|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Jan 2, 2015 11:25:20 GMT -6
Seattle, as I was doing kickers I was thinking about adding in XPs in some form so yeah we should discuss that for sure.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Jan 2, 2015 11:49:15 GMT -6
No worries, the tier system is really good for the most part. Just funny to see some elite kickers in the really low tiers lol
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Jan 2, 2015 12:35:54 GMT -6
Yeah, it was obvious that the kickers needed to be tweaked. Although it was intersting that as a whole FG% dropped dramatically across the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2015 14:47:04 GMT -6
We should make a Nostradamus title for next year. We all make predictions at the start of the year, and then at the end of the year the whole league votes on how well everyone did on their predictions before the year started (depending on boldness, correctness, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by tracker (Boston) on Jan 4, 2015 17:43:28 GMT -6
Didn't we say last off-season that we were gonna discuss rookie contracts so that people like Easley, Van Noy, White & Sims could have longer contracts than 2015 ?
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Jan 4, 2015 23:53:40 GMT -6
yes boston. the thing is, rookies have ablities to be tagged that pros dont. i think chance wants player turnover.
you are able to use some tags on those rookies if they turn into something.
but i'd still be ok w/ adding 1 year to every rookie contract.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Jan 5, 2015 7:10:52 GMT -6
Boston, see #11 on the list.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Jan 6, 2015 22:43:48 GMT -6
chance, how do you plan on going about these discussions? hopefully not all at once. lol
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Jan 6, 2015 22:49:15 GMT -6
Ha, no definitely 1-3 at a time in an order that is either irrelevant if one another or proceeding in an order that relates to one another but with proper discussions happening before others that may be affected by prior discussions.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Jan 6, 2015 22:56:55 GMT -6
i know we were discussion defensive player discounts or whatever, but what if instead of salary discount for defenders, we did caphit/waiver discounts?
i know defense is a tad bit more ebb/flow and low end guys might only start for 3-4 weeks at a time... so what if we lessened the cap hit for defenders overall, OR some of the "titles" owners get, allowed for cheaper cap hits on defenders (we could translate this to offensive side of ball, but i felt like they have enough discounts, but ya)
just an idea on the flip side of discounts that i know we were kind of kicking around not wanting to give EVERY position a discount or w/e
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Feb 4, 2015 5:49:10 GMT -6
First of all - yes to putting suspended players on IR. Secondly, if a player is suspended for the whole season the team shouldn't have to pay their salary just like IRL.
|
|
|
Post by tracker (Boston) on Feb 5, 2015 9:32:32 GMT -6
I like what Julian said about coaches scoring but don't think ties should b part of it since there just aren't many ties. I do not like the idea of putting suspended players on IR. Part of the "fun" or challenge of having a suspended player is, "how much ya want that guy?" Josh Gordon isn't injured. If ya want him that bad,, carry him. If his salary is too much to carry then, oh well
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Feb 5, 2015 11:12:09 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/2127/thread" timestamp="1423150352" author=" tracker (Boston)" I do not like the idea of putting suspended players on IR. Part of the "fun" or challenge of having a suspended player is, "how much ya want that guy?" Josh Gordon isn't injured. If ya want him that bad,, carry him. If his salary is too much to carry then, oh well[/quote] Teams don't have to pay suspended players in real life, so why should we have to pay them in fantasy football? As a Josh Gordon owner, I'm obviously biased but I don't really see how it makes the game better.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 5, 2015 11:53:10 GMT -6
Just playing devil's advocate here, but some could argue that Gordon (and others who are suspended for violating the substance abuse policy) are injured. Obviously being injured doesnt have to be physically, in Gordon's case he could be mentally injured. He has a drug and alcohol issue that is considered a disease by many.
That being said, I am probably also biased since I have AP but I expect him to play.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 6, 2015 11:11:44 GMT -6
Deep
|
|
|
Post by tracker (Boston) on Feb 8, 2015 10:32:12 GMT -6
Keeping suspended players on our rosters makes OUR game better cause it forces us to use our heads a little instead of stashing uninjured players on IR. A weak minded player who can't stay away from booze or weed has made his choose. Get High or play ball. Now we gotta make ours. To keep or not to keep..I took a chance on Rice last year & for 2015. That's a no brain er if I can stash him on IR. In my opinion only, it adds another twist to the things we have to think about, Hell, we're not really playing the games or coaching the teams. It adds a little twist for us to use. Bottom line, Their not injured. This is my opinion only & I'm sure it will be in the minority but so what. Have a good off season.
Frank The Yank
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 9, 2015 11:57:48 GMT -6
I kind of agree with frank. In the nfl they have sooooo many more positions to maintain and I think some players get paid it just doesn't count against cap? Either way, it makes it too easy to take a chance on players.
Granted there are gonna be teams with head cases like Gordon or Manziel etc, and we might make concessions or adjustments based on current rules for them. Wether it's a free drop or whatever (if we change rules)
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Feb 11, 2015 4:37:50 GMT -6
New rule suggestion
If an owner takes over an abandoned team mid-season, any salary cap "fines" for missed check-in polls etc. should be removed.
|
|
|
Post by tracker (Boston) on Feb 11, 2015 17:10:11 GMT -6
I agree with the Redcoat.
If an owner takes over an abandoned team mid-season, any salary cap "fines" for missed check-in polls etc. should be removed.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 11, 2015 17:38:27 GMT -6
while i agree with the salary cap issue, what about PP. i'd like to see those stay, and if salary cap have to stay with them, then so be it.
when you take over a franchise you retain the prestige it has built, you also inherit the financial repercussions (NY Knicks/phil jackson)
but i'd be fine either way, interesting dilemma though.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 11, 2015 17:49:08 GMT -6
Does the new owner get whatever the PP is (negative or positive)? Because if they are benefiting from the old owner's really good PP, then the cap hits should also apply. Can't take the good without the bad.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Feb 11, 2015 21:21:59 GMT -6
I essentially took off the 2 or 3 missed polls that Houston missed in December cause it was obvious he was already done by then and if a new owner had been in place there would not have been any missed polls. I don't feel that is fair to keep on their but any negative or positive consequences from when Houston was active are carried over.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 11, 2015 22:33:19 GMT -6
that's a surprisingly obvious good call chance. i think that fits into the "acquiring a known team" idea i like. it makes sense to remove the few infractions that lead to the demise though. idk how you always come up w/ these obviously fair solutions.
|
|