Trojan Man 2.0: Back in the Saddle Again

[RogueHominid]

Okay, Illmatic, here are some thoughts in response to your thoughtful response. These are part of a dialogue; there's nothing final about my responses.

1. 4th downs. I think limiting owners to one sneak or dive in a game will stick because it seems to be a good way to minimize cheap plays while still not making those plays impossible to use. On the issue of the Grey Area, every team will have to determine that based on their kicker's range and the game conditions. This is something the committee can decide; it's sensible to me to entertain your ideas here.

2. Etiquette in playcalls with a commanding lead can be added. Short to intermediate passes and a good bit of runs makes sense. Bombs don't make sense, so this point is good. We should encourage balance on offense in normal situations but not enforce it for the simple fact that teams will pass more vs. me because it's pointless to run. This point is also good.

3. Offensive hot routes should all be fine; this appears to be what folks want. I too want to avoid regular changing the whole play. Perhaps we can say that all hot protections and smart routes are fine and that one change of route type per play is good. The committee should decide this.

4 Defensive hot routes is an issue of balance. I wish to allow teams to reblitz one defender per play to ensure that a DL or a LB occupies a specific gap or a specific OL. Strictly speaking, this rule allows for overloads to be executed but not tourney nanos. I would personally push very hard to keep this as-is.

5. Motion and quick snapping. Quick snapping and snap throwing should be disallowed. Motioning should have to be set for routes. Motioning for blocking should be allowed. I think I can make this call on my own without major objection. If you flip a play to take advantage of some alignment issue, you should let your opponent get set. before running the play to avoid exploiting alignment AI.

6. Rollouts/Dropbacks: Dropbacks should be limited to ten yards unless setting up a screen. Rollouts should be used to avoid pressure and to strain the defense with a running QB. I do not wish to handicap VY or Vick or even Alex Smith or Aron Rodgers. The committee can decide this.

7. Roster moves: Your points are good. I personally am against forcing the committee to review every trade; this seems impractical. The rest of the ideas deserve consideration. The committee should decide these issues.


In sum, all ideas are worth discussing here. I think I can make a fair executive call on 2, 4, and 5 that will please all and offer balance.

Points 1, 3, 6, and 7 should be discussed and decided by the committee.

If there is significant resistance to my stance on 2, 4, and 5, I will consider making them committee issues, but I'm leaning toward an executive decision there.

[s38s38s]

Trade restrictions (2-3 a year seems fair), Sign and trade, all those things are steps in a more SIM direction. I'm not sure what ya'll have done with the salary cap but the league definitely shouldn't start with teams over, I can see teams right at the limit but no one should be over. Just some thoughts.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by s38s38s

Trade restrictions (2-3 a year seems fair), Sign and trade, all those things are steps in a more SIM direction. I'm not sure what ya'll have done with the salary cap but the league definitely shouldn't start with teams over, I can see teams right at the limit but no one should be over. Just some thoughts.

Trade restrictions can be discussed; this is a fine idea. The Committee can decide this.

For reasons that take a lot of explaining, I wish to make an executive call on the current cap number. I have explained this issue before, and it's a very deep issue, so I'll leave my response to what's been said before. We have operated for six seasons with this system and it has provided a great deal of parity and has made the off-season much more meaningful.

[s38s38s]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trojan Man

Trade restrictions can be discussed; this is a fine idea. The Committee can decide this. For reasons that take a lot of explaining, I wish to make an executive call on the current cap number. I have explained this issue before, and it's a very deep issue, so I'll leave my response to what's been said before. We have operated for six seasons with this system and it has provided a great deal of parity and has made the off-season much more meaningful.

I would say if each roster is set to have atleast 53 players (NFL rule) then just the rookies coming in would create the parity you refer too. Because choosing who to re-sign off of an expiring contract and what rookies are worth keeping forces turnover on teams.

It seems forced when dictated by a (what seems to be) purposely low salary cap. It should be up to each teams owner to make the tough calls on who stays or goes, manipulating the cap to force/create that vs natural course just seems more unrealistic. I'm not saying what ya'll have in place hasn't work and owners have gotten by, but anything can be improved.

[Illustrator76]

Quote: Originally Posted by ANDROMADA 1

I don't like having trade restrictions. You should be allowed to trade anyone that you want under current regs. The ACQB cabinet has no business telling me who I can and cannot trade. I also don't agree with not snapping the ball until a player in motion is set. Sometimes I will motion a guy to block a LB or DB. I hike the ball as the player in motion crosses the defender b/c there is no button command to tell the blocker a specific assignment.

I never said that the cabinet can tell you who/who not to trade. I said that they should "approve" trades to make sure that no funny business is happening. At any rate, Trojan doesn't think it's feasible and I can kinda understand why. I would still like the cabinet to honor the rule where in "extreme circumstances" they can a veto a trade that looks way too skewed in one direction.

@Trojan Man

As for rule 3. Personally, I don't mind that at all. If we go that route then that is fine with me, if guys vote to have numerous hot routes be legal, then that is O.K. with me as well.

As for rule 6. My feeling is that if we allow guys to run with certain QB's then we need more than one hot route adjustment on defense. This way I can put certain guys in "contain", "spy", "blitz", "zone", etc... to shut down the running QB and still run the play that I want to run that down. As it stands right now, only having one defensive audible in this situation hampers my strategy to stop that kind of stuff.

As for rule 7. That is fine if you think the cabinet reviewing every trade is not practical, but I would like to have the cabinet do what I stated earlier and have "veto power" over trades in "extreme circumstances". Meaning that you don't have to vote on or approve every trade, but if you see something that sticks right out at you as wacky, that you guys will take action against it. I believe there was a policy like this already in place.

@TheShizNo1

I agree with you agreeing with me on the trade restrictions. If we want to be a sim-style Online Franchise then I think we need to implement some kind of trade restrictions. Again, maybe we need to look at/talk about what exactly they are and how restrictive they would be. As I said, I got caught up in it myself this season, so I would be a victim of the restrictions just like everyone else. My feeling is that if we are going to be trading anyone and everyone like crazy, we may as well save ourselves the trouble and do a Fantasy Draft.

[RogueHominid]

Maybe the point about offensive hot routes can be moved from the category of the rule to the category of the guideline. Maybe the guideline can be "don't hot route so much that you change the entire play" or something like that.

If owners want to leave offense wide open, that's fine; the committee can rule on that.

The issue about defensive re-routing to contain running QBs is a smart point. Those moves seem necessary.

Perhaps the wording can be changed to say that one defender per play can be re-blitzed but that any player can be re-assigned to contain or cover on a given play. We should keep in mind that there are also lots of plays that have spies or contains in them.

Let's improve the wording on this and make it more solid.

On a committee veto for extreme situations regarding trades, this can be done if the committee wishes to do it; I'll leave it to them to decide. Reviewing all trades is too cumbersome because we have so many, but veto power sounds like it can be done.

Good points all.

[dubbduces]

On the trade issue, I would vote for a restriction of maybe 2-3 trades w/ players involved during the season, in the offseason, trade away.

[sb24]

My feelings on trades..... I dont think we should have restrictions aside from a few simple ones. You cant trade a guy twice in the same season, you cant trade past week 6, no fantasy trades (Manning for Brees) and any outright unfair trades can be reversed by the league. We dont see any of the crazy trades we were seeing last year and I know guys like to trade so I dont see a reason to limit it aside from the reasons above.

.02 from a guy who doesnt even trade anyway.