FanGM

Strategist wrote:Well the more I hear stories about how difficult it is. I would definitely say it can't be a hard fast rule. It just has to be if they don't get 10 wins then we take a look at the circumstances.

Agreed, there could be list of GMs Goodell feels have a lot of experience and understand the system well, and then they could form a committee and a guy could have a chance to plead his case to them and Goodell. If they feel he deserves a little more time then rightly so, if a guy is tanking just for the sake of #1 pick then different circumstances.

Strategist wrote:Well the more I hear stories about how difficult it is. I would definitely say it can't be a hard fast rule. It just has to be if they don't get 10 wins then we take a look at the circumstances.

I agree. While I think there should be some accountability, I do think removing GMs should be on a case by case basis.

Less than 10 wins in any 3 year period simply puts you in the evaluation process.

You could be left as GM, removed, or even put on a one year probation period.

lucky7jc wrote:

Ben C. wrote:

Strategist wrote:To me you have to try to do that bad 3 seasons in a row but that is just my opinion.

Is there anyone that can say right now for a fact they haven't gotten 10 wins in a 3 year period?

Shagg's Detroit only had 5 wins from 2007-2009. He went 2-14 in 2007, 1-15 in 2008, and 2-14 in 2009.

Kansas City only had 7 wins from 2007-2009: 3-13 in 2007, 2-13-1 in 2008, 2-14 in 2009. I'm not sure when lucky took over, though.

Paulco's first 3 seasons with Jacksonville only saw 7 wins: 3-13 in 2008, 0-16 in 2009, 4-12 in 2010.

More recently, TylerW's Giants are in serious danger of not reaching 10 wins over his first 3 seasons. The team has gone 0-16 the last 2 years.

However, I do believe that having this rule will make the league more competitive. I first mentioned this rule after the 2010 season, and it doesn't seem like a coincidence that even just the thought of it has improved Detroit, Kansas City, and Jacksonville:

Detroit was 12-4 in 2011, 6-10 in 2012.
Kansas City was 5-11 in 2011, 5-11 in 2012.
Jacksonville was 5-11 in 2011, 9-7 in 2012.

I think they've all worked harder at making sure a competitive team is on the "field."

I also think the year in which I inherited my team that KC was coming off of a Super Bowl win. They were emptied and gutted no matter the case. It has honestly been tough just getting to 5 wins honestly.

On the rule of 10 wins, here is my thoughts. If like in the case I inherited a team that was gutted after winning, or another GM tanking a team and abandoning the league for someone else to recover. The roster I got was somewhere around 35-40 players and a loss of FA's left and right w/ few picks b/c they dealt them in order to get that trade deadline push to get to the SB. When you put all those factors together then it was almost impossible for me to get to 10 wins even in 3 years. It's taken me 4 years (as I think I joined at the end of 08) just to get to 5 wins. Now that I'm here I'm not going back, but it's still been really difficult and slow developing.

Sorry, Lucky, but your history is a bit revisionist to me.

I took over the DFFL Detroit Lions the year after they went 0-16. The roster was so bad it would have made a Pop Warner Coach squirm. I cut 90 percent of the players, traded, drafted, and attacked in free agency. The team went 7-9. I stepped down after the season because my AFFL team was what was important to me and I didn't like to take time and energy from that team. This isn't to toot my own horn but it's not hard to put a competitive team on the field. You just have to be active.

In your case, Lucky, you have missed drafts and missed free agency quite a bit. You drafted a QB for three straight years in the first round. Teams know they can attack your free agents in free agency because you're not on enough and they know they won't be counter bidded into the ground. Case in point would be letting Lawrence Timmons go last year without a fight. You could have franchised him or LTC'd him. You did neither and let a quality player get away.

I'm not a Chief's fan in RL but I do live in the city and respect their fans. My wife is a Chief's fan. Maybe that's why it irks me to see the team run into the ground

Sport I would say your turning around an 0-16 team in the Dffl is a bit different than it is now in the AFFL. When the DFFL started there were alot of people that didn't know what they were doing and could be taken advantage of. That really isn't the case in the AFFL.

My Giants in the AFFL haven't won a game in 2 years but I don't like the idea of having to win 10 games in 3 seasons. Right now I have $81 million in cap space. If I wanted to try and get 10 wins all I'd have to do was spend a crap-ton of money in FA this year, load up for 1 year, and then be back to square one after this year just to remain as a GM.

I think you can look at firing GM's if their team is in complete trouble. My roster isn't good now but I have 10 picks in the first 2 rounds over the next 2 years and 17 picks in the first 3 rounds over the next 2 years.

Royce R wrote:

Ulrich82 wrote:This is for fun, which is why I am not exactly in favor of imposing the requirement across all leagues. I don't know what the wait list looks like but it sounds like Troy does a pretty good job getting new guys into openings. I'd hate to see us kick out a GM and then have a problem filling that spot.

However, I think AFFL is a different story. It is supposed to be an elite league for veteran owners and there are only 32 spots. If you can't meet a standard which would keep you employed, then you get fired and another GM gets a shot in the league. And if you get fired from AFFL, you can join the pool to try to get another chance.

I disagree just a touch, I think anyone fired should automatically get a new team in another league.

That's how I see it. You're not kicking them out of FM. You are simply demoting and letting someone else try their hand. It won't hurt my feeling if we don't implement this, but I think it's a fun addition to the game. I'd rather see it hard than 10 myself, but that's just me.

TylerW wrote:My Giants in the AFFL haven't won a game in 2 years but I don't like the idea of having to win 10 games in 3 seasons. Right now I have $81 million in cap space. If I wanted to try and get 10 wins all I'd have to do was spend a crap-ton of money in FA this year, load up for 1 year, and then be back to square one after this year just to remain as a GM.

I think you can look at firing GM's if their team is in complete trouble. My roster isn't good now but I have 10 picks in the first 2 rounds over the next 2 years and 17 picks in the first 3 rounds over the next 2 years.

This is what everyone is complaining about. Why shouldnt you try and compete every year? Why should you be able to sit there and go 0/16 over and over just so you get the top picks. No GM in real life would keep his job if he allow his team to do that. You admitted yourself you could compete if you wanted to.

TylerW wrote:My Giants in the AFFL haven't won a game in 2 years but I don't like the idea of having to win 10 games in 3 seasons. Right now I have $81 million in cap space. If I wanted to try and get 10 wins all I'd have to do was spend a crap-ton of money in FA this year, load up for 1 year, and then be back to square one after this year just to remain as a GM.

I think you can look at firing GM's if their team is in complete trouble. My roster isn't good now but I have 10 picks in the first 2 rounds over the next 2 years and 17 picks in the first 3 rounds over the next 2 years.

That post right there is the best argument I've seen for having some form of winning requirement.

Strategist wrote:

TylerW wrote:My Giants in the AFFL haven't won a game in 2 years but I don't like the idea of having to win 10 games in 3 seasons. Right now I have $81 million in cap space. If I wanted to try and get 10 wins all I'd have to do was spend a crap-ton of money in FA this year, load up for 1 year, and then be back to square one after this year just to remain as a GM.

I think you can look at firing GM's if their team is in complete trouble. My roster isn't good now but I have 10 picks in the first 2 rounds over the next 2 years and 17 picks in the first 3 rounds over the next 2 years.

This is what everyone is complaining about. Why shouldnt you try and compete every year? Why should you be able to sit there and go 0/16 over and over just so you get the top picks. No GM in real life would keep his job if he allow his team to do that. You admitted yourself you could compete if you wanted to.

I didn't have $81 million just sitting there the last 2 years. I traded and paid for a bunch of shitty SB's from the GM before me finally. That is why.

I agree 100% with the last posts from Stategist and Zapotek. The rule is to prevent teams from doing this in the future. You can rebuild reasonably, but you won't be able to completely gut and team to stockpile tons of cap space and picks (at least without a lot of risk).