Rookie Draft

[braven112]

Wouldn't be any more tracking then today. Only rookies allowed to be actually placed on the PR or go back and forth.

Well tracking what 2nd year players have never been activated and therefore eligible to be place back on the PR is significantly more tracking. Plus rookies have a big R next to their name so its easy but 2nd year players don't.

[bonscott]

Wouldn't be any more tracking then today. Only rookies allowed to be actually placed on the PR or go back and forth.

Well tracking what 2nd year players have never been activated and therefore eligible to be place back on the PR is significantly more tracking. Plus rookies have a big R next to their name so its easy but 2nd year players don't.

I see we have a disconnect.

My proposal was that *only* rookies can ever be placed on the PR. 2nd year players cannot be placed on the PR ever. Thus no change from today. A 2nd year player can only be on the PR if they carry over from the previous season.

In other words if Billy Bob rookie is on my PR and he's there when we change to the next season then he can stay on the PR as a 2nd year player. If I activate Billy then he can't be put back on PR since he's not a rookie anymore.
If Billy Bob (or any other rookie) was on my active roster when the new season starts then I can't put him on the PR because only rookies can be placed on the PR.

In other words 2nd year players on PR are truly the prospects. Guys like Roy Hall who certainly won't do anything this year and may never pan out. Coming into 2008 I would have left Hall on the PR and thus he'd be on the PR this year as a 2nd year player. If he wasn't on the PR when 2008 started I wouldn't be able to put Hall on the PR since he's no longer a rookie.

Does that make sense?
No extra manual tracking and allows teams to truly carry a couple long term prospects on their team.

[braven112]

I guess you are saying we would need to create a list of PR players that are being carried over each year and once they are activated they can't go back to the PR....(can't find the right smilie but while I don't think its a bad idea, I'm personally not really in love with the idea either.)

Another idea to throw out there is to add more rounds to the draft and add more general roster spots. If teams were required to to draft 4 rounds deep and we had a 4 man PR and added a few extra roster spots, teams could house more project type players.

That would require no extra work and seemingly accomplish everything people are looking for. There is nothing that requires teams to have project players but I would think it would make enough sense to keep project players that teams would be inclined to do it on their own. Having 3 rookies at or near the minimum salary each year would be nice in case one of them hits.

[bonscott]

I guess you are saying we would need to create a list of PR players that are being carried over each year and once they are activated they can't go back to the PR....(can't find the right smilie but while I don't think its a bad idea, I'm personally not really in love with the idea either.)

I'm still clear as mud I see.

If nobody understands what I'm saying then I'll just drop it because while it's crystal clear in my mind if nobody else understands it then it must be too complicated.

Another idea to throw out there is to add more rounds to the draft and add more general roster spots. If teams were required to to draft 4 rounds deep and we had a 4 man PR and added a few extra roster spots, teams could house more project type players.

That would require no extra work and seemingly accomplish everything people are looking for. There is nothing that requires teams to have project players but I would think it would make enough sense to keep project players that teams would be inclined to do it on their own. Having 3 rookies at or near the minimum salary each year would be nice in case one of them hits.

Could always do that and be done with it. Or as someone else suggested in the proposal of lifting the off-season cap, why not just lift the roster requirements completely other then a minimum of 18 and let the salary cap determine how many players a team can and cannot have.

So simply 18 minimum players, no max other then what your cap allows, 4 max PR rookies only.

The downside is this will pretty much eliminate any free agents being available in-season. But then it will be more like a typical dynasty league.

Salary cap to keep things in line, contract max of 5 on a player and if we have the "contract extension tag" that would allow a team to hold on to a prized player longer. You even mentioned elimination of the contract cap which might be a good scenario in this case. Downside is more players locked up longer term, but teams will get in salary cap hell pretty fast offering too many longer term contracts. Only have to look at what happened to my team this year to see that.

[yugimoto]

So I have been trying to catch up on the multiple threads about the rookie draft, practice squad changes, salaries for rookies, etc. Thought this post by bonscott would be the easiest to post my thoughts against. Personally I like our current setup the way it is. I like for rosters to turnover and I like that there are FAs out there (albeit few) for folks to go after during the season (especially when there are injuries).

I have been in a couple of so called "dynasty leagues" before and have found them boring. Granted that could have been due to how the league was run, but without roster turnover and with large rosters and practice squads to stash players on, the league becomes boring.

Some folks have made comment about whether or not this is a dynasty league or not. First of all it is the name of the league only . Second this league is a Salary Cap league (which I prefer over true dynasty leagues) in which you can have a Dynasty if you manage your salary and roster caps effectively. I have year 1 under my belt and I now I have to see if I can get year 2.

Oh BTW if you happen to see a fellow walking around your respective training facilities with a video camera ... ignore him. He is just filming a documentary for ummm ... NFL Films, yeah that's the ticket - NFL Films ... nothing to be concerned about ... nothing at all ... trust me

Having said all that here is my thoughts on bonscott's summary:

Add 3rd round to Rookie draft

I would not be against this, although I wonder if this is being proposed just becaused this NFL draft was particularly deep in potential talent. In the past, I have been in rookie draft where a third round just has folks asking the opposite question.

Expand the Practice Squad

If we decide to expand the practice squad then I would recommend that we expand the size to be equivalent to the number of rookie draft rounds. For example if we decide to keep the Rookie Draft to two rounds then we keep the PS to two spots. If the Rookie Draft expands to three rounds then we make the PS go to three spots and so on. This answer is also based on my response the next topic.

Practice Squad Eligible

I like the current rule - rookies only. There was a mention about second year players, but I would be against that. Unless we looked at adding another twist and that is being able to sign players off of another owners PS. I believe in the NFL today teams are able to sign players off of other teams practice squad for a price.

Contracts for Rookies

IMO contracts for rookies should be no different than for FAs so if we have a 5 year max for FA we have a 5 year max for Rookies.

Contract Cap

If we expand roster size that I would suspect we would need to increase the contract cap. Note: I would not be in favor of expnding the roster size - again I like to see roster turnover and FAs available during the off season and within season. Additionally with the new rule going into effect next season where the roster limit will be lifted in the off-season, I think it is even more important to have tighter control of the roster limits going into the season.

Salary Cap

I would recommend leaving as is.

Rookie Salary Scale

Did some reading in the other thread about this and I am in favor of the adjustments beign discussed.

Lastly, there was an idea out there about potentially removing the roster limit all together and allowing the salary cap to control roster size. I would not be in favor of that idea.

That's my

[Achon44]

Okay, I've been very busy, but want to offer my before this topic gets to old. I do agree with many of the thoughts Yugimoto expressed above.

Add 3rd round to Rookie draft

I'd be for this, but would like to see teams have the option of skipping their original 3rd round pick without penalty. I agree with Yugimoto that not all of the future drafts will be as deep as this year. We also have to keep in mind that our draft is already at 35 spots, which is one spot shy of a 12 team 3 round rookie draft and many years you don't find a whole lot of talent after those picks.

Expand the Practice Squad

I love the idea of "expand the size to be equivalent to the number of rookie draft rounds", so if we go to 3 rounds we go to 3 spots and if we stay at 2 rounds we stay at 2 spots.

Practice Squad Eligible

Rookies only please. If we want more room to develop players we could add a couple more spots to the active roster, because lets be honest the salaries on those "developmental players" will all probably be around league minimum, so the 50% relief of the PS really isn't that important there. Also, I don't feel expanding roster size will take away from roster turnover. I'm in a league that these core rules were based on and In 2-3 years you are going to see around the same amount of contracts expire every season. Each team will look very similar to the way schools welcome the new freshman every year, while saying goodbye to the seniors.

Contracts for Rookies

I would like to see them stay at 5 years, but would not be against something like the option of a 6 year contract for any rookie you select with your original draft picks.

Contract Cap

I really have no opinion here.

Salary Cap

I agree with Yugimoto that we leave it as is.

Rookie Salary Scale

I'm very much in favor of the new scale.

[bonscott]

Good thoughts all. My only additional comment is expanding the rosters some would not decrease the turnover in the off-season as the salary cap and contract cap will impose a number of players every year being released. It would reduce the amount of free agents in season though, but realistically how many of those would actually help anyone. Very few.

So we could do it simply and go with:

• 3 round rookie draft, 3rd round is optional.
• 3 PR spots for those 3 rookies.
• Expand regular active rosters max to say 22 which allows for a team to hold a couple long term projects perhaps.
• Salary cap remains the same however we'll be looking at the new salary scale.
• Increase the contract cap a bit, 80-85. This will allow you to give a couple more long term contracts to prospects but will keep the free agent turnover near what it is now.

Or we can just leave it the way it is for another year or two and see where it leads.

[Achon44]

• Increase the contract cap a bit, 80-85. This will allow you to give a couple more long term contracts to prospects but will keep the free agent turnover near what it is now.

Actually, increasing the contract cap will reduce the turnover in the next 2-3 years, because teams will be able to sign more players to 4-5 year contracts.

[joe.commish]

I'll just quickly weigh in and say I don't have a lot of strong opinions on any of these proposals. I'd roll with pretty much whatever the majority wanted to do. I haven't played through a season yet, so perhaps I will become more opinionated once I do. The way the rules are now seem fine to me, but again if folks want to tweak things here and there, I'm game.

[bonscott]

• Increase the contract cap a bit, 80-85. This will allow you to give a couple more long term contracts to prospects but will keep the free agent turnover near what it is now.

Actually, increasing the contract cap will reduce the turnover in the next 2-3 years, because teams will be able to sign more players to 4-5 year contracts.

The way I was thinking it was that if you expand rosters by 2 and PR by 1, that's 3 players, all prospects. If the contract cap went up by 10-15 that would cover those 3 players and not really effect any of the actual good players/starters and thus turnover and the off-season auction wouldn't be effected that much. And if you went with only 10 you'd actually reduce the contracts of many of the other players because you expand 3 players that likely you'd want to put a 5 on but only expand the cap by 10. 15 would equal 5 per. But maybe there is another angle I'm missing.

[braven112]

Well we'll want to put together a proposal here soon. So far there seems to be ample support for puting up for vote the idea of adding an optional 3rd round to the draft and increase the PR to 3. Second part to that would be should we increase the contract yeas cap.

I personally don't think we need its necessary to, if that is the only change we make but we we want to increase rosters sizes as well then we should.

[bowbiejuke]

I'm not sure how "We all" is being assumed when less than half of the owners have chimed in.

LOL

Well, it's their loss if they don't want to participate. Lucky that half have already. In my main 2 local leagues you're lucky to get any participation before middle of August.

Anyway, if there is one thing I've noticed so far in this league, only about half ever have any comments on the proposals that have been brought up. And we've been lucky to even have 12 vote on something. Some just don't care either way I guess.

I care but tend not to comment on anything unless my thoughts have not been already spoken. IMO no need to add a bunch of I agree to this if you do and you will soon vote on it. Plus spring summer is clearly my busiest time of the year at work, so I am somewhat less involved.

Bowbie

[bonscott]

I'm not sure how "We all" is being assumed when less than half of the owners have chimed in.

LOL

Well, it's their loss if they don't want to participate. Lucky that half have already. In my main 2 local leagues you're lucky to get any participation before middle of August.

Anyway, if there is one thing I've noticed so far in this league, only about half ever have any comments on the proposals that have been brought up. And we've been lucky to even have 12 vote on something. Some just don't care either way I guess.

I care but tend not to comment on anything unless my thoughts have not been already spoken. IMO no need to add a bunch of I agree to this if you do and you will soon vote on it. Plus spring summer is clearly my busiest time of the year at work, so I am somewhat less involved.

Bowbie

Actually I think my point (perhaps poorly made) is that we are lucky we have as many active owners as we do in the off season.

[bonscott]

Well we'll want to put together a proposal here soon. So far there seems to be ample support for puting up for vote the idea of adding an optional 3rd round to the draft and increase the PR to 3. Second part to that would be should we increase the contract yeas cap.

I personally don't think we need its necessary to, if that is the only change we make but we we want to increase rosters sizes as well then we should.

So perhaps we need to break this up into parts.

Proposal 1
Increasing rookies drafted and PR space. PR still for rookies only.

• Add 3rd round in the rookie draft, optional, teams are not forced to draft in the 3rd round.
• Increase Practice Squad to 3 to make room.

Proposal 2
Increase roster size to enable a couple more long term prospects to be carried.

• Increase Roster size to 22
• Add 10 contract years to the cap for 80 total

Both ideas are not dependent on the other (in my mind anyway) and thus either one can pass with the other failing and everything would be fine.

Just my thoughts to move this along. I think a vote on the new salary scale can happen after we know if the first proposal passes or not.

[bowbiejuke]

I probably will be in the majority on this but thought I will state something. With the expansion of rosters and cap years, how can you not expand the cap at least a little. If we go 2 more players at league min. thats another 900,000 you need from your cap. Now if you sign them for 5 years each by the time each ones salary increases it would be close to 1.5 maybe even close to 2 million. I know today it seems like nothing but in the future it could be a bigger deal. Just my

Bowbie

[Achon44]

I probably will be in the majority on this but thought I will state something. With the expansion of rosters and cap years, how can you not expand the cap at least a little. If we go 2 more players at league min. thats another 900,000 you need from your cap. Now if you sign them for 5 years each by the time each ones salary increases it would be close to 1.5 maybe even close to 2 million. I know today it seems like nothing but in the future it could be a bigger deal. Just my

Bowbie

I look at not increasing the salary cap as a way of bringing down some of the over priced free agent contracts.

[bonscott]

I probably will be in the majority on this but thought I will state something. With the expansion of rosters and cap years, how can you not expand the cap at least a little. If we go 2 more players at league min. thats another 900,000 you need from your cap. Now if you sign them for 5 years each by the time each ones salary increases it would be close to 1.5 maybe even close to 2 million. I know today it seems like nothing but in the future it could be a bigger deal. Just my

Bowbie

I look at not increasing the salary cap as a way of bringing down some of the over priced free agent contracts.

The salary cap is all relative. More players at the same cap will eventually lower the salaries a bit on the big boys. Doesn't really matter if we have 20 or 40 players with the same cap number. Salaries will adjust to the new roster sizes.

[Dangerzone]

I could see needing a 3rd optional round.

[Mistakes Were Made]

With 16 teams, 22 roster spots seems a little deep. Where do I go to find my free agents? I think 320 rostered players is enough. Lets say 40 QB, 80 RB, 100 WR, 40 TE, 30K, 30D. I think there will be little in season adds if we go much deeper.

[Mistakes Were Made]

Also, I think if this does pass, it should not raise the minimum roster requirement. Allow people to go to 22, don't force them.

[braven112]

Also, I think if this does pass, it should not raise the minimum roster requirement. Allow people to go to 22, don't force them.

No it doesn't increase the minimum, it will just increase the max teams are allowed to carry.

[bonscott]

With 16 teams, 22 roster spots seems a little deep. Where do I go to find my free agents? I think 320 rostered players is enough. Lets say 40 QB, 80 RB, 100 WR, 40 TE, 30K, 30D. I think there will be little in season adds if we go much deeper.

First I'll say that I'm still undecided on this propasal.

To be honest, how many free agents are available in season anyway? Pretty much none from what I saw last year. There were a couple guys that made an impact but overall a bunch of nothing. So nothing will really change there. This league isn't meant to be able to pick up a guy week 4 and plug him as a starter. It's more build your team up thru the draft, off-season free agents and trades. In-season is more filler.

Here is one thing I've been thinking of. Let's assume 20 roster spots max. Each year you draft 2-3 rookies and give them 4-5 year contracts. For most it will take at least 3 years before you know if they are worth it or not. And for each year you need to promote 2-3 rookies to your active roster, replacing 2-3 guys which you must drop to make room. After 3 seasons I've taken up at least 4, perhaps 6 spots on my roster just for prospects. Leaving me only 14 or so for "startable" players. Subtract at least 1 K and 1 D and now I'm down to just 12 players to fill up 9 starting positions each week. That's not a whole lot really. Certainly some of those prospects are startable for some teams, but most really aren't for a few years.

Going to 22 will simply give a little more elbow room in the prospect department. Certainly a team could go the route of not caring about their prospects and fill the roster with all veterans (at a cost of course). But even with 22 you're still promoting 2-3 rookies every season which will force 2-3 drops each season from every roster. There will still (I think) be good turnover for the off-season auction.

Does anyone see this differently? I'd love to hear other sides that I haven't considered.

[Achon44]

That's pretty much the same way I see it.

[braven112]

To be honest, how many free agents are available in season anyway? Pretty much none from what I saw last year. There were a couple guys that made an impact but overall a bunch of nothing. So nothing will really change there. This league isn't meant to be able to pick up a guy week 4 and plug him as a starter. It's more build your team up thru the draft, off-season free agents and trades. In-season is more filler.

[yugimoto]

This league isn't meant to be able to pick up a guy week 4 and plug him as a starter. It's more build your team up thru the draft, off-season free agents and trades. In-season is more filler.

Now that is an interesting perspective that I had not considered. If that is how this league is supposed to be run then I would say we need to increase our roster size even more. I believe the final NFL roster # is something like 52 and a practice squard. So since we primarily focus on the offensive side of the ball why not just cut that in half and make our roster size 25 or 26 plus the practice squad

However, contrary to an earlier post, I would want to see that every roster would have to carry the 25 or 26 players (or in the case of the current rule proposal, of 22 roster spots). When you have a salary cap league I feel that it is important that all teams manage to the same salary cap expectations.