You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

NFL Total Control Mock GM Draft - SUGGESTIONS / FEEDBACK
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> GM Mock Drafts
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ny92jefferis


Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 6663
Location: America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:16 am    Post subject: NFL Total Control Mock GM Draft - SUGGESTIONS / FEEDBACK Reply with quote

First let me say thanks for your dedicated participation throughout this mock, without your award-winning contributions as General Managers this mock wouldnít be possible_ a big THANK YOU to all that are participating.

Iíll break down some things that I believe can be improved upon to get the discussion moving.

Forum Participation - The GM Mock Draft forum threads, the page count, views and replies are about where I expected them to be at this point in the mock draft, based on my previous mocks. Outside however, in the team forumís participation levels was not what I was hoping for with only 34% of the team forums getting involved. Not sure if we could have done anything different to improve those numbers and not really sure what we can do in the future either, they either want to participate or they donít.

I think the concept of voting in your GM was a good idea on paper, and perhaps if we had gotten more to join it would have worked out better. Not sure if putting the voting poll in each team forum invite would have drawn more attention or not but I think we could have added more into the invitations than what we did. Rather than rambling on about the concept of the free agency, we should've just posted the guidelines, attached important links to the invite along with the poll and kept it simple.

I do like the idea of having a forum-wide mock, but a lot of this depends on the future of FFMD. If they continue to run just FFMD II, then I see a need to continue running this on the forum-wide scale. If, FFMD I picks back up then obviously there isnít a need to have two forum-wide mock drafts running and Iíll just move it back to the individual GM mock as Iíve done in the past.

Writer'sÖ.Iím not sure about you guys but I actually enjoy reading articles related to events within the mock draft. Unfortunately it's hard to find members willing to commit to this. So rather than having assigned writers, perhaps we can generate questions to ask the GMís or their staff pertaining to certain transactions that have drawn interest within the forum. Basically something similar to the famous ďpitchĒ that's required to sign free agents within FFMD, but rather than a requirement, it's just a question that we ask within a created thread to house these Q&Aís. If someone from the Total Control Staff has some time, perhaps we could start this up in this mock draft, to see how it would look, at least it would give us a start to refining it for next year.

Iím sure there is more to discuss about the forum side of the mock draft, Iím just drawing a blank.

Mock Draft Structure

Expected APY - The players expected APY needs refined, the basic concept works for this mock. Players have a bottom dollar and if a team is prepared to offer that amount or more, theyíre entered into the award process. If the amount is too high, you wait until the amount decreases and hope that another team isnít willing to pay more. For me, this is all part of the game planning and strategy involved with this mock. With that said, we can definitely include more criteria to get a better value / grade assigned to the player. Simple things such as including age and recent production would go a long ways toward bettering this system.

2017 Allotment - Personally, I think this is a great addition, however its original concept for this failed in that it didnít work as advertized. There were some issues with the formulas, and adjustments had to be made on the fly that really limited its purpose. Which was to give the GMís a decision to make when extending and restructuring players. Every team in the league IRL does this but it's limited and the reasoning for it is so that the future of the franchises cap isnít torn apart with extensive backloading of contracts. I donít like the idea of just setting a fixed number of permitted renegotiations that a team is allowed, but rather a choice you have to make; on do you spend your future cap on restructures and/or extensions or do you use the money toward free agency transactions. We also need to reevaluate the restrictions on which players can be negotiated with.

Trades - IRL, when teams trade for players, the new team will typically already have a new contract ready for the player to sign before the trade is even finalized. Because the prorations are left with the old team, the only pay the newly acquired player is receiving is the base salary, which isnít guaranteed. There needs to be something that requires the traded player to work out a new deal. I wouldnít call what's going on now a loophole but in keeping this mock a close to reality as we can, there should be something in place that requires an extension like contract made for any traded player.
Requiring a new contract at the time of the trade, would also prevent possibly some wacky trades and releases because now guaranteed money is involved.

Award Process - Using the APY to determine the winner of bids works great but we did need to develop either weight added to the offer based on the amount of guaranteed monies being offered, or work out a simply formula to account for guaranteed money.

Reserve Bidding / Free Agency Bidding process - My take on this is that the 3 UFA bids w/ the option to change them to resigns and one resign bid each round, is the right number for this mock. Looking at each round of bidding results, the total number of players signed is a good solid number. Currently 291 players have been signed in the first 5 rounds, with an average of 58.2 players signed each round. At this rate, we could actually restructure when we introduce the draft start time which would allow us to make some changes later in the mock draft for some additional ideas Iíve got.

Waiver Wire - I think this was another quality addition but just needs a better means of delivery. I think the only thing Iíd look to change for this event is leaving the player on waivers for 48 hours rather than 24 hours.

Additional ideas for next year's mock - Seems like every mock draft has a practice squad and really no reason for it, since it is the offseason. However, if we were able to start the draft earlier, say after round 4 bidding of the FA; we could work out a timeframe for teams to get to a 53 man roster, or at the very least a 75 man roster in which if teams put players on the PS, another team could offer them a contract.

Iíll leave it at that for now, this should be enough to get the discussion going.

If you want to discuss any suggestions you might have please post it and we'll be happy to discuss it with you.
_________________

Thanks IDOG_det


Last edited by ny92jefferis on Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Calvin-Stafford


Joined: 29 Dec 2013
Posts: 1795
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couple of suggestions:
1. Guaranteed money should be a bigger factor in the contract negotiations. If I understand it correctly, the current system basically says that signing bonus and base salary are the same thing; they both affect the APY equally. In real life, we all know that NFL FAs are much bigger fans of guaranteed money than non-guaranteed money, and vice-versa for teams. My personal suggestion is that guaranteed money should be worth about 1.5 times as much as non-guaranteed, therefore creating incentive for teams to focus on smaller contracts where larger amounts are guaranteed, as opposed to just tossing out massive YOLO contracts where there's no guaranteed money with a rationale of "its very easy to get out of" (admittedly, I'm as guilty as anyone on this).

I totally get that Mike does craptons of work to put on this mock, and I totally understand if the extra math is just too much on top of all that, but its just a thought.

2. The APYs of declining veterans are too high. I like the APY system overall; I like that it rewards patience and anticipating market value, but for a guy like Damon Harrison to go round 1 while we're still waiting on Ngata and Mebane's APY to come down from the stratosphere seems a bit much IMO.

Those are the only things that come to mind for me right now though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky151


Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Posts: 2797
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that more money should be guaranteed as part of the contract structures. My thought is that longer deals should include more guaranteed money since the player potentially won't see the open market again for a while. Also, a certain % of the total dollars should be in signing bonus. Maybe players facing or coming off suspensions could be pay as you go deals but most players wouldn't accept the nominally high dollar deals I offered as GM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

- The required APYs need to come down across the board IMO. The top players are going to get big money regardless due to demand. Take into consideration the fact that most Round 1 FAs weren't signed for the minimum APY anyways, that is why the required APY doesn't matter that much on the top tier guys. But all of the elite guys are gone after Round 1, and teams then are forced to overbid on 2nd & 3rd tier guys or risk losing out on everyone. So what you end up with is 2nd tier guys making almost the same amount as star players.

- Stick with the 10% reduction every round, it works better than 20% every other.

- I recommend starting at the age of 32 and older, Age be taken into consideration and reduce asking APYs with them progressively getting lower the older they get.

- Once a player hits vet minimum APY, the desired contract length should go away. In fact, teams should be forced to only sign them to a 1-year deal. How often does a guy sign a 4-year vet minimum deal?

- You should consider adding a desired % of guaranteed money similar to the desired contract length. This will prevent abusing of backloaded contracts.

- Franchised player should not have to be extended to the same APY as the franchise amount. That is way too much money, something like 20% less than the franchise amount should be appropriate.

- I recommend having a separate thread for trade announcements, this way you won't have to dig through all of the restructures/cuts/extensions etc. to see what moves people have made. This will help out your "writers" or anyone who wants to chime in on trades and such.

- You've put a lot of work into your Big Board and Draft Board spreadsheets, but you tend to only talk about free agency. These should be a huge selling point for your mock, I think there's a missed opportunity here for you as a lot of people here on this forum are here to talk about the draft.

- EaglesPeteC has done a great job with the Rumors thread. I know you discussed having more than one "writer", but there are only so many rumors and such people can make up. If you want to consider him your Adam Schefter on this mock, what you're missing IMO is the Skip Bayless of this mock. Have someone spew their opinions about every trade/signing would be great. The more over the top the better IMO.

- The "coaches" idea was a good one in theory but it doesn't work in practice. I've offered to help several teams but no one will send you their web doc link, I'm assuming they are concerned about the other person messing with their docs. Just ditch the coaches idea and have 1 designated person as your right hand man to help people with all questions, and make it very official and well known who that person is so people are comfortable going to them for help.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.


Last edited by MKnight82 on Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EaglesPeteC


Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6204
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[/img]
_________________

BIRD WATCH: "WR" Nelson Agholor //36 REC//365 YARDS//2 TDS//2 stone hands//1 crippling boneheaded pentaly//1 deactivation//1 tremendous waste of a pick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jetskid007


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10873
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't want my critiques to come off too harsh because I think this has been a great process, so much better then FFMD ever was. So first and foremost, BRAVO! Whether I agree/disagree with a few things, this platform is far better than anything I've ever seen done on here, and I commend you for the work you've done to get this thing going. The technology definitely revolutionizes the game far past what FFMD ever did. I honestly think Total Control and FFMD should consider a merge. You get the exposure of talented posters that FFMD gets, but have the greater platform. Plus, you can probably get more helping hands. I'm interested to see what the future brings.

Calvin-Stafford wrote:
Couple of suggestions:
1. Guaranteed money should be a bigger factor in the contract negotiations. If I understand it correctly, the current system basically says that signing bonus and base salary are the same thing; they both affect the APY equally. In real life, we all know that NFL FAs are much bigger fans of guaranteed money than non-guaranteed money, and vice-versa for teams. My personal suggestion is that guaranteed money should be worth about 1.5 times as much as non-guaranteed, therefore creating incentive for teams to focus on smaller contracts where larger amounts are guaranteed, as opposed to just tossing out massive YOLO contracts where there's no guaranteed money with a rationale of "its very easy to get out of" (admittedly, I'm as guilty as anyone on this).


Just to parlay on this idea, I really think you should have a category for teams to propose portions of guaranteed base salaries. For example, on overthecap's calculator function, you are able to list how much of a player's base salary is guaranteed. Teams are moving away from giving huge signing bonuses because of the ramifications it can have on the team's cap down the road. What most teams tend to do is offer a low signing bonus, but guarantee the first two years of the deal. This would've particularly helped me during Joe Barksdale negotiations, because while the Eagles gave a higher signing bonus, two years guaranteed base salaries would far outweigh the guarantees received via signing bonus. Not only would it help for tiebreakers, it can be effective in negotiation strategy as Calvin-Stafford suggested. Kind of like the 2017 Allotment, maybe you can set something up where teams are limited in how much guaranteed money---cash---they are willing to offer, that way teams can't just guarantee every free agent deal. Something I definitely think is worth looking into.


A few suggestions I would make that I haven't seen listed:
ē Speed up the process. I know this is very difficult, and I wouldn't expect you to do everything. I'd suggest relinquishing some power to others so that you have less of a work load, which leads me to my next point...
ē I proposed allowing teams to manage their cap, but many feel like people are incapable of doing so. I disagree. If you look at the "Copy of Team" pages we are able to account for the moves we make without finalizing them. What if a team was allowed to cut whoever they liked, restructure a set number of players (say 3 for each team, but then for any additional must formally request), and extend players, all based on the criteria formulas you already have in place? You can basically cut out the need to go through the League Office thread and update after each move. Instead, maybe we can create a transactions workbook or general a list of each teams daily moves that are then posted in the League Office at the end of the day? I'm just spit balling here, but I feel like if the GMs were held a little more accountable it would save you so much time.
ē Trading review/restrictions. Some of the trades we've seen are a little ridiculous. There's certainly fun in it because it's just a game, but it kind of ruins the fun when a team is just blindly trading because they want to remain active, then they have to turn around and cut those same players a day later. I'm fully on board with people controlling their own teams and if you run it into the ground so be it, but it's kind of like either-or for me. EITHER we're given more control of our cap/transactions/etc. OR the review of transactions needs to be more strict.
ē Ability to trade FRAN players and RFAs. It's funny because we have so many random trades that go on, but the most realistic ones aren't allowed. The prospect of trading franchised players or RFAs isn't an uncommon one, and I feel like we should allow it in Total Control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jetskid007 wrote:
ē I proposed allowing teams to manage their cap, but many feel like people are incapable of doing so. I disagree. If you look at the "Copy of Team" pages we are able to account for the moves we make without finalizing them. What if a team was allowed to cut whoever they liked, restructure a set number of players (say 3 for each team, but then for any additional must formally request), and extend players, all based on the criteria formulas you already have in place? You can basically cut out the need to go through the League Office thread and update after each move. Instead, maybe we can create a transactions workbook or general a list of each teams daily moves that are then posted in the League Office at the end of the day? I'm just spit balling here, but I feel like if the GMs were held a little more accountable it would save you so much time.
I think you could get about 20 or so GMs that could handle this, but the other 10 or so would be a nightmare for Mike. It isn't worth doing, and self cap management is one of the things that made FFMD a disaster.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ny92jefferis


Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 6663
Location: America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like we all agree that the contract structures need to include guaranteed money, its just a matter of how to introduce it into the system. Either as a percentage change to the APY amount during the award process, much like the preferred contract length, or perhaps its own requirement like the expected APY, where age, position, preferred contract lengths could determine the amount desired in guaranteed money. Personally, I like the latter of the two, but without actually running some samples and testing we won't know for certain which would work best.

jetskid007_ I've actually been looking at your suggestion for Base Salary Guarantees (BSG) for a couple years now, but I always end up walking away from it. Mainly because I've seen it abused so much in FFMD, when teams are bidding on players within the Talent Agency, they pretty much guarantee the entire contract just to ensure they are competitive with their bidding. Then there is the approach to how do you weigh BSG for awards? Its definitely something I'll revisit again, as I see benefits to including this not just for bidding on players but also as a criteria for trading, restructures and extensions.

The expected APY amounts at the start could be reduced across the board, as explained much earlier in this mock, where I took the average top 3 APY's to create the base expected APY for each position but because of the increased salary cap, I felt it necessary to increase the base APY for each position 20%. We could definitely decrease that percentage. This would adjust it across the board, but as I've seen you guys talk about declining veterans or player with off the field issues needing to decrease their APY more rapidly. I get that, but I also think that the current system is structured so that they types of players are forced to sit longer in the UFA as they typically do IRL. My personal opinion is that this structure mirrors that of IRL, as teams typically don't look to sign the troubled kids or the declining veterans until the late in the free agency, sometimes not until after the draft, after June 1st deadlines, by that time its clear they are willing to sign a vet min contract.

I do like the 10% each round verse the 20% every other round, so we'll keep that for the future mocks.

I also agree with MKnight82, about once a player hits vet min his preferred contract length should decrease to a one year deal, or at the very least 2 years.

MKnight82_ On the franchised players contract extensions, I know some of you guys disagree but with the latest IRL information on this subject, teams are paying more APY value in the contract extension than the actual tagged amount.

I do like the idea of having a separate thread for the various transaction types, would definitely make it easier on myself and as you said, it would help the "writers" find news faster.

Agree that we need to put more into the draft aspect of this mock. I think the reason for the heavy talk on the free agency is because, I'm always thinking I'm trying to sell a new concept for free agency. Someone mentions, "talent Agency", "Shark Tank", "Agents", "Pitches", the forum knows just what they are discussing. We start talking about Bidding rounds, reserves, triggers, award process. I get the deer in the lights look, hopefully after this years mock we don't get that anymore.

Definitely need a Skip Bayless type.

Agreed on the coaches, definitely something that we can get right for next year.

jetskid007_ Really appreciate the props man. We actually tried to get FFMD to let us carry their name this year but it didn't work out, they thought about it though and perhaps in time that will change. I think the mods could really be a great addition to building the forum participation levels up. Either way it goes, its nice to hear someone that hasn't been involved in one of my mocks talk about how much they are enjoying it....so thanks.

I hit on the BSG earlier but I do like the idea of it and will look to see if its something I can work into the structure.

With this being my first forum wide mock draft, I wanted to make sure everyone had plenty of time to game plan between each bidding round. We can definitely shave off some time between rounds to speed things up. I actually had a member lined out to help me out again this year but he disappeared. He understood the docs well enough that I could trust him not to mistakenly delete vital information. I'd love to give more "power" to the people but it does take time to train them on how to manage the backend of this mock. I am hoping to get another aid next year.

Allowing teams to manage their own cap has been tried, its actually easier for me to make the updates for each transaction than it is to police it. Also, you have to understand that, the league office is a requirement. Theoretically this mock draft I run could be done completely through chatzy and the docs, without the need for the forum, but that's not my goal. So somethings need to be done they way they are to boost forum post and views.

I think by creating a extension require for traded players to give them guarantees as they move to another team, this would cut out a lot of the "ridiculous" trading. Also, including your proposal of BSG would also curb (or is it curve).

Trading tagged and tendered players don't really happen as you think they do. When you see a trade take place, look to see if the old club received a offer sheet on the player first. I know that every example that was brought up in an earlier discuss about this, they received an offer sheet.

I will say that the offer sheet process for this mock and most mocks I've participated in as a GM struggle with a smooth process for this event. We'll definitely get it right next go around.
_________________

Thanks IDOG_det
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ny92jefferis


Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 6663
Location: America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Additional ideas for next year's mock - Seems like every mock draft has a practice squad and really no reason for it, since it is the offseason. However, if we were able to start the draft earlier, say after round 4 bidding of the FA; we could work out a timeframe for teams to get to a 53 man roster, or at the very least a 75 man roster in which if teams put players on the PS, another team could offer them a contract.


Any feedback on this idea?
_________________

Thanks IDOG_det
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think there should be any restrictions on trades. If there are too many rules on everything it will take all of the fun out of the mock. Also, you can 10 different opinions on who "won" a trade, so just because one person doesn't think a trade was fair several other people could. This is just one of those items where the less restrictions the better.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ny92jefferis wrote:
Quote:
Additional ideas for next year's mock - Seems like every mock draft has a practice squad and really no reason for it, since it is the offseason. However, if we were able to start the draft earlier, say after round 4 bidding of the FA; we could work out a timeframe for teams to get to a 53 man roster, or at the very least a 75 man roster in which if teams put players on the PS, another team could offer them a contract.


Any feedback on this idea?
There should be no practice squads. We're mocking an offseason with this thing, in the offseason NFL teams have 90 man rosters. If teams want to do practice squads they can cut down their players to 63 and just assume 10 are on their practice squad. They don't count against the cap anyways.

I assume people want player put on practice squads so that they can attempt to steal from other people's squads, which could be a fun wrinkle. However, this happens during the season not in the offseason.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ny92jefferis


Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 6663
Location: America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MKnight82 wrote:
I don't think there should be any restrictions on trades. If there are too many rules on everything it will take all of the fun out of the mock. Also, you can 10 different opinions on who "won" a trade, so just because one person doesn't think a trade was fair several other people could. This is just one of those items where the less restrictions the better.


Trades are one of the fun features of these mocks, and with different needs, values and opinions it would be hard to justify not allowing a trade to take place.

With that said though, I do think that the players being traded need to have their contract extended to include guaranteed monies at the very least.

I haven't put much thought into how to structure this so that it wouldn't cause too much additional work on the GM or my side of the house.
_________________

Thanks IDOG_det
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ny92jefferis


Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 6663
Location: America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MKnight82 wrote:
ny92jefferis wrote:
Quote:
Additional ideas for next year's mock - Seems like every mock draft has a practice squad and really no reason for it, since it is the offseason. However, if we were able to start the draft earlier, say after round 4 bidding of the FA; we could work out a timeframe for teams to get to a 53 man roster, or at the very least a 75 man roster in which if teams put players on the PS, another team could offer them a contract.


Any feedback on this idea?
There should be no practice squads. We're mocking an offseason with this thing, in the offseason NFL teams have 90 man rosters. If teams want to do practice squads they can cut down their players to 63 and just assume 10 are on their practice squad. They don't count against the cap anyways.

I assume people want player put on practice squads so that they can attempt to steal from other people's squads, which could be a fun wrinkle. However, this happens during the season not in the offseason.


Well I think originally, it was an easy way for teams to free up cap space. But you're right the PS doesn't exist in the offseason, I'm in favor of either removing it completely or designing it into something toward the end of the draft, that teams use to either sign their UDFA players, or something that teams could use to steal from other teams PS listing.

I guess, I'm really asking is do we want to have a roster trim down at the end of this mock?
_________________

Thanks IDOG_det
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ny92jefferis wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
I don't think there should be any restrictions on trades. If there are too many rules on everything it will take all of the fun out of the mock. Also, you can 10 different opinions on who "won" a trade, so just because one person doesn't think a trade was fair several other people could. This is just one of those items where the less restrictions the better.


Trades are one of the fun features of these mocks, and with different needs, values and opinions it would be hard to justify not allowing a trade to take place.

With that said though, I do think that the players being traded need to have their contract extended to include guaranteed monies at the very least.

I haven't put much thought into how to structure this so that it wouldn't cause too much additional work on the GM or my side of the house.
Real life example:

The Redskins acquired S Dashon Goldson last offseason, he had a pretty hefty 2-year contract remaining. We used him as a stopgap starter for one season and will likely cut him and replace him this offseason. If you require people to sign every traded player to a contract extension, no aging vets will be traded.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 19354
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ny92jefferis wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
ny92jefferis wrote:
Quote:
Additional ideas for next year's mock - Seems like every mock draft has a practice squad and really no reason for it, since it is the offseason. However, if we were able to start the draft earlier, say after round 4 bidding of the FA; we could work out a timeframe for teams to get to a 53 man roster, or at the very least a 75 man roster in which if teams put players on the PS, another team could offer them a contract.


Any feedback on this idea?
There should be no practice squads. We're mocking an offseason with this thing, in the offseason NFL teams have 90 man rosters. If teams want to do practice squads they can cut down their players to 63 and just assume 10 are on their practice squad. They don't count against the cap anyways.

I assume people want player put on practice squads so that they can attempt to steal from other people's squads, which could be a fun wrinkle. However, this happens during the season not in the offseason.


Well I think originally, it was an easy way for teams to free up cap space. But you're right the PS doesn't exist in the offseason, I'm in favor of either removing it completely or designing it into something toward the end of the draft, that teams use to either sign their UDFA players, or something that teams could use to steal from other teams PS listing.

I guess, I'm really asking is do we want to have a roster trim down at the end of this mock?
You could have a 53 man roster trim down with a PS at the very end of the mock if that is really desired. The problem is participation usually really dies off after the draft, even sometimes during the draft in the later rounds. So its one of those things I think you could implement that very little will actually participate in.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> GM Mock Drafts All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 1 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group