 |
 |
RE: 2005 Draft Considerations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flayers
Scout
76 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/15/2004 7:36:02 PM |
 |
 |
RE: 2005 Draft Considerations
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem we face (IMHO) is that weaker teams have little chance to improve significantly from one season to the next. Sure, a weak team can dump most of their roster and get early draft picks the next year, but then they are left to draft from mediocre players or unproven rookies.
I propose we get creative and figure out a system whereby the weaker teams get a chance to pick up players from other stronger teams. Sort of like the expansion draft works. Or perhaps we could have a variation on the franchise player idea where we put a limit on the number of players that can be retained.
I know this is a dynasty league and we are supposed to look to the future, but *if* I had a weak team I imagine I would lose interest in having to wait 2-3 years to get competitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
illuminati
Football Freak
3323 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/15/2004 7:42:48 PM |
|
|
right on
|
|
|
|
| i think you make some excellent and long overdue points, Flayers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
illuminati
Football Freak
3323 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/15/2004 11:06:49 PM |
|
|
we should consider some mechanisms for improvement, but tread carefully
|
|
|
|
if we all agree that both the NFL and fantasy football are full of chaos, a team's fate is not always wholly due to an owner's decisions, and that competitiveness is a key quality we aspire to achieve, then we should take a closer look at what avenues a team has to improve its roster.
currently, we have no direct considerations given to lesser performing teams, and actually the only game element that addresses disparity among teams is a regressive income structure. Aces High should find some additional ways for crafty and hard-working owners to claw their way back into respectability, without compromising the rules and principles that went into our league.
while some elements like a progressive income system, or limiting rosters to a certain size, may seem like a quick and easy way to accomplish some goals, these methods would also pose the possibility of underminining a variety of strategies that owners may be employing.
instead, how about this for an idea:
last season, we had a free agency signing before the NFL draft. going forward, how about making this a (non-serpentine) mini-draft instead of a free agency bidding process? if a team picks up a player, they cut a player from their roster. we could limit it to X number of rounds, if research into our history showed that to be relevant.
there may be be other creative ways to grant the lesser-stocked and performing teams some small, albeit helpful and meaningful, ways to help their teams so that we can achieve a reasonable cycle of success in the league. we want to maintain the "dynasty" aspect of it, without being so success-based that we turn into MLB. now THAT would suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/16/2004 1:58:24 PM |
|
|
Offseason supplementary draft would work
|
|
|
|
| I think replacing offseason free agency with an offseason supplementary draft would work really well. It would allow the worst teams a chance to make small but helpful improvements (and perhaps the occasional big addition), while still allowing owners to keep as many players from their team as they wish. The draft order for the supplemental draft could be the same as the actual draft. So we'd decide 2005 draft order on Feb.1 and have the supplemental draft around April 15 (i.e. before the NFL draft but after some players have retired/been traded/gotten suspended for pot possession). If you pick a new player, you must drop a player from your existing team, and of course no team is required to participate. Keith and Dan, does this jive with your ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/16/2004 5:56:20 PM |
|
|
Will it really help?
|
|
|
|
| Yes there might be a few players to pick up by free agency, but very few to make a impact. The draft this year was fun, but with owners not having need or interest, it lacked a little. What if we kept a max of 15 players on a roster, this would protect a teams long term starters and key back-ups, while adding a lot of talent into the draft pool. This would allow teams to select veteran players along with rookies, which might help teams build teams faster, and bring the whole league in for the draft. Since this is a keeper league the draft can be held any time after the NFL Draft, instead trying to get in before the season beginning when we all have other leagues going on. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flayers
Scout
76 posts
 |
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 11:01:48 AM |
|
|
I like Don's suggestion
|
|
|
|
I think we should consider making teams drop some players to deepen the talent pool before the draft. 2 QB, 3 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 1 K, 1 C, 3 D = 17 keepers (not necessarily in the proportions given) seems reasonable to me and would make the draft day more meaningful and entertaining. Might also foster some more trades during the off-season to prepare for the cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 6:22:22 PM |
|
|
Rule changes are for ladies and tea parties
|
|
|
|
| The Vultures are diabolically opposed to any of the proposed rule changes. Except for maybe Keith's suggestion of implementing a non regressive quid aquisition policy by which the the losing teams might actually somehow benefit financially. Even though this goes against the initial reason why we saw to give more to the winning teams; because they drew more fans, ticket sales, etc. By giving one quid to the loser insted of the winner it might actually have a similar long term effect as the salary cap in the NFL and thus put us closer to our goal of being more like the NFL which our current Quid policy does not do. As far as changing the fundemental rules go, I am in agreement with the Rogues. We set out to start a league with some of the best and most active owners we could find and to create a league that was more like the NFL than our other fantasy leagues. I love this league because of the ways in which we are doing that and because I have a team to play with in the offseason. I really don't think our current system makes it too difficult to rebuild, you just can't count on doing it in 1 year like you could in normal leagues and even then you probably could make a push if you really wanted to. I'll also take The Dutchmen as an example, I went into last years draft and almost kept only 3 players (Mannining, Portis and Alexander) simply because I was so envious of Jamie's potential draft. I didn't do it because I wanted to see if my initial year's strategies would pay off for me but I actually can't wait until the day when I do decide to dump all my players and rebuild. Jamie kept a small core and was able to aquire so much additional young, "unproven" talent that he could easily have been more competative this year simply by trading. I made a huge offer for Jackson and McGahee and others which included Carr and Portis and would have given him more juice this year but he rightfully stuck to his plan for the future and now if the stars align (and Faullk retires) his team will be very scary next year and in years to come. I really don't want to mess with what we have until we've at least given it more time. This league demands creative thinking and willingness to pull some triggers. I think it does manage to come closer to the big league than most other fantasy leagues do and I also think it is much easier to rebuild in than some of you seem to think. I can't wait until the time comes when I decide to unload my team, even if it does take a year or more to recover from, which I don't think it will. Let's see what happens, by the end of next year quid will have more value and maybe by giving one more to the losing team instead of the winning team we can even things out a bit. But no off season supplemental draft or roster restrictions please. Off season free agency and off season trading are where it's at. We were actually thinking about proposing increasing the off season roster size so that you could aquire more players and see what they did in the preseason before you had to cut them, much like in the NFL does and with which to give you more room to work and spend quid and make trades before the season started. I'd rather open up the avenues for imaginative thinking than restrict them and I have no problem with having created a league where inactive or slow thinking owners are continually downtrodden. That was part of the point, wasn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 7:28:13 PM |
|
|
More to the point...
|
|
|
|
| The four teams with the best records in the league right now are the four teams who kept the most players (not that this is indicative of quality as much as luck). And though on the surface this might give credence to the "rules change" movement's arguements it also gives credence to certain strategies. More, the one team that I envy the most and have tried the hardest (mostly in vain) to trade with is the team that gave up the most players. Potential is a beautiful and powerful thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 8:21:01 PM |
|
|
The Test of Time
|
|
|
|
Let's think long term - It is only year two. Why make major changes so early?
Nature will take it's course and trends will become obvious. I'm not sure we can make any accurate judgements after 2 drafts and 1 1/2 seasons. The Slashers (not guilty) would like us to hold our collective pee and stay the course. My two cents are now in the fountain. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
