2022 RULES: Suggestions

[JonC]

Jon C good point made about the ability of moving a player up from PS to active nothing like 9:30 in the morning and finding out a key player will be out. Now how many do we allow? 1 player, 2 players? Plus protecting 3 players like the NFL does, but will that change now that covid is at least somewhat under control, and as long as that doesn't put more of a burden as more work will be needed to accomplish this.

We already kind of do that by continuing to allow 55 on the active roster at all times (which we may want to discontinue now that Covid protocols are gone in the league). I don't think there should be any limit to the number of players who are moved up. There has to be a corresponding move in order to move them up (e.g. a player must be placed on the IL, traded, or waived) and the perks of being able to instantly promote your own player incentivize finding useful PS players.

[larry linke]

I feel that teams should not be able to add to their practice squad after the regular season ends. You can say that they will be restricted free agents during free agency but with the set up of our free agency (unlimited bids on your own guys) it is really a back door ways for teams to start free agency early. All GM's had 18 weeks to find these guys. The odds of someone using one of their 5 bids on one of these guys is pretty slim

BTW, have I mentioned that i wish our draft was a round a day for 7 days ?

Larry
Minnesota AFFl
Tampa Bay BRFL

[NIU89]

I really really wish we did a round a day. It seems almost virtually impossible to trade with the tight time constraints.

Did I mention I really wish

Larry

I like the idea of more time to make picks, a round a day makes sense. Allows time to see offers and make counters. Countless times I sent an offer and it was ignored or I logged on to make my pick and missed an offer i would have taken.

[sportznut]

This is VERY minor, but I'd love to see the Raiders changed from Oakland to Las Vegas this year.

[Goodell]

- Cleaning up positional eligibility. May need a couple people really interested in that willing to go over a spreadsheet on that and provide their suggested updates and rationale for why a player eligible for tackle and guard (mostly because they were a tackle in college when drafted and initially listed that way but exclusively a guard now) should just be a guard now, etc. Also looking at some of the more hybrid players and how we can best handle those like players who are both linebacker and safeties at times and how we account for them between two different area grades.

For now, as we hope to open up trading possibly this weekend and free agency in a couple weeks, probably best to just simplify things on some of the positional eligibility questions. Prior to free agency we'll take a look at players who maybe have multiple positions listed for whatever reasons in the past but really shouldn't if they are almost exclusive just one of those spots now. We'll be a little less willing to give players additional position eligibility other than actually playing NFL games at those spots currently. Was hoping to maybe look at ways to adjust the depth chart for more flexibility and hybrid type players and how they might factor into multiple areas (like a safety/linebacker or a primarily pass-catching back) if they reasonably do in reality move around, but we'll look at that complexity more toward the future possibilities but keep things more simple now toward players with their primary positions and making sure players don't impact multiple area averages.

[jerrydlux]

Id be able to go through some spread sheets and dig into players positional status.

I think we just need some guidelines as to what the thresholds are to keep someone say T/G eligible (and is there a difference between being T/G or G/T in the system when filling out the Oline...)

I said n another thread I have Ekeler who has RB/WR status but is a top receiving threat for the chargers as well, so completely taking it away severely takes away from who he is as a player in our game.

[Goodell]

Id be able to go through some spread sheets and dig into players positional status.

I think we just need some guidelines as to what the thresholds are to keep someone say T/G eligible (and is there a difference between being T/G or G/T in the system when filling out the Oline...)

I said n another thread I have Ekeler who has RB/WR status but is a top receiving threat for the chargers as well, so completely taking it away severely takes away from who he is as a player in our game.

On G/T or T/G, not really for the game simulator. Best I think, though, to have primary position listed first. In some cases it can matter like S/CB who can play multiple positions in the secondary. For tagging purposes, the first position matters a lot there, as it'll either use the CB or S tag price depending upon what's listed first.

On RB/WRs, one approach I was thinking on was to have them count toward receiver averages but not as much as a starting WR. Kind of like what we do with FBs for OL, where they can add to the receiver grade but cannot replace the usual receiving corps and only if they help the overall average. And there would have to be some kind of line for determining top receiving backs who could contribute some to receiving strength.

But with or without that, they'd still help considerably in the sim because of their receiving stats and that if they have a lot of catches and yards those would translate into game plays.

[larry linke]

Id be able to go through some spread sheets and dig into players positional status.

I think we just need some guidelines as to what the thresholds are to keep someone say T/G eligible (and is there a difference between being T/G or G/T in the system when filling out the Oline...)

I said n another thread I have Ekeler who has RB/WR status but is a top receiving threat for the chargers as well, so completely taking it away severely takes away from who he is as a player in our game.

How does a guy who averages less than 5 snaps a game at a position other than HB severely take away from who he is. Are you trying to convince us that all 70 receptions came on those 75 times he lines up outside ? Would he have averaged more than 9 yards a reception. As for being a top receiving threat for the Chargers are your forgetting Mike Williams and Keenan Allen not to mention Jared Cook (512 passing plays), Jalen Guyton (461), Josh Palmer (311), Donald Parham (170) and Stephen Anderson (126).

As a matter of fact Ekeler was on the field for 446 passing plays and lined up outside for 75.

Larry

[larry linke]

Just went through all the teams snap counts and 12 RB's had more snaps at the slot and wide positions than Austin Ekeler. Edmonds (94), Patterson (162), Freeman (78), Mixon (82), Zeke Elliott (85), Jones GB (92), Hines (124), Henderson (106), Michel (85), Kamara (119), Harris 102 and McKinnon (99).

Another 8 had 50 or more snaps.

Do we really want all these guys to get a dual rating ?

Larry

[Aftermath2531]

Id be able to go through some spread sheets and dig into players positional status.

I think we just need some guidelines as to what the thresholds are to keep someone say T/G eligible (and is there a difference between being T/G or G/T in the system when filling out the Oline...)

I said n another thread I have Ekeler who has RB/WR status but is a top receiving threat for the chargers as well, so completely taking it away severely takes away from who he is as a player in our game.

On G/T or T/G, not really for the game simulator. Best I think, though, to have primary position listed first. In some cases it can matter like S/CB who can play multiple positions in the secondary. For tagging purposes, the first position matters a lot there, as it'll either use the CB or S tag price depending upon what's listed first.

On RB/WRs, one approach I was thinking on was to have them count toward receiver averages but not as much as a starting WR. Kind of like what we do with FBs for OL, where they can add to the receiver grade but cannot replace the usual receiving corps and only if they help the overall average. And there would have to be some kind of line for determining top receiving backs who could contribute some to receiving strength.

But with or without that, they'd still help considerably in the sim because of their receiving stats and that if they have a lot of catches and yards those would translate into game plays.

I like this idea as a solution. Either way RB's are apart of the passing offense and should be included in the reciever grade in some form.