Change starting lineup to include 2 IDP Floater positions? **DEFEATED**

[Burt the Butcher]

This is rule we have been discussing...this seems to be most popular version of changing things up to try to make IDP's a bit more valuable.

[Flaxwless]

Voted no.

I don't like the fact that DL will be lowered in value even more since it is a flex vs DB. Also, I would like for this to take effect NEXT season since we are already in FA and IDPs are already on the market and have sold.

Would rather add an extra DL, LB, and DB over this poo poo platter version.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Voted no.

What a surprise....

[greatshepski]

YES YES YES Thats three votes for the good guys.

[Bounty Hunter]

Voted yes with some concerns that I think need to be addressed.

As some stated during the discussion thread I believe this should take place next season.

We need to discuss adding additional IDP slots as we will be starting 8 of the 12 slots. We're probably going to have more player suspensions for flagrant hits making it more difficult to field a complete defense.

If we add additional IDP slots do we add additional contract years?

I'm sure others will come up with additional discussion items.

[Burt the Butcher]

Rules voted on during off season are for the season (2011-12) to follow the off season...if you want the rule for next year (2012-13), then vote no, and we can revisit this.

If this passes, we can start a discussion on increasing the roster max on IDP's, increasing total roster size and cap, or some combination not thought of by yours truly. Personally, I think just increasing the max from 12 to 14, while leaving the IOP max at 18, and leaving the total slots and cb's alone, would be best way to go. But I am sure others will disagree.

And it is not just me who can put out poll to vote on rule change..anyone can create a poll with a proposed rule change....

[Flaxwless]

This is terrible to discuss roster expansion AFTER restricted free agency and now that UFA has begun and players have sold.

My strategy for this season surely would change had I know we would expand this season.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK...well after reading the rules, this is defeated anyway, so will take it up again after this season...

"Any rules changes after the start of the draft through the conclusion of the season must be agreed upon by the entire league unanimously. In the event of a tie in any rule vote, the rules committee will hold a separate vote, with majority rule breaking the tie. "

Frank, you should propose a rule to change 'start of the draft' to 'start of RFA period' - other wise this could come up again next year.....

[greatshepski]

That rule makes no sense as you stated the proposition was defeted? If there is a rule that states " must be agreed upon by the Entire League Unaimously" Then why the comment on a TIE, after that sentence? How could there ever be a tie if EVERYONE needs to vote YES. Am I missing something????

Current vote is 7-2???

[Liquid Swords]

I think we need to expand the defensive roster from 12 to 15/18 slots. And I'm with Frank. I don't necessarily like the flex. What about defensive starting lineup of 3 DL, 3 LB, 3 DB? And I'm starting to come around on the idea of breaking down the defensive positions further (e.g., 1 DE, 1 DT, 1 DE/DT)

[bigmash33]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

What about defensive starting lineup of 3 DL, 3 LB, 3 DB? And I'm starting to come around on the idea of breaking down the defensive positions further (e.g., 1 DE, 1 DT, 1 DE/DT)

I'd be fine with breaking them into DE and DT, and CB and S...but I might be in the minority here. At the least, I think we should move to 3 starters per position.

[Miners]

My opinion: It is fine if you want to expand the defensive side of the roster, however will there also be a salary cap increase to go along with it? If so will there be something that stops me from still having a low paid defense and putting the extra cap money into my offense? I would be against any position labeled as "flex", give the owners 4 different defensive alignments like you have on offense. Also if something like this were to go through, I agree with Flaxwless, before the draft would be better.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by greatshepski

That rule makes no sense as you stated the proposition was defeted? If there is a rule that states " must be agreed upon by the Entire League Unaimously" Then why the comment on a TIE, after that sentence? How could there ever be a tie if EVERYONE needs to vote YES. Am I missing something????

Current vote is 7-2???

I took that paragraph out of the whole rule definition..so if you read the entire rule section, the tie breaker goes to votes taken during off season where a simple majority would pass..not specifically to the time we are in now, where a 100% majority is required....

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Miners

My opinion: It is fine if you want to expand the defensive side of the roster, however will there also be a salary cap increase to go along with it? If so will there be something that stops me from still having a low paid defense and putting the extra cap money into my offense? I would be against any position labeled as "flex", give the owners 4 different defensive alignments like you have on offense. Also if something like this were to go through, I agree with Flaxwless, before the draft would be better.

The main reason I brought this up, was because I felt too much of our cap money was going to IOP's...to wit, we do not value IDP's as much, or they are simply not worth putting the money into them. After looking at the scoring, my theory was true, IDP's just do not score points for us, with the exception of the top LB's.

So to increase the cap in addition to adding more starting positions, would in my mind defeat the whole purpose of why I started this discussion. We would just put the extra cap space towards the IDP's, and keep IOP positions at an inflated level...

[Liquid Swords]

I agree. I would be against raising the salary cap. It defeats the purpose.

Here's another thought (my apologies if someone already brought this up):

Last year the league was around 13-14% of cap space dedicated to IDPs (23% on high end and 6.5% on low end). I guess another option could be to require that each team dedicates a minimum of 20% of cap space (4000 cbs) to IDPs. Just a thought.

[Scorpions]

I think, if they scored more points, we'd put the money there. now how to do that, i am not sure.

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally Posted by Scorpions

I think, if they scored more points, we'd put the money there. now how to do that, i am not sure.

I think we could accomplish that by changing the defensive scoring system. Of course this would make LBs more valuable than WRs. This could suck for me since I just used my entire draft on IOPs and most of that on WRs.

I like the idea of more IDP starters. However I'd like to see IDP roster increases on a percentage basis on par with IOPs. We currently have 8 offensive starters (including kickers) and 18 roster spaces. IDPs are 6 starters and 12 roster spaces. So let's keep the % (starters vs slots) the same for both (close as possible). I'd also like to keep the contract years the same as a % of total roster spaces, ie increase the roster spaces increase the contract years. We currently have 30 players and 65 contract years, 2.1666 or so years per roster spot. keep the salary cap the same.

I'm sure others have good ideas as well.

[Flaxwless]

You guys are making this too complicated.

Let the market work.

Keep the cap fixed, forget about all the fancy smancy percentages, and just increase the DEMAND for IDPs.

That's why I would add an extra starter for each group (1 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB) and like I mentioned before breakdown the positions groups to create more "premium players."

Separating DL and DB will create stud DTs, stud DEs, stud CBs, and stud S.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

You guys are making this too complicated.

forget about all the fancy smancy percentages

This coming from the dude who initially brought out the percentages.

I would be opposed to breaking out positions...this league is enough work as it is..but let the majority rule...at some point when we do not need 100% majority, I'll put out an initial poll to vote on adjusting the lineups and possibly points, and then we can have a 2nd poll, if it passed, to determine how to split it out.

I think we need to determine how to increase the value of DL and DB..first thought is increase sacks, passes defended, INT, Hurried (is this a category), so that we increase points for these two positions without adding on to LB's and making them MORE valuable than any other IOP...

If someone wants to take the past couple years stats and try to determine what would make these two positions closer in equality to LB, go for it...

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

You guys are making this too complicated.

Let the market work.

Keep the cap fixed, forget about all the fancy smancy percentages, and just increase the DEMAND for IDPs.

That's why I would add an extra starter for each group (1 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB) and like I mentioned before breakdown the positions groups to create more "premium players."

Separating DL and DB will create stud DTs, stud DEs, stud CBs, and stud S.

I can buy into this breakout. However we still have to address the increase roster spots issue. I'm not sure I can vote on increasing the IDP starters without knowing the rest of the story like contract years and roster size. My preference is to keep IOP the same and increase IDP spots.

[Scorpions]

even if you just add one more starter per position, if they cana only score the points they can now, other than LB, your only looking at a couple hundred pulled to the IDP's.

[Burt the Butcher]

If we increase the max IDP's to 14 from 12, I think this allows us to carry 9 starters plus 3-5 bench players. This will mean we would have to decrease the number of IOP's we carry, which I feel is fine, since a lot of us carry more IOP than is needed, which also depleats the FA market. So, my feeling is by adjusting the starting lineup requirements to allow more IDP's, and maybe adjusting scoring to allow DB and DL to be slightly more valuable than they are now, this increase in Max limits would suffice. We would not need to increase overall roster size, salary or years cap.

[Flaxwless]

I don't see the point in having to mess with the offensive side of the ball.

Keep the changes strictly to the defensive side and eventually the market will workout on the offensive side. The offensive prices have already been set by the market and people have planned contracts and draft picks according to the set roster size.

Basically, why would you FORCE teams to cut offensive players when the same goal can be accomplished just by messing with the IDP side?

We currently have 12 IDP slots for 6 starters. Just make it 15 spot for 9 starters. Keep the salary cap the same and add raise the contract cap from 35 to 38 so that people just don't use the extra years on the offensive side.

Not sure what you guys would want to do to improve scoring since LBs do a little of everything.

Increasing sacks will improve DL scores, but the # of good LBs will increase as 3-4 pass rushing OLBs will gain more value. So not sure if that's good or bad.

Add tackle for loss - A quick glance showed that most top DL had about 10+ tackles for loss compared to LBs which were ~5 tackle for loss.

Pass deflections - LB get a slight boost again, but crappy corners will get a boost. Just depends on how many crappy CBs there are.

Basically who know what will happen when you tinker with the scoring.