spots (1 being an extra keeper round & player), work against that measure?
Just my thoughts on these 2 measures. I'm going to abstain from voting right now because I'd like to see the 2 measures presented separately. If they were, I'd vote Yes on 1 & No on 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans on May 15, 2015 13:33:08 GMT -5
The commishes deemed it was an all-or-nothing proposal.
1. NFL IR is NFL IR - whether it is the partial-year IR or the full-year IR. This makes the game-day rosters black & white for owners and commishes. No more follow-up emails from commishes having to ensure owners don't have illegal rosters on game day. Honestly, it's a pain in the ass to manage - even with 4 commissioners.
2. This will most certainly improve the players eligible via the waiver wire. While at the beginning of the year it will be thinner, as players get nicked up, owners will most likely not want to cut a stud player, so they'll likely stand pat and not pick someone up. Owners will have to decide - do you stick with a player that may have a minor injury that may or may not cause him to miss any games or do you cut said player and go for the hot flavor of the week player that just came off a 4 catch, 2 TD performance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 23:43:45 GMT -5
9 keepers when we already can't find enough cannon fodder to keep?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 11:35:07 GMT -5
I realize I have a considerably different view than most regarding the League IR Rule as it stands now..
but after reading through this proposal and giving it much thought I believe it does not solve what IMO is the problem with the current Rule which basically allows the stashing of players who technically are not on IR in the NFL.. and as I have said to several, it only protects Owners from losing a player/s they may want to keep "just in case" rather than forcing them to be active in the FA market in order to submit the best lineup they can when a player is out for a week/s.. Let me say that I believe defining the IR Rule properly is great.. but IMO adding "keepers" and Roster spots simply continues to appease the so-called "stronger" rosters by still allowing an extra space to keep said players.. and honestly, it does nothing at all to promote opportunity for mid tier or lower rosters to climb the ladder. We all want to keep our "good ones" and that is great. But I see this as a way to make the league stronger and equally even more active.
If this sounds as if I am looking for a way to "force an owners' hand" so to speak.. yes I am..
I believe defining the IR Rule properly and keeping the current roster req's in tact will create situations where owners are tested as to whether or not they are playing to win each and every week or just trying to get by.. no matter his standing. Again, this isn't going to chase me off either way. I'm simply stating the effects I believe it will have or not have. So based on how this is written I'll abstain from voting either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravens on May 16, 2015 12:05:51 GMT -5
1. I cannot place a vote (there is no box by yes or no to select).
2. Are we really going to make a major change (keeper limit) to try and fix a minor issue? If the intent is to keep more players available, then how is adding keepers and increasing roster sizes doing that?
3. I suggest commishes re-think this - the league has been functioning pretty well with its' current format - I am not opposed to changes, but let's not use a tourniquet on a scrape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 23:33:21 GMT -5
Good to know I'm not the only one who views it this way. I still think it ought to be 2 different measures, & I think the 1st would pass easily & the 2nd wouldn't.
One of the things I enjoy most about this league is the 8 keeper/ 8 round system. If over half our team are keepers, we might as well go dynasty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans on May 17, 2015 9:23:58 GMT -5
18 players. 9 keepers. Still 50% ratio.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams on May 17, 2015 10:36:11 GMT -5
I'd be willing to keep it at 8 keepers but still add additional roster spots. That however, would give us a 10 round draft each year. We cannot limit IR but not add roster spots IMO, we wouldn't have enough bench spots to adequately fill a starting lineup. Injured players that are out for 5-6 weeks wouldn't be eligible for IR and would kill a team if we don't add to the roster. I'd be willing to leave keepers at 8, but realize that's a longer draft then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2015 11:02:00 GMT -5
I'd be willing to keep it at 8 keepers but still add additional roster spots. That however, would give us a 10 round draft each year. We cannot limit IR but not add roster spots IMO, we wouldn't have enough bench spots to adequately fill a starting lineup. Injured players that are out for 5-6 weeks wouldn't be eligible for IR and would kill a team if we don't add to the roster. I'd be willing to leave keepers at 8, but realize that's a longer draft then. I respectfully disagree.. I believe it would force an owner to work his bench adequately in order to maintain a competitive lineup rather than protect them from potentially having to make a decision on keeping a borderline player. |
|
|
|
Post by Chargers on May 17, 2015 11:55:41 GMT -5
I'd be willing to keep it at 8 keepers but still add additional roster spots. That however, would give us a 10 round draft each year. We cannot limit IR but not add roster spots IMO, we wouldn't have enough bench spots to adequately fill a starting lineup. Injured players that are out for 5-6 weeks wouldn't be eligible for IR and would kill a team if we don't add to the roster. I'd be willing to leave keepers at 8, but realize that's a longer draft then. I respectfully disagree.. I believe it would force an owner to work his bench adequately in order to maintain a competitive lineup rather than protect them from potentially having to make a decision on keeping a borderline player. I have to agree with Eric. As things stand right now, we are starting 11 out of 16 players on our roster. That leaves only 5 players on the bench. Once the lesser injuries start to pile up, you could easily have three or four players that are "Out" or "Doubtful", not to mention those that are "Questionable". If we make the IR change and keep the rosters size at 16, we will have owners that will take a zero in their lineup instead of dropping a player. I would rather slightly increase the roster size than have incomplete lineups used. Incomplete lineups lead to tanking, which no one wants, and is already an issue in this league, imo. I don't want to do something that is going to cause it to become worse. Another issue with the shallow benches and IR-only injured reserve is that it does not allow players to hold on to the diamond-in-the-rough players that they picked up in the 5th or 6th round and are hoping to develop. They would have to drop said unpolished gem just to fill a hole for a week or two. What's the point of drafting those types of players if you are just going to lose them due to roster decimation by injury? This change without the increase in roster size would greatly reduce the value of the keeper picks, imo, which is the best way for those teams that need to rebuild to do so - through the draft, that is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2015 12:34:30 GMT -5
As the Rules and lineup settings are now we have a Team QB and a Team PK.. then if I am correct 5 other positions of lineup eligibility which currently creates the ability for every owner to have 1 bench position for those 5 spots ("if that owner chooses to"). I believe it should be up to the owner to be able to accomomdate those positions according to his choice. I stand by my opinion that if you are adding more roster spots then you aren't really doing anything but changing the IR restrictions and just giving a certain group of owners an extra spot to keep those players anyway so in essence I see no gain. Shallow benches create a situation where owners MUST be active in order to compete.. That is what I personally enjoy in FF - Competing. The bottom line to me.. I ask this- are we looking to just make it easy on some owners? If the answer to that is yes then I believe we add roster spots. That is just my feeling on it as a FF team owner. I'll go with whatever you guys choose to do. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse and don't want to be seen as some habitual bitcher, if you will LOL.. so I'll just leave my view at that.  |
|
