Game Time Injury Subs

[Burt the Butcher]

I know we can't pass any new rules during the season, but I wanted to throw this out for discussion, see what the feeling is of the league.

Dos Clown and I are in a league where we allow for game time injury substitutions. How this works is, when you submit your lineup for the week, you note who your subs will be for each position (one per position, not one per starter; i.e. one QB, one RB, one WR, etc). If one of your starters goes out with an injury during the game, then your sub for that position will be inserted in and his score will count instead of the injured player.

Bryan could clarify, as I am not sure if the sub would still come in if the injury happened in say the 4th quarter, and the injured players score ends up higher than the subs.

Anyway, just wanted to toss it out, especially coming off the Brady injury, where I could have beaten Frank if I had Pennington in there to sub.

Thoughts? Suggestions on rule wording if like?

I will bring this back up post season if there is enough interest. Plus it gives me more work during the season

[Flaxwless]

I wouldn't care either way.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I would like this but want to make sure we are clear on a couple of things (okay a bunch of things):
1. What happens when the starter does outscore the replacement player?
2. What happens if two starters get hurt (which one would get replaced)?
3. What happens with byes if there are no suitable replacements?
4. Can MFL handle this sort of change/option?
5. What if a starter gets injured in the first quarter and does not play again until the fourth quarter but finishes the game?
6. What about if a starter is selected and then is scratched after the pre-game warm ups?
7. Do you get the back-up then?
8. What if both the back-up and the starter are injured, which players gets used?

And I wonder why my four year old seems to ask about 100 questions a day

[Burt the Butcher]

These are some of the questions that need to be hashed out is why I put this post out here, and to see if there is interest. I can give you my feelings on this, some of it based on what we do in my other league:

1. What happens when the starter does outscore the replacement player?

That would be part of the rule. My feeling is the highest scoreer would be used.

2. What happens if two starters get hurt (which one would get replaced)?
The lowest score.

3. What happens with byes if there are no suitable replacements?
Then you have no one to sub

4. Can MFL handle this sort of change/option?
I can go in at any time and change a lineup. This is what I meant by the extra work. I believe MFL will adjust the score after I change the lineup. I may have to try it first to make sure, but I change lineups after games when I don't have time to add FA's won and the team wanted them in their lineup. So far, no one has complained their points were not added to final score.

5. What if a starter gets injured in the first quarter and does not play again until the fourth quarter but finishes the game?
Then his points would be used, since it wasn't a game ending injury.

6. What about if a starter is selected and then is scratched after the pre-game warm ups?
Then no sub....has to be a game time injury.

7. Do you get the back-up then?
No

8. What if both the back-up and the starter are injured, which players gets used?
Would be same as your first question. Use the highest score.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am good with doing this next year then.

[PencilGeeks]

I think this sounds like a giant .
I see no compelling reason to add these manual complications to this league. Part of building a roster has always been the evaluation of a player's injury risk... Anyone that rode Kurt Warner down the stretch last year knows that and kept their fingers crossed on every snap of the ball.


Injuries are injuries and you deal with them. IMHO this rule change would deviate this league too far away from what I felt was its strength: to accurately as possible simulate what it would be like to manage a real NFL team. I would have to vote no on the whole concept.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

I think this sounds like a giant .
I see no compelling reason to add these manual complications to this league. Part of building a roster has always been the evaluation of a player's injury risk... Anyone that rode Kurt Warner down the stretch last year knows that and kept their fingers crossed on every snap of the ball.


Injuries are injuries and you deal with them. IMHO this rule change would deviate this league too far away from what I felt was its strength: to accurately as possible simulate what it would be like to manage a real NFL team. I would have to vote no on the whole concept.

And when a player get injured in the NFL... guess what a sub comes in. So that argument should be out the window.

I don't really care, but I would be in favor of such a move as it removes a little bit of the "luck" factor in deciding games and tilts it back in favor of skill/management decision by fostering the need for depth which would continue to simulate the management of a real NFL team.

I don't know if this was discussed but I would like to limit it to game ending injuries that happen BEFORE the 4th quarter and only 1 sub per game no matter how many injuries.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

I think this sounds like a giant .
I see no compelling reason to add these manual complications to this league. Part of building a roster has always been the evaluation of a player's injury risk... Anyone that rode Kurt Warner down the stretch last year knows that and kept their fingers crossed on every snap of the ball.


Injuries are injuries and you deal with them. IMHO this rule change would deviate this league too far away from what I felt was its strength: to accurately as possible simulate what it would be like to manage a real NFL team. I would have to vote no on the whole concept.

Right, I guess since Tom Brady has been virtually injury free from the beginning of his career, I should have left him on the bench in game one, because I just should have known an injury was inevitable.

Like Frank said, game time injuries in the NFL are managed by subbing in another player...if Warner goes down, the ref doesn't tell Whisenhunt he should have known better than to play him, and you have to go the rest of the game without a QB.....

And we aren't voting on anything yet, just getting opinions and debating the issues...and now we have one discenting point of view...valid, but but newbieish for sure....

[pacificscrub]

One small correction to the original post (and it clarifies some of the resulting questions). In our other league, the player must be injured in the first half of the game and not return in order for the sub to be used. Otherwise Burt was correct as far as taking the higher score of the original player and sub, etc.

I do like this rule in the other league as it keeps teams in contention even after a starter goes down. The fun part is when the backup player blows up and the owner goes into the Monday night game praying for an injury to his own player!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Right, I guess since Tom Brady has been virtually injury free from the beginning of his career, I should have left him on the bench in game one, because I just should have known an injury was inevitable.

Like Frank said, game time injuries in the NFL are managed by subbing in another player...if Warner goes down, the ref doesn't tell Whisenhunt he should have known better than to play him, and you have to go the rest of the game without a QB.....

And we aren't voting on anything yet, just getting opinions and debating the issues...and now we have one discenting point of view...valid, but but newbieish for sure....

FWIW, I agree with the newb... and I'm a long time vet (albeit retired).

I think the concept is a laborious nightmare and unnecessary. Do you need me to hold your hand when you cross the street too? I mean, injuries, suck, but they happen. So be it.

If I was still in SACD I'd be fighting hard to kill this proposal.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Do you need me to hold your hand when you cross the street too?

Nah, you'd probably let it go just as a semi came roaring into view....

[Nittany Dodgers]

Not that my vote (should one come) count for much, but I'm not a huge fan of this idea. I've always felt that injuries were a big part of FF. It's a great leveling tool. Someone mentioned how it can keep teams in contention after an injury. I think injuries are one of the few ways a monstrously constructed team can be brought back to the pack, a crucial injury in a crucial game.

Secondly, you bring up Tom Brady as an example. Lets compare the NFL to SACD. In the NFL, Tom Brady goes down. New England happens to be playing the Chiefs, and the Chiefs are so bad they hold on to win. Had they been playing another good team, Brady going down could be the difference of the game. Had you been playing a good team when Brady goes down, that could be a game changing event. Had you been playing a team like the Nittany Dodgers, the KC Chiefs of SACD, then the rest of your team is probably good enough to hold on for the win.

Lastly, in the NFL teams come in with the likes of Matt Cassel, Jim Sorgi, or Gus Frerotte off the bench. Rarely does that change the fortune of a team. Here, we'll have players like Jake Delhomme, or David Garrad coming off the bench. That's not exacly comparable standards.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Not that my vote (should one come) count for much, but I'm not a huge fan of this idea. I've always felt that injuries were a big part of FF. It's a great leveling tool. Someone mentioned how it can keep teams in contention after an injury. I think injuries are one of the few ways a monstrously constructed team can be brought back to the pack, a crucial injury in a crucial game.

This is a loser's mentality and why I would be in favor of such a ruling. Why rely on luck as a "great" leveling tool instead of management skills in building the deepest team possible? it's saying...

"Wow... you built a monster team and I couldn't even though we have the same rules, salary cap, contract years, and rookie drafts, etc. and since I can't beat you with my own skill I'm going to rely on luck."

What a BS mentality. I think that's one of the biggest downsides of FF is that luck plays such a big factor in winning game to game. Adding this rule would just minimize the luck factor and again reward those with enough foresight/skill to plan for extra depth at the position.

I don't know about you but I always wanted to play and beat people AT THEIR BEST no matter if it's FF, sports, etc. That's how you get a true gauge of how good you are when it's your best versus my best. Leaves no room for excuses.

Think about real life/sports? Do you guys tell your kids, "Don't test yourself against people at their best. You'll never win that way. Hopefully that team loses their star pitcher before you guys play them." I know my dad and my coaches always told me, "To get better you need to play people better than you. To be the best you have to beat the best.. etc."

But hey I guess you'd rather win by "luck" instead of based on your decision making, ability to scout players, and ability to mange the cap. Whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Secondly, you bring up Tom Brady as an example. Lets compare the NFL to SACD. In the NFL, Tom Brady goes down. New England happens to be playing the Chiefs, and the Chiefs are so bad they hold on to win. Had they been playing another good team, Brady going down could be the difference of the game. Had you been playing a good team when Brady goes down, that could be a game changing event. Had you been playing a team like the Nittany Dodgers, the KC Chiefs of SACD, then the rest of your team is probably good enough to hold on for the win.

Again.... they still trot out a backup QB. In our league if a player gets injured. You're done. There's no backups top finish the rest of the game. Peace. I think that's a bigger difference compared to NFL games than the drop off from the starter to back up.. which I will address next.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Lastly, in the NFL teams come in with the likes of Matt Cassel, Jim Sorgi, or Gus Frerotte off the bench. Rarely does that change the fortune of a team. Here, we'll have players like Jake Delhomme, or David Garrad coming off the bench. That's not exacly comparable standards.

Let's see Matt Cassell, Jim Scorgi, and Gus Frerotte last I checked played in a 30 team league. Last time I played in SAC'D we're only a 12 team league. There's nearly 3x as many more teams in the NFL than there is in SAC'D... so naturally based on those proportions the back up QBs will be 3x as better than the back up QBs in SAC'D. So yes... the drop of between starter and backup IS less in NFL talent/perspective, but when looking at the drop off in a Fantasy Football league there is a drop off between a starter and a back up. If there isn't any credit to the Franchise for having built solid depth at the QB position. Everyone has equal oppourtunity to.

I guess your standing on this rule is based on your perspective. Either your in the group that likes to win due to "luck" or you're in the group that wants to win with every team at their peak performance with the deciding factor your skill as a manager.

I'm in the latter group. Who's with me?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

FWIW, I agree with the newb... and I'm a long time vet (albeit retired).

I think the concept is a laborious nightmare and unnecessary. Do you need me to hold your hand when you cross the street too? I mean, injuries, suck, but they happen. So be it.

If I was still in SACD I'd be fighting hard to kill this proposal.

Well you're not in SAC'D so you don't need to worry about the extra work because as an owner it's so hard to pick an extra QB, RB, WR, TE, K, DL, LB, and CB. OH MY GOD!!! That's 8 more players that I have to pick. Wow it's going to be so hard and time consuming!!

Is it a little more work for the commish? Sure, but I believe the commish himself proposed this rule so I'm pretty sure he believes the extra work is worth it.

Is it unnecessary? That's your opinion. Not ours. However, you didn't give any reason to why it was unnecessary other than "injuries happen and they suck." Yes, Mike we know. That's why we're trying to figure out how to deal with the situation.

Again Mike.... do you want to win based on skill or luck of injuries? I mean we all know here you were one of the biggest whiners when you lost, especially when you felt it was an undeserving loss. If you put aside your "commish" goggles and all the extra work I'm pretty sure you would be in favor of a rule that reduce luck on deciding a game.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Well you're not in SAC'D so you don't need to worry about the extra work because as an owner it's so hard to pick an extra QB, RB, WR, TE, K, DL, LB, and CB. OH MY GOD!!! That's 8 more players that I have to pick. Wow it's going to be so hard and time consuming!!

Is it a little more work for the commish? Sure, but I believe the commish himself proposed this rule so I'm pretty sure he believes the extra work is worth it.

Is it unnecessary? That's your opinion. Not ours. However, you didn't give any reason to why it was unnecessary other than "injuries happen and they suck." Yes, Mike we know. That's why we're trying to figure out how to deal with the situation.

Again Mike.... do you want to win based on skill or luck of injuries? I mean we all know here you were one of the biggest whiners when you lost, especially when you felt it was an undeserving loss. If you put aside your "commish" goggles and all the extra work I'm pretty sure you would be in favor of a rule that reduce luck on deciding a game.

Wow you get animated Frank. Relax. It's a game man!

My opinion was just that, an opinion from an outside observer, primarily in support of the newb who got bashed by the commish just for stating his opinion as a newb, which is BS.

I couldn't care less what you guys do, but I can tell you if I was involved, I'd be so against this it isn't funny.

It's unnecessary, can and will lead to squabbles about what an injury is or isn't, or when a sub should or shouldn't be used, is a nightmare to monitor for 12 teams with players involved in upwards of 16 NFL games a week, shit, I could go on and on about why I don't like the idea, but frankly I don't give a damn.

Bad plan. Glad I don't have to be a part of it.

FTR, I think Brian's point about the quality of subs in SACD vs. the quality of subs at an NFL teams disposal in-game is 100% relevant, even though Frank's dismissed it as he ranted on and on about beating the best, blah blah blah.

God I love retirement, it's so easy to tune out the BS these days!

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Wow you get animated Frank. Relax. It's a game man!

My opinion was just that, an opinion from an outside observer, primarily in support of the newb who got bashed by the commish just for stating his opinion as a newb, which is BS.

I couldn't care less what you guys do, but I can tell you if I was involved, I'd be so against this it isn't funny.

It's unnecessary, can and will lead to squabbles about what an injury is or isn't, or when a sub should or shouldn't be used, is a nightmare to monitor for 12 teams with players involved in upwards of 16 NFL games a week, shit, I could go on and on about why I don't like the idea, but frankly I don't give a damn.

Bad plan. Glad I don't have to be a part of it.

FTR, I think Brian's point about the quality of subs in SACD vs. the quality of subs at an NFL teams disposal in-game is 100% relevant, even though Frank's dismissed it as he ranted on and on about beating the best, blah blah blah.

God I love retirement, it's so easy to tune out the BS these days!

Not getting animated more sarcasm. Remember, I don't care which way this vote goes. Just like debating.

Anyways I didn't dismiss Brian's quality of subs by ranting about beating the best. I dismissed it by pointing out it's all relative to point of reference. The back ups he is talking about are back ups in a 30 team league. We play in a 12 team league so you can't compare our back ups to NFL back ups and say that the drop is WAAAAAAAAY bigger in the NFL than it is in SAC'D. Compared to league proportions the drop off would be the same because we are playing in a 12 team league.

As for the logistical nightmares... that's why were are discussing it now. To work out all the kinks and answer all the questions.

So now that the back up talent issue and your "logistical nightmare" (again commish goggles) is out of the way. Why don't you like this idea.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm not interested in a debate on it. Just throwing my opinion out there. Those who agree with be before they read my post won't have changed their minds. Those on the other side of the fence won't have either. Those on the fence have another opinion to consider, that's all the post was there for.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not interested in a debate on it. Just throwing my opinion out there. Those who agree with be before they read my post won't have changed their minds. Those on the other side of the fence won't have either. Those on the fence have another opinion to consider, that's all the post was there for.

So I guess we should have a poll whether we want to implement this next season and so we can start hashing out any potential details than.

[Burt the Butcher]

This is why I love this league...so much fun, and so many differences of opinions.

BTW, the reason I posted this was to see if there was interest, and if so, what people saw as good and bad points. We are seeing that, and from what I can tell, it's a 50-50 split as to whether people like it or not. Of course Pred's opinion makes no matter at all.

And FWIW, I have known Hans for several years, and I know he can take as much as he dishes out. He has much thicker skin then the kitty in the corner ;-)

[pacificscrub]

Originally Posted by Preds

It's unnecessary, can and will lead to squabbles about what an injury is or isn't, or when a sub should or shouldn't be used, is a nightmare to monitor for 12 teams with players involved in upwards of 16 NFL games a week, shit, I could go on and on about why I don't like the idea, but frankly I don't give a damn.

I guess I don't understand how these squabbles would go. Guy gets hurt, leaves game in 1st half, and doesn't return. Seems pretty clear cut to me. We've never had an issue with whether a guy played a snap in the 2nd half or not and regardless of how true it is, if the reason a guy left was because he was reported injured, so be it.

As far as monitoring, the team in question usually notify the commish if a player meets the criteria. Commish verifies player in question was injured and didn't play in the 2nd half, then updates the scores and notifies the opposition. It's really not that much extra effort on the Commish's part.

[PencilGeeks]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I think that's one of the biggest downsides of FF is that luck plays such a big factor in winning game to game.

Out of all the responses, this whiny little tidbit stands out the most and is the DEFINITION of a mentality -- blaming "luck" for a loss. That's just pathetic Chaff...

The bottom line is that in the NFL injuries play a huge part in a team's success and/or failure, and this is reflected in the SACD as well. When Tom Brady went down, the Patriots didn't look down their bench and sub in Jay Cutler! It's a ridiculous and cumbersome concept and without merit.

The sky is blue, water is wet, injuries happen... move on.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

Out of all the responses, this whiny little tidbit stands out the most and is the DEFINITION of a mentality -- blaming "luck" for a loss. That's just pathetic Chaff...

The bottom line is that in the NFL injuries play a huge part in a team's success and/or failure, and this is reflected in the SACD as well. When Tom Brady went down, the Patriots didn't look down their bench and sub in Jay Cutler! It's a ridiculous and cumbersome concept and without merit.

The sky is blue, water is wet, injuries happen... move on.

Please... how is blaming injuries a loser mentality when there is an alternative that allows you to replace him into a line up? Just because they happen doesn't mean we have to stand by and do nothing about it.

I understand injuries happen, I do deal with it and move on, however, I don't stand there and say... "When teams are too good... I'm hoping injuries hit because my team sucks and not try to protect myself from injury by having a solid back up."

Anything that is againsta full starting line-up is the one with the loser mentality.

You guys are funny. Just because I support this idea doesn't mean I'm whining about injuries. I support it because it benefits everyone by having a FULL line-up every Sunday unless your starter or back both get injured.

Again if Brady gets injured... you know what happens? Cassell stepped in. Again NFL = 30 teams. SAC'D = 12. So of course back ups will be more talented in a NFL sense... but you know what not everyone in the league can back up Tom Brady with Jay Cutler.

Looking at my team... my QBs are Jake Delhomme, Garrad, JTO, and Griese.

So please don't tell me I'm the one with a loser's mentality. I'm the one in favor of LIMITING the "luck" factor not supporting it.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

Out of all the responses, this whiny little tidbit stands out the most and is the DEFINITION of a mentality -- blaming "luck" for a loss. That's just pathetic Chaff...

The bottom line is that in the NFL injuries play a huge part in a team's success and/or failure, and this is reflected in the SACD as well. When Tom Brady went down, the Patriots didn't look down their bench and sub in Jay Cutler! It's a ridiculous and cumbersome concept and without merit.

The sky is blue, water is wet, injuries happen... move on.

Heh...Chaff...love it....

Anyways, are you serious about subbing Cutler for Brady? The Patriots also don't have Frank Gore, Adrian Peterson and Ryan Grant in their backfield at the same time either....neither do they start Plaxico Burress, Reggie Wayne and Chad Johnson at the same time.

But I guess we clearly understand your feeling on this one... you do seem to be the only owner, who is for sure coming back next year, that seems to have feel this strongly against it...which is fine...

[Burt the Butcher]

I'll write this up in and put out a poll later...this could impact bidding strategy, so would like to get it out there and voted on soon.