Rule Discussion: NERFL Rosters January 5, 2009
Posted by nerf20 in Rules Discusssion.trackback
The following rule has been proposed by the Fugawi Frogz:
We are proposing an adjustment of the starting roster. Instead of nine starters, we would actually start eight starters each week.
TQB
RB/WR
RB/WR
WR
WR/TE
WR/TE
DEF
K
No roster formations. No illegal rosters. If you can fit a player into a slot, then you can run that formation.
This proposal allows for formations that mimick the NFL and follows the NFL format of a QB and five eligible recievers/runners.
It does not reduce roster size, which gives teams the ability to have a fifth player on the bench to account for injuries and BYE weeks.
dougie
firstly i am impressed that you apologized to carlos. good job
secondly i think this is a very interesting proposal. i think it will increase the cost to high level players on draft day since the 13th player will probably cost only 1 point but that aside it might actually be worth considering. however i think it needs to be the FIRST rule change decided since all [or most] of the other rule changes would be affected by a smaller weekly starting roster
but very interesting/ i might even like it after some thought
pops
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have always apologized when I have made a mistake.
Secondly, I would not be opposed to taking this proposal out of turn as a stand alone vote since it is applicable to other rule changes being discussed.
If others are inclined to take this vote as a sole vote, prior to any other vote, please make note of it here and we can set a date for the 19th, with votes tallied by the 23rd. Which would be just prior to the preliminary voting period on the 26th.
Don’t like it… Keep the starting line-ups the way they are, no need to change that..
Pops,
I thought about your idea that people will spend more on top flight players and you’re right, they might. But this year, six teams spent over 40 points for at least one or two NFL Players; Only one made it to the NERFL Finals (DC Nukes). The RIPs finished third and his 40 point player was out of the lineup by week 13.
E & J, FC Players, and Team TBD made an early exit from the playoffs while the Dragon Slayers hit a string of bad luck.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pCuiR9QxiKqNteD9FjuC5GA&hl=en
There is the link from our draft results.
Only 8 players went above 40 points this year (two above 50), which I think will be more of a trend than a fluke. As much as I am not a fan of PPR, I do admit that it drove down prices at auction this year; a good benefit.
NERFL owners have become well aware that a roster must have balance. The Schottenheimers won the title with only one player drafted above 30 points, and that player was later dropped (McGahee). So will NERFL owners spend big on players? Probably. But the smart ones will start looking at spreading the wealth and investing in a lot of talent, like the teams that have been consistently in the top 5 for the past 3 or 4 years.
Secondly, the format (in my opinion) will do two things; (1) address the short bench/extra player issue that comes up periodically without increasing roster size. In effect preserving another 12 free agents. (2) In this format, It creates flexibility of schemes which I think will make trading easier. There were a couple of offers (one from you) that in this format, I would have jumped at this past season but in our current formations were a little less envious and so I passed. Does it guarantee more trading? No because in the end, teams value their players differently. But with a more flexible format, I know there were a few deals that I passed on this past year that i would have pulled the trigger on.
Just my two cents.
i think its always been the owners who spend less on more players that have the flexibility if their one high priced talent is injured or just not playing well. but i also believe it is a matter of luck when an owner spreads the wealth and is rewarded. remember that stats from a past year is only a guide and if you look at the teams that did spread it around they had players that previously were “mediocre” and also players that benefitted from our ppr rule change.
having said that i do think the proposal for 8 rather than 9 deserves consideration. however not for the reason that it creates bye week flexibility. that comes at draft time and also during the season with free agent pickups and player drops.
what i like about it is it does mirror the nfl and therefore you have to construct your team accordingly. does it increase your depth. yes but i think it will make players in the mid range more valuable especially if you find that one or two players who consistently perform without having to spend 40 plus to get them.
however if we do pass this rule change i would hope that the proposal for keepers [two per year] goes away as that rule combined with this one will eliminate or severely lessen the competitiveness of the league by eliminating too many players from the draft board.
Pops,
I could write a thesis on why I like this format. I only touched on a few above because (a) Kirsch introduced a proposal to expand rosters. This proposal addresses that issue. (b) I only addressed price because you indicated it above.
Bye week flexibility is a slight consideration but when I mention flexibility, I mention in flexibility of philosophy. Except for 1 WR each week… you do not have to have any other position. You could go 3 WR and 2 TEs. You could go 2RBs, 1WR, 2 TEs, you could go 2RBs, 2WRs, 1 TE, you could go 1 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE, you could go 1 RB, 3 WRs, 1 TEs, you could go 1 Rb, 2 Wrs, 2 Tes, Etc… I don’t think I have touched on all the formations but I have touched on six formations just off the top of my head. this changes draft day strategies completely… and in my opinion, like PPR, will drive down prices at auction, but I could be wrong.
I love this formation and this set-up, biased because I proposed it; I know. I think it will revolutionize our game and our experience, as well as the competitive spirit. And if the new QB changes are adopted, it won’t change scoring from this year to next at all (it may actually, increase scoring).
Yes, Pops, I will concede that I agree. I am on the fence for two keepers right now; there are reasons for it and there are reasons against it. But If this format were adopted, I would have to agree and fall off the fence in favor of one keeper.
I still plan on voting it down.. their is no way i’ll vote in favor of this new rule.. Sorry Doug.. Keep things the way they are….
How quick we change are mind dougy boy.. We talked and you stood behind me on 2 keepers, but know that their is a new rule for formations your view-point changed.. Typical Politician .. Pick one side and stay on it.. Plus don’t bother talking rule changing suggestions with me anymore, find your other goons to do your dirty work for you…
Carlos,
I didn’t change my mind. I have said that I like 2 keepers better. I also told you that I was going to propose the keeper idea that has presented because I would rather have something rather than nothing.
And yes, if this were to pass, I might reconsider two keepers. But of course, that hinges on the issue passing and well… as history has proven time and time again, anytime Pop’s and I are on the same side of an issue…. let me make a snow ball in a hot place and see if it flies.
Since we are talking formations… Our current rule limits creativity.
91 games a year (182 formations/184 if you count third place game) to determine a champion.
126 Pro-set formations (128 if you count third place game)
20 Double TE sets (predominantly Slayers and Puppies)
26 5 WR sets (mainly the Maroons and the Players)
9 4 WR sets (used mainly by the Players)
70% of the games are played in one set (and this year is an atypical as the PPR sent the Maroons and the Players to use a WR set 25 times or half of the regular season formation variations) because our current rules force us into a particular style via the draft.
the formation above allows creativity and ingenuity… and real genius/innovation but as I am in the minority; I just put the information out there and see where the chips land.
[...] DAVE JOSH ANDREW CARLOS ANITA SUJAL ERIC B) Proposed Rule Change: [...]