Real Fantasy Pigskin: Future Framework and Vote

How many players can each team protect each year?

  • 8

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • 10

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • 12

    Votes: 17 54.8%

  • Total voters
    31

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,376
Boulder, CO
Turning off injuries would benefit teams that drafted injury risks (cough, cough). So yeah, we should do that.

Wait, that would be dumb. No, we shouldn't turn off injuries. We're playing in a world that is disconnected from reality; why disconnect it even more? As the owner of the team I assume to have the oldest age (no, I haven't bothered to do the math), I think injuries are an important part of the game, and people would have drafted differently if injuries weren't blah blah blah, so yeah, injuries should be a part of the Madden sim. Which we have to do. Because otherwise what's the point; hearing Laddie bloviate about how he doesn't like my draft? No thanks.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
The preseason injury train rolls on...sound off if you haven't had at least player go down with a season-ender. And that's better than if your C gets cut before the first preseason game and your RG decides to retire. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
Looking back on how this vote went, I wonder how many people would have voted 0 for the number of players able to be plucked from their team. This is literally the only part of the offseason that I'm dreading. I'm not sure how other GM's feel but I put together a young team to see how they grew together and not so I can have a couple of pieces of my puzzle taken before they developed.
 
I think it would be better if we had to choose 5 guys to drop who go back into the pool and then we have a 10 round draft, that way we're getting closer to our 53 and no one has to spend an 11 round draft waiting to see if their going to get fucked by someone stealing one of their unprotected players. I'm not sure about anyone elses team but finding 5 guys you're willing to give up on after one year is pretty difficult. I have 2 that are no-brainers and the other 3 would hurt to let go...
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,376
Boulder, CO
I'm less concerned about it. My team building philosophy is one of overreactions to short-term developments and frequent 180-degree reversals in strategy. I embrace high turnover and encourage you to do the same.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Looking back on how this vote went, I wonder how many people would have voted 0 for the number of players able to be plucked from their team. This is literally the only part of the offseason that I'm dreading. I'm not sure how other GM's feel but I put together a young team to see how they grew together and not so I can have a couple of pieces of my puzzle taken before they developed.
 
I think it would be better if we had to choose 5 guys to drop who go back into the pool and then we have a 10 round draft, that way we're getting closer to our 53 and no one has to spend an 11 round draft waiting to see if their going to get fucked by someone stealing one of their unprotected players. I'm not sure about anyone elses team but finding 5 guys you're willing to give up on after one year is pretty difficult. I have 2 that are no-brainers and the other 3 would hurt to let go...
I think that matches real life, though - some of the players you lose are ones you actively jettison, but some are guys you'd rather not lose. Getting to protect 12 players means your core group stays together, but losing two means you're losing real value. I think that mimics how things work in the NFL.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
Super Nomario said:
I think that matches real life, though - some of the players you lose are ones you actively jettison, but some are guys you'd rather not lose. Getting to protect 12 players means your core group stays together, but losing two means you're losing real value. I think that mimics how things work in the NFL.
 
By losing players during the draft?
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
By losing players during the draft?
 
I don't mind losing players (especially those I value), but I agree with Eck here. What if in the very last round one of your guys finally gets grabbed and now you have to spend your last draft pick replacing him? Or how do we determine the order? I could be drafting in the middle of the last round and someone after me could still steal one of my players?
 
Maybe you have to spend one of the first few rounds on stealing players if you chose to do so. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
It's here to promote realism, but I don't think it's realistic at all. In the NFL you have enough cap space so that if you always play your cards right you'll never lose a player you want to keep. This is the exact opposite.
 
It's also hugely complicated. I'll need to have a list of every team's available players and how many of them have been picked.
 
And I don't like that a good young player can be on three teams in as many years. That is wildly unrealistic.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
By losing players during the draft?
In free agency. Obviously it's a different mechanism, but I think the system here is a pretty good approximation.
 
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
 
I don't mind losing players (especially those I value), but I agree with Eck here. What if in the very last round one of your guys finally gets grabbed and now you have to spend your last draft pick replacing him? Or how do we determine the order? I could be drafting in the middle of the last round and someone after me could still steal one of my players?
 
Maybe you have to spend one of the first few rounds on stealing players if you chose to do so. 
I suspect that this is in most cases not going to be an issue; the first few rounds will be elite rookies, the next few will be people stealing, and the last few will be hole-filling among unclaimed vets and rookie mid-round picks. I suspect the talent curve is just going work out that way once we have names vs abstractions.
 
Might there be one or two teams left holding the bag? Sure, but that happens in real life, too. Look at the Dolphins' OLine situation last year; they appeared to want to upgrade LT last offseason, but couldn't make it work out and ended up rolling with what they have.
 
phragle said:
It's here to promote realism, but I don't think it's realistic at all. In the NFL you have enough cap space so that if you always play your cards right you'll never lose a player you want to keep. This is the exact opposite.
I don't think this is true, that you never lose a player you want to keep. Teams lose players they'd prefer to keep all the time when they get too expensive. They have to prioritize - exactly what we're doing here with allowing 12 keepers. If you want to keep a guy, you can - make him one of your 12. I think this is a pretty elegant simulation of the reality that you can't always keep your roster exactly as planned.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
It's different though. With 53 guys on your roster there is depth already. We don't have that here. No to mention, if we're talking about being able to keep people due to salaries I would have one of the lowest total payrolls in the league. If I wanted to keep everyone I could.
 
Trying to make it realistic but keep monetary value out of the equation is impossible.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
The following are the 385th-448th picks when we did this. If we had drafted perfectly, these would be the guys we were losing - these were the 13th-14th rounders (spoilered for length):
Steve Smith
Mychal Kendricks
Lance Kendricks
Dannell Ellerbe
Anquan Boldin
Curtis Lofton
Zach Miller
Mason Foster
Vick Ballard
Daryl Smith
Ray McDonald
Erin Henderson
Troy Polamalu
Menelik Watson
DeAndre Hopkins
Jeremy Kerley
Andre Roberts
Lance Moore
Bernard Pollard
Chris Clemons
Da'Norris Searcy
Stevie Brown
Kyle Long
Larry Warford
Antoine Winfield
Glover Quin
Dwight Freeney
T.J. Lang
Rob Sims
John Greco
Will Montgomery
Jared Cook
Alterraun Verner
Michael Huff
Malcolm Floyd
Tramon Williams
Stephen Hill
Davone Bess
Chad Greenway
Nick Roach
Donald Butler
Emmanuel Sanders
Jonathan Martin
Arthur Brown
Zane Beadles
Marcus Gilbert
Jo-Lonn Dunbar
John Abraham
Greg Toler
David Wilson
Chris Chester
Zach Ertz
DeAndre Levy
Marshall Newhouse
Matt Forte
Sam Baker
Bryant McKinnie
Paul Soliai
Coby Fleener
Jesse Williams
Bobby Massie
Mike Adams
Aaron Williams
David Hawthorne
 
Looking at that list, there are some obvious keepers and some obvious throwaways, but for the most part it's a fair list - these are useful players, but largely the kind of guys who people free agent lists every offseason. Some of the guys who were really committed to youth in the draft (ESC and SSF, for two) might have a little tougher choice, but I think the line is drawn at the right point. If you go through your team, are there really more than 12 guys you'd be upset to lose?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
Super Nomario said:
If you go through your team, are there really more than 12 guys you'd be upset to lose?
 
Yeah, that's the point of bringing this up.
 
 
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Votes already happened.
 
Can't always get what you want.
 
Shut the fuck up.
 
No KFP. No.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
I don't think this is true, that you never lose a player you want to keep. Teams lose players they'd prefer to keep all the time when they get too expensive. They have to prioritize - exactly what we're doing here with allowing 12 keepers. If you want to keep a guy, you can - make him one of your 12. I think this is a pretty elegant simulation of the reality that you can't always keep your roster exactly as planned.
 
It is true. Even the most well run teams still make plenty of mistakes (playing your cards wrong) and have to pay for it. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about teams that make even better decisions - which is possible both in this and IRL. There has to be a chance to keep the foundation of your team together and there isn't in the current format.
 
Let's look at the Seahawks. They are for sure one of the best run teams, and they went out and bombed the 2013 draft. They had eleven picks and left with one useful player. A year before that they drafted Bruce Irvin 13th overall. If they nailed those picks do they give a shit if they lose Michael Bennett? Highly doubtful because they would have picked Chandler Jones instead of Bruce Irvin. 
 
Not addressing my other two points means the are nails right?
 
Super Nomario said:
The following are the 385th-448th picks when we did this. If we had drafted perfectly, these would be the guys we were losing - these were the 13th-14th rounders (spoilered for length):
Steve Smith
Mychal Kendricks
Lance Kendricks
Dannell Ellerbe
Anquan Boldin
Curtis Lofton
Zach Miller
Mason Foster
Vick Ballard
Daryl Smith
Ray McDonald
Erin Henderson
Troy Polamalu
Menelik Watson
DeAndre Hopkins
Jeremy Kerley
Andre Roberts
Lance Moore
Bernard Pollard
Chris Clemons
Da'Norris Searcy
Stevie Brown
Kyle Long
Larry Warford
Antoine Winfield
Glover Quin
Dwight Freeney
T.J. Lang
Rob Sims
John Greco
Will Montgomery
Jared Cook
Alterraun Verner
Michael Huff
Malcolm Floyd
Tramon Williams
Stephen Hill
Davone Bess
Chad Greenway
Nick Roach
Donald Butler
Emmanuel Sanders
Jonathan Martin
Arthur Brown
Zane Beadles
Marcus Gilbert
Jo-Lonn Dunbar
John Abraham
Greg Toler
David Wilson
Chris Chester
Zach Ertz
DeAndre Levy
Marshall Newhouse
Matt Forte
Sam Baker
Bryant McKinnie
Paul Soliai
Coby Fleener
Jesse Williams
Bobby Massie
Mike Adams
Aaron Williams
David Hawthorne
 
Looking at that list, there are some obvious keepers and some obvious throwaways, but for the most part it's a fair list - these are useful players, but largely the kind of guys who people free agent lists every offseason. Some of the guys who were really committed to youth in the draft (ESC and SSF, for two) might have a little tougher choice, but I think the line is drawn at the right point. If you go through your team, are there really more than 12 guys you'd be upset to lose?
 
Yes and I think this list proves it. There are also a large number of stars drafted after the 14th round. I don't think the format has to be completely scrapped, but it does have to be modified. 
 
Look at the way the results trend. There's a pretty clear direction they are pointing. People don't want to give up their players. It's unrealistic and too complicated.
 
 
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Votes already happened.
 
Can't always get what you want.
 
Shut the fuck up.
 
It's my fault for not doing this sooner, but KFP, you're fucking out ... of the boys club. Pack your bags and turn in your key card.
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,769
Wilmington, MA
Where was all this angst back in May & June - when these proposals were first discussed?  (Some) People disagreed with the ideas back then, yes - but not nearly as many as were in favor of them.  And back then there was plenty of time to offer alternative suggestions and lobby support for your case. 
 
I mean - I'm not super happy about the fact that I can only protect 12 players.  I think my team is pretty balanced - lots of good players, not many great ones.  As a result, I'm definitely going to have to leave some players unprotected who I'd rather not.  But I'm sure the Pats don't want to lose Talib, and if he demands too much money, they'll be forced to see him go (or pay him and be unable to sign/resign somebody else as a consequence). 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,087
Philly
I was under the impression that we would have 2 rounds of optional stealing followed by the draft. Why? Because you typically don't lose an impact guy right after you draft. That doesn't make sense. If we do a draft we should do 2 rounds first of shuffling followed by an actual draft. I can choose NOT to steal and get an extra draft pick if I want to. But to lose a key piece after you've picked in the last round? No, that doesn't make sense. Stealing should be limited to 2 designated rounds we do first. In NFL free agency you know before the draft, typically, if a guy is staying or going.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
sleepyjose03 said:
Where was all this angst back in May & June - when these proposals were first discussed?  (Some) People disagreed with the ideas back then, yes - but not nearly as many as were in favor of them.  And back then there was plenty of time to offer alternative suggestions and lobby support for your case. 
 
I mean - I'm not super happy about the fact that I can only protect 12 players.  I think my team is pretty balanced - lots of good players, not many great ones.  As a result, I'm definitely going to have to leave some players unprotected who I'd rather not.  But I'm sure the Pats don't want to lose Talib, and if he demands too much money, they'll be forced to see him go (or pay him and be unable to sign/resign somebody else as a consequence). 
 
But money isn't an object in this exercise. If we want to make it "realistic" we should have real payrolls and salary caps that way we could bid on unprotected players.
 
As for your other point, I was largely against this setup for the same reasons I'm bringing up now. I figured after a full season people might have a different mindset when it comes to their team, which is why I brought it up again. 
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,974
I wish I could protect more than 12 too, but when you break down your roster, it does make for some tough decisions and you aren't losing your best guys. And after those top 12, you're only losing 2 of your remaining guys, at most. Plus you have the option of snagging an unprotected player from someone else. I don't think it's going to have that big of an effect. If we protected 15 or 20, we'd only be throwing back the dreck and I think it would hurt the draft as a result. 
 
I'm not sure this is the perfect solution, but since we don't have contracts and salary caps and whatnot, I don't mind mixing things up a bit and getting some turnover. I'm in a similar situation where I drafted young, but I also have a number of guys *cough-TrentRichardson-cough* that are pretty obvious guys not to protect. 
 
I do agree with SMU that the stealing rounds should occur before the regular draft so teams can adjust for losing a player or two. 
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,769
Wilmington, MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
But money isn't an object in this exercise. If we want to make it "realistic" we should have real payrolls and salary caps that way we could bid on unprotected players.
 
As for your other point, I was largely against this setup for the same reasons I'm bringing up now. I figured after a full season people might have a different mindset when it comes to their team, which is why I brought it up again.
 
So - your argument is that, since we decided against the payroll & salary cap format, we should abandon all attempts at being "realistic" and do a complete 180? 
 
IIRC - the payroll thing was abandoned mainly because it would be too administratively burdensome (many GMs didn't sign up for much more effort than the draft, and look at how great we've been at keeping to our schedule on the Division votes).  The point was not to eschew realism, but to be pragmatic about how realistic we could reasonably make the exercise. 
 
And I give you credit - you DID raise objections to this format back in May.  (You also dropped the subject w/o much protest).  But forgive me if I don't think much of anyone else complaining now about the format AFTER the season and they've had quite a while to see how their team turned out.  If they couldn't be bothered to participate in the discussions back in May, why should the rest of us who have been involved all along suddenly have to acquiesce to their protests.
 
 
Also - I'm all for SMU's notion of "stealing" picks only in the first two rounds.  I'm pretty sure that was proposed in May, and agree that since the purpose is to simulate "Free Agency" it makes a lot of sense to do it before the "normal" draft.  Plus it alleviates concerns about somebody stealing your backup QB after your picks have occurred etc.
 
Edit:  Added quote to make it clear who I was responding to.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
sleepyjose03 said:
Also - I'm all for SMU's notion of "stealing" picks only in the first two rounds.  I'm pretty sure that was proposed in May, and agree that since the purpose is to simulate "Free Agency" it makes a lot of sense to do it before the "normal" draft.  Plus it alleviates concerns about somebody stealing your backup QB after your picks have occurred etc.
This would probably also make it easier to manage - if all the "stealing" happens at once, it'll be easier to keep track of who has already lost two players and who hasn't, and which players are or are not protected.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Can we drop the pay roll thing? That's insane.
 
sleepyjose03 said:
Where was all this angst back in May & June - when these proposals were first discussed?  (Some) People disagreed with the ideas back then, yes - but not nearly as many as were in favor of them.  And back then there was plenty of time to offer alternative suggestions and lobby support for your case. 
 
I mean - I'm not super happy about the fact that I can only protect 12 players.  I think my team is pretty balanced - lots of good players, not many great ones.  As a result, I'm definitely going to have to leave some players unprotected who I'd rather not.  But I'm sure the Pats don't want to lose Talib, and if he demands too much money, they'll be forced to see him go (or pay him and be unable to sign/resign somebody else as a consequence). 
 
Well I tried but there were some agendas at work.
 
SMU_Sox said:
I was under the impression that we would have 2 rounds of optional stealing followed by the draft. Why? Because you typically don't lose an impact guy right after you draft. That doesn't make sense. If we do a draft we should do 2 rounds first of shuffling followed by an actual draft. I can choose NOT to steal and get an extra draft pick if I want to. But to lose a key piece after you've picked in the last round? No, that doesn't make sense. Stealing should be limited to 2 designated rounds we do first. In NFL free agency you know before the draft, typically, if a guy is staying or going.
 
Sounds complicated. What is wrong with simply adjusting 12-2 to 14-1
 
ElcaballitoMVP said:
I wish I could protect more than 12 too, but when you break down your roster, it does make for some tough decisions and you aren't losing your best guys. And after those top 12, you're only losing 2 of your remaining guys, at most. Plus you have the option of snagging an unprotected player from someone else. I don't think it's going to have that big of an effect. If we protected 15 or 20, we'd only be throwing back the dreck and I think it would hurt the draft as a result.  
 
Find me a team that consistently makes good decisions and still loses two studs every offseason.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
sleepyjose03 said:
 
So - your argument is that, since we decided against the payroll & salary cap format, we should abandon all attempts at being "realistic" and do a complete 180? 
 
IIRC - the payroll thing was abandoned mainly because it would be too administratively burdensome (many GMs didn't sign up for much more effort than the draft, and look at how great we've been at keeping to our schedule on the Division votes).  The point was not to eschew realism, but to be pragmatic about how realistic we could reasonably make the exercise. 
 
My argument is that it's too early in this process to implement something like this. I brought up the salary because it's the only reason players leave in real life. A real NFL team has a much larger core group of players and a much larger roster. If we drop 4 or 5 players we're all down to under 30. I don't see the need for turnover at this time since our overall rosters are over 20 players short of a real roster.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I'm not against stealing of players, I would rather not but it was decided on so I'm cool with it. I'm just still not sure how we do it fairly. If there are two rounds basically everyone has to steal players because depending on where you 'draft' you risk skipping over other teams guys and then having your own guys stolen. I'm willing to bet everyone's 13-14th best players are better than the the back end of this year's draft or what's left out there. 
 
 
And do we still do this in the same draft order as the real draft (decided upon by our division polls)? We made up this rule but never really hashed out the details. That's my only complaint. 
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,974
phragle said:
Find me a team that consistently makes good decisions and still loses two studs every offseason.
 
It doesn't happen very often. And I don't see it happening here, either.  How many teams have more than 12 "studs"? I've got guys in that 12-15 range I won't like losing, but it's not like I'm losing a franchise player.
 
The Pats lost Welker and Hernandez last year. The Niners lost Dashon Goldson and Delanie Walker. Both teams turned out to be pretty good, no? Teams lose guys, often times guys they don't want to lose, and they move on. Time for us to do the same. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
ElcaballitoMVP said:
 
It doesn't happen very often. And I don't see it happening here, either.  How many teams have more than 12 "studs"? I've got guys in that 12-15 range I won't like losing, but it's not like I'm losing a franchise player.
 
The Pats lost Welker and Hernandez last year. The Niners lost Dashon Goldson and Delanie Walker. Both teams turned out to be pretty good, no? Teams lose guys, often times guys they don't want to lose, and they move on. Time for us to do the same. 
 
You lost me at Delanie Walker
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,087
Philly
Yeah, let's just keep the stealing all at once. I also think we should have the right to cut people as well after the stealing round and before the draft.
 
Let's say I don't want to keep Richard Marshall and no one takes him from my squad. Two weeks before the draft we could come up with a list of players we want to cut. For those who cut players they get additional picks at the end of the draft.  Sound like something that could get support?
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
Definitely think we should do all the "stealing" at once, and up front.  One, it will be easier to track, and two, I can envision a scenario where an owner makes their final draft selection, and a player from their squad is drafted after their final selection and it leaves the first owner unable to replace a backup, or even a starter.  
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
My argument is that it's too early in this process to implement something like this. I brought up the salary because it's the only reason players leave in real life. A real NFL team has a much larger core group of players and a much larger roster. If we drop 4 or 5 players we're all down to under 30. I don't see the need for turnover at this time since our overall rosters are over 20 players short of a real roster.
 
It is too early but would you be opposed to 14-1 instead of 12-2? That way you're not losing two foundation players every year, but there's still a little turnover.
 
If 14-1 was an poll option from the beginning you can bet it would have more votes than 8-4.
 
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I'm not against stealing of players, I would rather not but it was decided on so I'm cool with it. I'm just still not sure how we do it fairly. If there are two rounds basically everyone has to steal players because depending on where you 'draft' you risk skipping over other teams guys and then having your own guys stolen. I'm willing to bet everyone's 13-14th best players are better than the the back end of this year's draft or what's left out there. 
 
Yeah that's the part that makes no sense.
 
ElcaballitoMVP said:
 
It doesn't happen very often. And I don't see it happening here, either.  How many teams have more than 12 "studs"? I've got guys in that 12-15 range I won't like losing, but it's not like I'm losing a franchise player.
 
The Pats lost Welker and Hernandez last year. The Niners lost Dashon Goldson and Delanie Walker. Both teams turned out to be pretty good, no? Teams lose guys, often times guys they don't want to lose, and they move on. Time for us to do the same. 
 
Those are laughably bad examples. Welker was already replaced before he was gone and Hernandez was signed long term until he killed people. It's not like they couldn't afford him and another team signed him. Goldson has been pretty bad since he left and Walker was a second string TE left. I don't think Baalke gave a shit when they left. 
 
The point is that losing 2 of your best 14 players every offseason is wildly unrealistic. That doesn't happen unless a team is mismanaged, and for good reason. It's impossible to build a great team if you're losing 15% of your foundation every offseason. What's the point of this if it's impossible to build a great team?
 
SMU_Sox said:
Yeah, let's just keep the stealing all at once. 
 
Hold on a second. "Keep?" When was it ever in place?
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
If we switch "Non-Protected Rostered Players Each Team Can Lose in the Draft" from two to one it fixes just about every problem.
  • It doesn't devastate your team
  • It's more realistic
  • Simplicity
  • There's no need for a ton of lists or a separate round
  • It's more fair to the teams at the end of the draft order
  • More strategy and freedom
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
Those are laughably bad examples. Welker was already replaced before he was gone
That's the structure that's in place here with the stealing though. You might lose Zach Miller or something, but have a chance to pick up Jared Cook in his place. This kind of stuff happens every offseason.
 
phragle said:
The point is that losing 2 of your best 14 players every offseason is wildly unrealistic. That doesn't happen unless a team is mismanaged, and for good reason. It's impossible to build a great team if you're losing 15% of your foundation every offseason. What's the point of this if it's impossible to build a great team?
2 of 14 doesn't seem unrealistic to me, especially since they're the two worst of the 14. If you forced rank every NFL team's roster, I bet most teams lose a couple guys in that range every offseason.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,974
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
You lost me at Delanie Walker
 
You mean the 20th ranked TE according to PFF? The guy is a road blocking TE who caught the 10th most passes at the position last year. Just because he isn't flashy doesn't mean he isn't a good player. 
 
 
 
phragle said:
 
Those are laughably bad examples. Welker was already replaced before he was gone and Hernandez was signed long term until he killed people. It's not like they couldn't afford him and another team signed him. Goldson has been pretty bad since he left and Walker was a second string TE left. I don't think Baalke gave a shit when they left. 
 
 
 
My point was that both teams (who are well run, are they not?) were able to move on after losing quality players, regardless of how they were lost or who they filled them with. In the Pats/Welker case, they grabbed a similar player to the one they lost, something we're going to be able to do in our draft. For Hernandez, they lost a guy there weren't even planning on losing and still went to the AFC title game. We get to actually draft and fill needs after we lose these guys. For the Niners, Goldson was an All-Pro and they didn't skip a beat after he left. And like I said above, Walker is a solid TE. A stud? No, but he's a solid player and exactly the type of guy a team will be deciding to keep or make available in the draft in that 10-15 range. 
 
People need to stop acting like this is going to ruin your team. No one is going to lose a premier player like in real life. There is no Peyton going from Indy to Denver. There is no Revis going from the Jets to Tampa. Will Eck's team be ruined if he loses Bjoern Werner? Will yours be if you lose Zach Miller or Sam Baker? Am I not going to dominate the AFC East next year without Dennard? 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
ElcaballitoMVP said:
 
People need to stop acting like this is going to ruin your team. No one is going to lose a premier player like in real life. There is no Peyton going from Indy to Denver. There is no Revis going from the Jets to Tampa. Will Eck's team be ruined if he loses Bjoern Werner? Will yours be if you lose Zach Miller or Sam Baker? Am I not going to dominate the AFC East next year without Dennard? 
 
I don't even know what Werners ceiling is. He was just drafted last year.
 
Teams can move on in the real world because they have depth. Something we're sorely lacking here. Because people aren't going to be picking from our worst players, they'll be picking from the best unprotected players, those will likely be one of our starting 22 with likely no back up. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
That's the structure that's in place here with the stealing though. You might lose Zach Miller or something, but have a chance to pick up Jared Cook in his place. This kind of stuff happens every offseason.
 
It's in place because 1 wasn't an option.
 
Super Nomario said:
2 of 14 doesn't seem unrealistic to me, especially since they're the two worst of the 14. If you forced rank every NFL team's roster, I bet most teams lose a couple guys in that range every offseason.
Bet accepted.

You're out of your mind. Look at some of the players picked in rounds 13 and later. There are loads of franchise players, high draft picks, pro bowlers etc. I just counted 48 players significant franchise players. I can post them but I don't want to out anyone's sleepers. Point is there's no way every team - or even just the good teams - lose two players like this every year. If they did there would be no dynasties, just parity.
 
 
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Lets just reevaluate this summer after the draft process runs its course this offseason under the rules that we already voted on.  I'm happy to consider changes then.
 
There's no reason to compound the problem. We have plenty of time, and can open the poll while we vote on division winners. No need to lock everyone into something that got questionably voted on a year ago.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
ElcaballitoMVP said:
My point was that both teams (who are well run, are they not?) were able to move on after losing quality players, regardless of how they were lost or who they filled them with. In the Pats/Welker case, they grabbed a similar player to the one they lost, something we're going to be able to do in our draft. For Hernandez, they lost a guy there weren't even planning on losing and still went to the AFC title game. We get to actually draft and fill needs after we lose these guys. For the Niners, Goldson was an All-Pro and they didn't skip a beat after he left. And like I said above, Walker is a solid TE. A stud? No, but he's a solid player and exactly the type of guy a team will be deciding to keep or make available in the draft in that 10-15 range. 
 
Walker wasn't a top 14 player on SF, he was a back-up. Welker means nothing because they viewed Amendola as an upgrade. If Welker was signed away before they signed Amendola then you'd have a point. Hernandez was a huge blow. He would have really changed the theme of the season. That one hurt badly. Goldson was a product of the system, that's why he's been awful in TB.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
For context, right now there are about 640 actual NFL players not in our league. If we each drop 5 guys that will bring the total to around 800. Add to that the kids coming out of the draft and we're around 1224. Add UDFAs and compensatory picks, minus players who retired or aren't going to play and we're still well over 1300 players available. Do we really need the extra 64 this year?
 
I think the turnover/stealing system would add to the exercise but only after we get to around 44 players. That's a starter at every position and a back up.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
It's in place because 1 wasn't an option.
Well, it would still happen if 1 was an option, it just would only happen once instead of twice.
 
phragle said:
Bet accepted.

You're out of your mind. Look at some of the players picked in rounds 13 and later. There are loads of franchise players, high draft picks, pro bowlers etc. I just counted 48 players significant franchise players. I can post them but I don't want to out anyone's sleepers. Point is there's no way every team - or even just the good teams - lose two players like this every year. If they did there would be no dynasties, just parity.
Sure, there are players after round 13 that are definite keepers, but there are plenty of players drafted in the first 10 rounds that are throwaways. And of course, "significant franchise players" do change teams - see the Revis discussion in other threads.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
phragle said:
Walker wasn't a top 14 player on SF, he was a back-up. Welker means nothing because they viewed Amendola as an upgrade. If Welker was signed away before they signed Amendola then you'd have a point. Hernandez was a huge blow. He would have really changed the theme of the season. That one hurt badly. Goldson was a product of the system, that's why he's been awful in TB.
 
I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but losing Hernandez will also happen to someone in the RFP... annnd they'll probably still have 2 players stolen. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
Well, it would still happen if 1 was an option, it just would only happen once instead of twice.
 
  • It doesn't devastate your team
  • It's more realistic
  • Simplicity
  • There's no need for a ton of lists or a separate round
  • It's more fair to the teams at the end of the draft order
  • More strategy and freedom
I really like the last couple points. Losing only one player allows you to skip the "stealing round" and puts the FAs into the draft pool. That allows teams to choose between going with young rookies or proven vets. People can debate the top two, but I don't think the last four are debatable. 
 
Super Nomario said:
Sure, there are players after round 13 that are definite keepers, but there are plenty of players drafted in the first 10 rounds that are throwaways. And of course, "significant franchise players" do change teams - see the Revis discussion in other threads.
 
Yeah but not 48. Not even close.
 
Trades are a totally different aminal. Teams have consent. It's not robbery.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
phragle said:
 
  • It doesn't devastate your team
 
The 13th and 14th best players on your team leaving would be "devastating"? Really?
 
I don't ultimately care how this works out - given the herding of cats that needed to be done, I thank someone (MMS? I've lost track) for just taking action - but I do support the "stealing" happening first, followed by the draft. (Good idea, SMU)
 
I would also propose that after losing your first player, you can protect 3-5 more. This is, IIRC, how baseball has handled expansion drafts, with an initial list of available players and then additional slots for protecting guys after losing the first of two players. 
 
For example, let's say someone takes Mike Adams from my team in the first "stealing" round. I could then protect 3-5 more players from my available list, limiting the possibility that someone takes JR Sweezy and really screws up my OL. 
 
OR, we could have a "lose one from each side of the ball" so that after someone steals Mike Adams, only the defensive players on my "available" list are eligible to be selected in the second "stealing" round. 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,087
Philly
I like that idea, 121. One player from each side of the ball. Although that could end up benefiting one sided teams. 
 
Doing a 3-5 seems to violate the protect 12 rule. MMS said no new rules. Not that I don't like it, 121, just that it seems to run afoul of the agreement.
 
But doing steals first isn't a new rule it's just how to execute what we're doing. And it seems like everyone can get behind it.
 
The one player per side of the ball isn't a new rule but a way to execute it. I like it. I want to hear more from others about it - let's keep this a respectful discussion :)
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,974
phragle said:
 
Walker wasn't a top 14 player on SF, he was a back-up. Welker means nothing because they viewed Amendola as an upgrade. If Welker was signed away before they signed Amendola then you'd have a point. Hernandez was a huge blow. He would have really changed the theme of the season. That one hurt badly. Goldson was a product of the system, that's why he's been awful in TB.
 
You're missing my point completely. You asked what well run teams lost two studs in one offseason. I'm giving you examples of well run teams that lost players that were significant contributors and still went on to conference title games, all within a much more difficult salary cap environment. It doesn't matter if the Pats viewed Amendola as an upgrade (which I disagree with, btw) or if Goldson was a product of the Niners system. They were able to handle the loss of these players, but we can't handle the loss of our 13th/14th best? You aren't losing RG3, you aren't even losing a Jamie Collins. And if you do lose a guy like Rahim Moore, for example, you can go ahead and steal someone like Reggie Nelson from me. 

Ultimately, I don't care what we do. I drafted one of the youngest teams in the league and I'd love to watch those young guys grow up together, but I'm also not going to get my panties in a bunch if I lose a guy like Alfonzo Dennard or Karlos Dansby. The impact of losing 2 (at most) of these kinds of players is not going to devastate my team. Not even close. 
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I think this stealing round has to be a snake draft too. Whoever is last is going to get screwed because with these possible new 'execution' changes, the last pick will only have one team to choose from and only one side of the football. Depending on who that team protects, they could be stuck with only about 4-5 shitty players to choose from.
 
Whoever chooses first should be stuck with this shitty solution. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
phragle said:
No one is taking Mike Adams.
 
It is called an example, dingleberry. 
 
You had lots of trouble figuring out what X was and why they wanted you to solve it in school, huh?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I think this stealing round has to be a snake draft too. Whoever is last is going to get screwed because with these possible new 'execution' changes, the last pick will only have one team to choose from and only one side of the football. Depending on who that team protects, they could be stuck with only about 4-5 shitty players to choose from.
 
Whoever chooses first should be stuck with this shitty solution. 
 
Just another point as to why this idea sucks no matter what spin is put on it.