|
|
Post by Longshanks on Apr 15, 2020 16:51:50 GMT -5
Instead of having 4 different offensive starting lineups and 5 (with potentially 7) different defensive starting lineups, I propose that we just set limits on each position or groups of positions and let the site enforce lineup requirements.
My proposal is to get rid of:
Offense
1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K
1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 2TE, 1K
1QB, 1RB, 4WR, 1TE, 1K
1QB, 1RB, 3WR, 2TE, 1K
Defense
3-4: 1DT, 1DE, 1 flex-DL, 4LB, 2S, 2CB
4-3: 2DT, 2DE, 3LB, 2S, 2CB
Nickel: 1 DT, 1 DE, 1 flex-DL, 3LB, 2S, 2CB, 1 flex-DB
Dime:2DE, DT, 2LB, 6 flex-DB
Dime 2: 2DE, 2DT, 1LB, 6 flex-DB
And go to:
Total Starters: 19
Total Offensive Starters: 8
Total Defensive Starters: 11
Number of Starting QBs: 1
Number of Starting RBs: 1-2
Number of Starting WRs: 2-4
Number of Starting TEs: 1-2
Number of Starting PKs: 1
Number of Starting DT+DEs: 3-5
Number of Starting DTs: 1-3
Number of Starting DEs: 1-2
Number of Starting LBs: 1-4
Number of Starting CB+Ss: 4-6
Number of Starting CBs: 2-4
Number of Starting Ss: 2-4
This would allow all of the offensive lineups listed above without allowing any others.
This would allow all of the defensive lineups listed above and add the following lineups a 4-2-5 and goalline. It also gets rid of someone being able to start 6 safeties in our dime formations. 2 cornerbacks should be required in every lineup.
The best part is that the site would control illegal lineups instead of Greeney or opponents having to point them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jscorr on Apr 16, 2020 2:58:48 GMT -5
No. This solution is too simple and full of common sense. There’s no way it could possibly work in our league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Longshanks on Apr 16, 2020 8:52:11 GMT -5
No. This solution is too simple and full of common sense. There’s no way it could possibly work in our league.  |
|
wipps
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by wipps on Apr 16, 2020 9:02:33 GMT -5
Are we also going to look at negative points for INTs/Fumbles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Longshanks on Apr 16, 2020 9:11:54 GMT -5
Are we also going to look at negative points for INTs/Fumbles? I suggested that a couple years ago and it got shot down pretty quickly. The idea is that the defensive players get the points for those plays, so negative points for the offensive player would essentially be giving double points for the same play. Although I guess that happens on any passing play with yards, TDs, etc. The other point is that QBs only get 4 pts for TDs, which negates the need for INTs. I still think we should do it, so create a new thread if you want to try again. |
|
wipps
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by wipps on Apr 16, 2020 9:14:38 GMT -5
We have at least 7 new managers in the last 3 years - hopefully the new guard can be more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Longshanks on Apr 16, 2020 14:24:38 GMT -5
We have at least 7 new managers in the last 3 years - hopefully the new guard can be more reasonable. Then post your own thread suggesting the rule change and quit hijacking mine! |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on Apr 16, 2020 14:34:07 GMT -5
We have at least 7 new managers in the last 3 years - hopefully the new guard can be more reasonable. Then post your own thread suggesting the rule change and quit hijacking mine!  |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on Apr 16, 2020 17:24:08 GMT -5
Two thoughts...
What would the "goal line" formation look like?
I actually like the strategic option to start 6 safeties and I don't think I'm alone. That said, I don't think I've ever actually done it. I just like the strategic option.
rg
|
|
|
|
Post by Longshanks on Apr 16, 2020 18:08:46 GMT -5
Two thoughts... What would the "goal line" formation look like? I actually like the strategic option to start 6 safeties and I don't think I'm alone. That said, I don't think I've ever actually done it. I just like the strategic option. rg Goal line would be 5-2-4 or 5-1-5 with 3 DTs and 2 DE I agree that starting 6 safeties is a good strategy and I’m pretty sure I’ve started 5 with 1 CB, but the point is that you should always be required to start 2 CBs for the same reason we made it a requirement to start 1 RB. |
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on Apr 19, 2020 10:13:41 GMT -5
I think all defensive lineups should require 2 DE, 1 DT, 1 LB, 2 CB, and 2 S. So that would be 2-3 DE, 1-2 DT, 1-4 LB, 2-4 CB, 2-4 S, 11 total defenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on Apr 19, 2020 11:07:31 GMT -5
I think all defensive lineups should require 2 DE, 1 DT, 1 LB, 2 CB, and 2 S. So that would be 2-3 DE, 1-2 DT, 1-4 LB, 2-4 CB, 2-4 S, 11 total defenders. My only slight philosophical disagreement here is that I don't see any problem if someone wanted to start to 2 DTs and 1 DE. So a minimum of 1 DE, 1DT, and minimum of 3 DE/DTs combined. rg |
|
|
|
Post by Longshanks on Oct 15, 2020 14:19:12 GMT -5
I posted this a while ago and it died on the vine, but I think it should be instituted.
|
|
|
|
Post by nelittle on Oct 16, 2020 11:03:14 GMT -5
agree. basically if we do away with the dime (6 "DB") it is really easy to enforce through the site using minimums and maximums. It's insane we've had to self manage this for so long.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on Oct 18, 2020 8:14:06 GMT -5
agree. basically if we do away with the dime (6 "DB") it is really easy to enforce through the site using minimums and maximums. It's insane we've had to self manage this for so long. I definitely oppose getting rid of the 6 DBs lineup entirely. I do think it should specify at least 2 CBs and 2 Ss. My roster is safety-heavy specifically to be able to run this defense when I need to because of injuries and byes. |
|
