|
|
Post by Rams on May 17, 2015 19:46:05 GMT -5
Like Tony said, tanking is already an issue, I'm not trying to make it worse. I promise you that I will keep my 6th round pick that I believe has potential and in turn start an injured player and receive a zero. Not because I'm trying to tank, but because im keeping my future, that's what this league is all about. If we don't increase roster size we will have normal tankers plus owners that are forced into tanking so as to not compromise their future. Increasing the roster isn't making it easier for teams, it's making it more competitive imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2015 19:53:39 GMT -5
So you are doing this double sided measure to decrease tanking?
This is just bad all the way around. You can't have 2 issues in one question, no matter how you try to justify it.
This is like adding federal funding amendment for shrimp fishers in Alabama to a bill about roads in California.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cowboys on May 17, 2015 22:03:52 GMT -5
Clearly (or maybe not so clearly), I am in support of the proposal as it was written as all four commishes came to a consensus on the matter. I could easily repeat what's already been stated in support of the proposal, but I'll just add to what Eric recently posted.
The Jags have mentioned that limiting the rosters and IR will cause owners to have to work harder to field competitive teams. I agree 100% with this statement. However, and I'm not trying to insult anyone here, that might not be a good thing for this league. There are still 9 teams that haven't logged into the 2015 site. This league, for some of the owners, is far down their list of concerns. This is evident every Sunday when the commissioners have to go team by team and pull guys off the IR and cut guys to make line ups legal. I believe some teams check in to this league on Wednesday night, set their line ups and then visit the following week to see how they did (some teams don't even do that).
The less active owners, like those who check in on Wednesday night, will be hard pressed to field competitive line ups. More likely than not, they will shrug their shoulders and submit line ups with holes in them. We already have a percentage of the league who start having fire sales after the third week, assuming they have no chance to be competitive. If teams with questionable ability to make it to the playoffs have to start cutting what they consider to be sleepers or guys they are high on, they won't do it. Which will lead to incomplete line ups and even more teams out of the playoff race earlier on. This could actually decrease the competition within the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams on May 18, 2015 5:25:17 GMT -5
It's pretty simple. Vote yes to change it to the new setup, vote no if you'd like to leave it how it is. It's a package deal. I understand some owners like 1 half but not the other. The simple response to that is to weigh it out and decide if it's worth it.
Like I said earlier, I'd be willing to leave keepers at 8 personally, haven't spoke to the other commishes. As to the rest, it's all or nothing for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 9:10:51 GMT -5
I'm still wavering... But also wondering about 3 things- is this a simple majority vote, do the commishes have a "quorum" number set for votes needed, & is there a deadline?
|
|
|
|
Post by Browns on May 18, 2015 9:49:08 GMT -5
I find it funny that the commishes, the guys that do all the work and have to deal with the inactive owners are 100% for this while others are not. That's why I voted yes. It's great for me to log in a couple of times a week and just deal with my roster while these commishes, who spend a ton of time dealing with guys like me whining about trades, have to not only worry about their team but also babysitting others with the IR. These seems to solve that problem without being a burden with their time.
I completely disagree with the Jags as even with team QB'S and K's benches are already extremely shallow. With new concussion protocol's it seems many more players are missing a week or two here or there. I'm a very active owner and had many weeks last year where I struggled to field a complete team. If we change the IR rules then we absolutely have to expand rosters whether or not they are keepers is a different matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams on May 18, 2015 9:51:13 GMT -5
Yes, in the rules it says we need a majority vote with a quorum of 10 votes. I believe the deadline says may 23rd, although we may extend a few days if necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 11:50:14 GMT -5
I find it funny that the commishes, the guys that do all the work and have to deal with the inactive owners are 100% for this while others are not. That's why I voted yes. It's great for me to log in a couple of times a week and just deal with my roster while these commishes, who spend a ton of time dealing with guys like me whining about trades, have to not only worry about their team but also babysitting others with the IR. These seems to solve that problem without being a burden with their time. I completely disagree with the Jags as even with team QB'S and K's benches are already extremely shallow. With new concussion protocol's it seems many more players are missing a week or two here or there. I'm a very active owner and had many weeks last year where I struggled to field a complete team. If we change the IR rules then we absolutely have to expand rosters whether or not they are keepers is a different matter. I can get behind this line of reasoning - being better for the commishes. Still not sure either measure is going to be substantively better for the league, but I do trust the commishes. I think they try to play fair, so I'll go along with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 9:54:00 GMT -5
I find it funny that the commishes, the guys that do all the work and have to deal with the inactive owners are 100% for this while others are not. That's why I voted yes. It's great for me to log in a couple of times a week and just deal with my roster while these commishes, who spend a ton of time dealing with guys like me whining about trades, have to not only worry about their team but also babysitting others with the IR. These seems to solve that problem without being a burden with their time. I completely disagree with the Jags as even with team QB'S and K's benches are already extremely shallow. With new concussion protocol's it seems many more players are missing a week or two here or there. I'm a very active owner and had many weeks last year where I struggled to field a complete team. If we change the IR rules then we absolutely have to expand rosters whether or not they are keepers is a different matter. first let me ask.. define shallow? as for the rosters.. sure they are thin.. I would hope that FF owners in this league realize that it creates the opportunity for activity and interaction between owners on every level "provided those owners care enough about the league and their teams to make their best effort to compete." I see that 7 different positions are used.. take out the team QB and team PK.. that leaves you 5 lineup positions that you need to fill each week.. then we have 5 bench spots allowing for the opportunity to carry 1 player for each spot on your bench if you so choose.. so taking that into account along with the available waiver opportunities you believe that an owner wouldn't have enough options to be able to fill their lineup? you mentioned concussions etc.. aren't injuries a part of it? isn't having to work your team to where you can compete and try to win the whole idea of this? if you don't believe in that then yes.. we definitely disagree.. a lot of these responses strike me as coming from the perspective of "yeah we just need to make this easy" if we are looking to make things easy, and that is how this appears to me, let's just add 5 more roster spots.. then nobody should have to make any waiver moves or other tough choices in order to work their team. My original thought expressed when I first brought up the IR issue was regarding the current Rule which is completely open for abuse of what "Injured Reserve" is and why there is such a thing.. it had nothing to do with Roster size at all.. and knowing what I know now I obviously should never have brought it up.. but the fact is the option proposed is something that really does nothing to "correct" what I believe is a bad rule (opportunity).. so instead of allowing players to be stashed on IR, this proposal suggests nothing more than the ideal that since we can't use IR then it's better to give teams a couple more roster spots to stash those players. So in a nutshell the current proposal is no fix at all and my vote is no. If this is passed we may as well have done nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Ravens on May 19, 2015 15:48:09 GMT -5
Yes, in the rules it says we need a majority vote with a quorum of 10 votes. I believe the deadline says may 23rd, although we may extend a few days if necessary. Disregard - I voted |
|
|
|
Post by Rams on May 20, 2015 7:14:44 GMT -5
Like I said before Jags, I'd take a zero before dropping my 5th or 6th round keeper pick. This league is all about drafting well, if I can't keep my draft picks because I have an injury or 2 at 1 position, then the purpose of drafting well is irrelevant. We need a little wiggle room for backups as well as developmental players we take in the latter rounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 12:18:11 GMT -5
Like I said before Jags, I'd take a zero before dropping my 5th or 6th round keeper pick. This league is all about drafting well, if I can't keep my draft picks because I have an injury or 2 at 1 position, then the purpose of drafting well is irrelevant. We need a little wiggle room for backups as well as developmental players we take in the latter rounds. first if we have tankers then I want out ..LOL..or they need to go.. that's garbage at any level and I think we all can agree there.. regarding not letting young players go.. ok then add a couple of TS spots with a 2/3 year window for them.. and do so with the ideal that once you take a player off the TS he can't go back on.. that's more than enough space if any owner is indeed truly concerned about devy players.. but keeping players for developmental reasons is one thing.. simply stashing them because they might be worth keeping and so nobody else can get them is another altogether.. the latter is a negative at any level of play. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 14:45:56 GMT -5
Just thinking... GB is already making the 4.5 available, & listed all his other picks. If we're adding an extra round, we need to do that before trading starts so 9th round picks can be moved as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cowboys on May 25, 2015 16:18:37 GMT -5
Just thinking... GB is already making the 4.5 available, & listed all his other picks. If we're adding an extra round, we need to do that before trading starts so 9th round picks can be moved as well. Yeah. The IR situation will be resolved and announced before trading is open. The commishes are currently attempting to talk to make the results official. Hopefully within the next day or so. Hang tight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 11:34:57 GMT -5
I guess this explains the reason things are set up as they are in this particular league.. I had assumed many more would at least have some level of interest but at this point only 20 have even voted.. and a very select few have cared enough to involve themselves in any discussion whatsoever about it.. that is definitely very disappointing to see in a league of this many owners. I clearly misinterpreted the overall level of involvement amongst this group. LOL.. I feel like I should apologize for even bringing the subject up in the first place. I'm all for moving on as need be.
Cheers!
|
|
