|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 15, 2016 1:22:25 GMT -5
Ive been thinking about this one for a while now, and Im always thinking of ways we can take this league to the next level. When I took this league over 3 years ago, the league was in a state of disarray, but my goal was not only to stabilize the league, but to revolutionize how these leagues are ultimately played. I dont need to explain to most of you many of the changes that have occurred over the past 3 years, but just as my goal back then was to make this the biggest, best and deepest league we could possibly make it, I want to build on the foundation we already have here at Legacy NFL. So I am proposing expanding the starting line-ups from 20 starters on game week, to 22 starters and in a related move to accommodate the extra 2 starters we go from 53 man rosters up to 58 man rosters.
What I would like to do is expand the role of the defensive line in this league by adding a second starting DT, so we can simulate the popular trend of the NFL which has more and more rotating DL's in the league, and I would like to add a mandatory 3rd starting CB, which would mimic the nickel back in the NFL which is on the field probably 75% of the time now in the NFL.
Now this would create a little bit of an imbalance between offense and defense, as we would have 9 offensive starters and 13 defensive. However, the two positions we are adding are low impact positions, and I dont believe it will be an imbalance too severe. Offenses will still score more points in the end, and we can actually bring the defenses a little more up to par with the offenses.
Some have suggested that maybe we add a DL flex, and I thought about that quite hard. However, the problem there is that some teams are already well established at the DE position, and adding the potential to start a 3rd DE would give those teams an immediate unfair advantage over GM's who have focused building other aspects of their squads. DT's on the other hand, are probably the lowest prized position in this league, and its hard to see any advantage that would take immediate effect. CB's are similar, that is a position where numbers shift from player to player and year to year, and is a position that can be filled very easily either through low end draft picks and the waiver wire.
The bottom line is that this will force GM's to go deeper with their knowledge of the game, it continues to shift the focus away from so much offense, and it brings us a little closer to the game we are trying to simulate.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by BuccaneersGM (Greg) on Dec 15, 2016 9:54:19 GMT -5
I think that expanding the starting line-up would be a mistake. We already have 9 offensive starters and 11 defensive starters. This would just make the imbalance worse. The real NFL has turned into a much more offensive game. Adding additional defensive positions, even though lower impact ones, just doesn't make sense to me. Expanding rosters from 53 to 58 in a 32 Team league does not make any sense given the real NFL's 53 man limit. Most teams have trouble reaching the 53 man roster within the salary cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 15, 2016 15:18:33 GMT -5
I think that expanding the starting line-up would be a mistake. We already have 9 offensive starters and 11 defensive starters. This would just make the imbalance worse. The real NFL has turned into a much more offensive game. Adding additional defensive positions, even though lower impact ones, just doesn't make sense to me. Expanding rosters from 53 to 58 in a 32 Team league does not make any sense given the real NFL's 53 man limit. Most teams have trouble reaching the 53 man roster within the salary cap. Bare in mind, we dont have a practice squad here in Legacy to save on extra administrative work, so in theory the 58 man roster would be the equivalent of a 53 man roster, and a 5 man practice squad, which I think is standard in most leagues. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 15, 2016 16:57:39 GMT -5
I just have two issues, first are we further creating a divide between the weak and the strong? The weaker teams already have a large gap to catch the power house teams, I Wonder if two new positions that must be filled would further create a gap. Also, would we be getting an increase in salary cap? While its DT, and CB position and those are fairly cheap pieces, come time for Free Agency, there really are no cheap free agents. I wonder if teams at the cap would have a tough time filling those two spots
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 15, 2016 17:10:52 GMT -5
I just have two issues, first are we further creating a divide between the weak and the strong? The weaker teams already have a large gap to catch the power house teams, I Wonder if two new positions that must be filled would further create a gap. Also, would we be getting an increase in salary cap? While its DT, and CB position and those are fairly cheap pieces, come time for Free Agency, there really are no cheap free agents. I wonder if teams at the cap would have a tough time filling those two spots No. I have no plans to raise the cap. GM's would need to make provisions during this offseason, and figure out how they would fill those positions. Personally, I believe this will help weaker teams, generally speaking the powerhouse teams are the teams that have consolidated all the offensive power in the league, and that can be difficult for weaker teams to compete with. The Bears have been the exception this year, and it has shown us how a powerhouse defensive team can be a viable strategy in a league like this. Teams that are offensively deficient would have two more options to match up against the stronger teams. I also think it will make the big free agent money drop a little, as teams will need to save more money for the defensive side of the ball an the extra depth needed to survive a long injury filled season as 2016 has proven again. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 15, 2016 17:53:44 GMT -5
Also, now that I will be getting help running the day to day operations of this league, I would not mind that we build a 5 man practice squad and keep the 53 man roster. That is another option if the 58 man roster gets too big for the league, which I can see the possibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 18:13:22 GMT -5
i like the idea of a PS more than extending the roster sizes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 19:55:13 GMT -5
I like the idea of adding a PS to the league. As for adding another defensive position not sure be need it but if you add anything maybe just a 2nd flex? Another league i'm in has 3 DL, 3 LB, 4 DB, and 2 Flex. Everything is pretty much the same but we have a DT and some of the DB's have to be S and CB. But just an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 15, 2016 22:08:07 GMT -5
What is the point of a practice squad ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chargers GM (Andrew) on Dec 15, 2016 22:36:24 GMT -5
Lol was wondering the same thing? Unless it's for those who actually hit the maximum number of players on the roster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 23:42:47 GMT -5
The point is if they spend the whole season or they are signed to the PS directly you can waive them for no cap hit. But have to be activated after playing in there 17 NFL game or waived. That's how it works in most leagues i'm in. It's pretty much for long shots or players buried on depth charts. I have it in two leagues and love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 15, 2016 23:55:40 GMT -5
What is the point of a practice squad ? The point of the practice squad would be to give more teams options in regards to roster space availability, teams that are currently holding on to developmental players can move them to the practice squad in order help accommodate for space and depth in regards to the new positions being proposed. A 53 man roster should really accommodate a 22 starting line-up just like we see in the NFL, however because this is a new rule proposition I dont want to completely surprise anyone and a practice squad would be a fair compromise if GM's don't want to expand the current league roster. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on Dec 16, 2016 10:50:27 GMT -5
I'm against the PS idea because this is a 32 team/53 roster league - hunting for waiver wire players when you're in a pinch would be ended. it's already bare bones, and with injuries, it's inevitable that the waiver wire can save games.
Actually, if one wanted to create a more balanced league, reducing the roster size or lowering the cap would invariably spread talent farther around the league. I'm not in favor of that, but allowing teams to own five more players further reduces options for owners, and lessens one of the more rewarding aspects of managing a team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 30, 2016 8:58:50 GMT -5
I realize that this idea has not been greeted with any enthusiasm, so I would like to make a scaled down proposition. And that is that we add only a 21st player to the starting line-up, and that it would be a mandatory second DT. The DT position is the lowest scoring position in the league, adding a second DT would not be revolutionary in any way, however it would continue to take the league in direction I envision, and that is to make it bigger, broader, deeper. I will remove my proposition to bring in a 3rd starting Corner-back, which considering we do have plenty of options in our leagues starting line-ups in regards to our secondary, will not be a big deal in that regard. However, our league could use a bigger boost at the D-Line position as we only currently play 3 starting D-Linemen, and a 4th would put greater stake and meaning at that position and it will allow the D-Line to be a more meaningful part of this league.
I will put this up for a vote, and I will let league members decide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Dec 30, 2016 18:37:40 GMT -5
I like adding the DT position
|
|
