RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

OK, here are the final two choices for the RFA tender levels. Only 8 people voted in the last poll. Please choose from one of these two choices. With the deadline to declare RFAs now 4/30, we have one week to get this settled. Please vote early (but not often).

The defensive positions are the only differences between these choices (highlighted in red).

Also, I made one minor change from the previous scale by rounding off the numbers, to eliminate odd tender levels.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

I thought the original worked well but I can settle for the "Jake" compromise!

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Sorry, while I understand that the best IDP's score enough points to be important in any given year, I simply don't think that many of the same IDP's do so in a predictable enough manner year-over-year to merit the lower tender levels. Gotta go with Mike's.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Holy crap, Mike. You managed to vote without making another complaint. I'm shocked!

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

;)

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Okay, I have read this a couple of times now and I am still not sure that I get it. If you are afraid of the variable nature of the IDP players output then would you not want to sign them to a lower priced tender offer? I am guessing that I am missing something but try as I might I am not seeing it.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

The point is IDP's tendered at 1st round levels should be few and far between. The lower the tender level, the more 1st round tenders there will be, and very few IDP's overall, (maybe 3) have the value of a 1st round pick.

The higher tender levels are to put the compensation more in line with the players value if the tender isn't matched. The lower the level, the easier it is to slap a higher compensation tag on the player. The higher the tender, the fewer 1st round tenders there will be for IDP's (hopefully none IMO).

IDP's just don't have that value, and thus don't deserve lower tenders.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Thanks for the explanation, I guess it is hard to get used to the idea of having less value equating to higher tenders.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Does it change your vote? ;)

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Heck, no! I have two of the three players that are worth first rounder tenders but by increasing their price it will make it more difficult for me to appropriate tender them. If this goes through Ed Reed or Jason Taylor may be available for trade (for what it is worth).

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Just as an FYI, there were only two DL drafted last year, 5.3 and 6.9. despite 6 DL taken in the first round alone of the NFL draft. That in and of itself leads me to believe DL are not worth first round tenders and the 1st level should be set prohibitively high.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Thinking of your team instead of the good of the league... NOTED.

:P

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Exactly

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

I like you guys already.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Is it the constant bickering, blantent self interest, or endless debates on minutia that really did it for you?

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

ROFLMAO

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Is this considered official? BTW, I noticed on the rules site it says there are 4 slots for RFA's, I am assuming this is from Frenzy since they don't have 6 rounds due to IDP's. Can someone update that as well? It was confusing until I realized it was probably just an old Frenzy to SAC'D translation issue.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

Frenzy only has 3 RFA's, I think SACD was supposed to have 4, but don't have time at the moment to look up the vote on that.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

No, I meant it says you can put them into 4 tender levels (meaning 4 draft positions of rounds 1-4). It blatantly says there are 3 RFA's per team.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

SACD is going to be 6 tender levels.

Re: RFA Tender levels poll v17.5
 

RL, you are correct in that the scales mentioned are carried over from last year. The doc attached here would be the reference to use until everything is finalized for the year and I get a chance to do my spring cleaning of the rules doc.