Rule Proposal: Rosters January 14, 2012
Posted by nerf20 in Rules Discusssion.trackback
The DC Nukes have proposed the following rule:
Note this rule is dependent on the result of Josh’s propsoal to reduce the team from 6 player positions to 5 player positions. (A) will stand as the proposal if the Josh’s rule fails. (B) will stand as the propose rule if it suceeds.
Proposed Rule (to replace VI – I)
NERFL Team Formation Starting Line-up Fromation:
(A):
1 TQB, 1 RB, 1 RB/WR, 1 FLEX, 1 WR, 1 WR/TE, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF(B):
1 TQB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 2 FLEX, 1 K, 1 DEFAny combination of players that fill these settings which can be set in ESPN will be considered valid line-ups.
Advertisement
SINCE JOSH’S REVISED PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A FULL FLEX LINEUP [IE: TQB, DEF, K AND FLEX FOR ALL ELSE ] AT ONE LESS TOTAL ROSTER SPOT I SEE NO REASON TO SUPPORT THE NUKES ATTEMPT TO PUT US BACK INTO A NON FLEXIBLE ROSTER SITUATION.
IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE PROPOSAL BY THE PUPPIES [WHICH CALLED FOR A TE AS PART OF THE FIXED PORTION OF THE ROSTER] WAS BLASTED BY OWNERS AS REQUIRING TWO TE’S [ONE FOR THE BYE WEEK] AND YET THE NUKES REQUIRE THE SAME WITH MORE STRINGENT ROSTER INFLEXIBILITY.
SO THE PUPPIES WILL NOT SUPPORT EITHER OF THESE BUT WILL SUPPORT JOSH’S PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TOTAL ROSTER SPOTS FROM 13 TO 12.
THE PUPPIES WOULD FURTHER SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO JOSH’S PROPOSAL KEEPING THE NUMBER OF STARTERS AT 6 FLEX, TQB, K AND DEF IF OFFERED FOR A TOTAL OF 9 WHICH WOULD MAKE IT A PREMIUM TO PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR ROSTER ALL YEAR AND TO DRAFT WELL, TRADE WELL AND FIND THOSE HIDDEN GEMS IN FREE AGENCY.
I guess I will make a cursory objection here. Seeing that the proposal is dependent on Josh’s proposal passing and basically replaces his previous rosters proposal, the writing is pretty clear that a back room deal has been struck to pass this rule.
I will contend this:
1) Josh and Eric,as well as other, have always been in favor of more scoring. Under the NFL format (flex), scoring has never been higher on a week-to-week basis.
2) Prior to the NFL format (flex), owners would gripe about being forced to start specific positions. Injuries killed seasons. Owners had guys on benches that could help but they had to start the reject they got in free agency because they had to start a TE, or RB, or WR. 6 points while a guy they had on the bench, the back up at a different skill position, scored in double digits….. which also lowered scoring….see #1 above.
3) In the NFL Format (flex), you controlled your own destiny.
This proposal like Josh’s previous one is not a step forward, it’s two steps back.
But Like I said in the preamble of this comment, it looks like this proposal is a done deal.
I just noticed that Pops and I must have been writing our responses at the same time…. and if Pops and I agree on something…. we have to be right.
it is rare that the douglas meister and the general agree on anything but in this case we do
go big blue