Thoughts for rules discussions

[broncobilly]

We’ll start our rules discussion in about a month, maybe a little earlier.

What topics do we want to discuss to see if we need modifications?

Thinking time on IR may be a good one now that the NFL has changed its policy.

[drake]

Yea i'd like to see us adjust our IR policy. This is the current NFL rule:

A team can bring a maximum of eight players off IR throughout the season. The same player can be activated off IR up to two times, but both activations would subtract from the team’s allowed total of eight. A player must be sidelined for a minimum of four games before coming off IR.

We probably dont need to do 8 players though. I like the minimum of 4 games on IR and also would like to add that you dont have to announce in advance who is coming back. Its hard to tell sometimes how long someone will be out for.

Would that make it too much for you to keep track of?

[broncobilly]

Feb 15, 2023 10:12:19 GMT -5 drake said:

Yea i'd like to see us adjust our IR policy. This is the current NFL rule:

A team can bring a maximum of eight players off IR throughout the season. The same player can be activated off IR up to two times, but both activations would subtract from the team’s allowed total of eight. A player must be sidelined for a minimum of four games before coming off IR.

We probably dont need to do 8 players though. I like the minimum of 4 games on IR and also would like to add that you dont have to announce in advance who is coming back. Its hard to tell sometimes how long someone will be out for.

Would that make it too much for you to keep track of?

We actually could do something similar since we voted to make our IR slots replaceable. We could allow a player to stay on IR as long as an owner wants with a minimum 4 week stay. We could also have a maximum number of activations up to say 8, with any 1 player allowed to be activated a maximum of two times in a season.

We could track it here at the board. Instead of designating to return when a player goes on the list, an owner would have to post in an “activation thread” that they are activating a player off if IR and then make sure that their active roster is compliant with 45 maximum sctive players. I could keep track of the number of activations per team in the OP.

Kind of a cool idea.

We would also need to define what constitutes eligibility for IR again. I’d say either PUPed or IRed during TC/PS or IR during the season as designated by the NFL team. No more “OUT” for multiple weeks allowed since the time on IR has been shortened. Then there would still be roster management required and IR would be less liable to stockpiling players.

[drake]

I think that sounds great!

[TTAC]

I'm not sure if there is a workable solution but I'd like to have the conversation at least. It seems to me there is a lot more competitive gamesmanship involved with player availability now days. I can't speak for others but it's very frustrating for me to have game time decisions about player availability create situations where I bench a player that ends up playing or start a player that ends up sitting. A couple of times I've had players that ended up being designated one way or another but by the time it was announced I couldn't make a change cuz the clock was seconds past 1pm.

I would also include situations where a starting player gets knocked out of a game really early in the game.

Like I said, there might not be a workable solution. But the game has changed. There is certainly more head games played among the coaches. Definitely more concern for player safety. All of which effects player availability at times.

[Darkman]

Feb 15, 2023 14:36:03 GMT -5 broncobilly said:

Feb 15, 2023 10:12:19 GMT -5 drake said:

Yea i'd like to see us adjust our IR policy. This is the current NFL rule:

A team can bring a maximum of eight players off IR throughout the season. The same player can be activated off IR up to two times, but both activations would subtract from the team’s allowed total of eight. A player must be sidelined for a minimum of four games before coming off IR.

We probably dont need to do 8 players though. I like the minimum of 4 games on IR and also would like to add that you dont have to announce in advance who is coming back. Its hard to tell sometimes how long someone will be out for.

Would that make it too much for you to keep track of?

We actually could do something similar since we voted to make our IR slots replaceable. We could allow a player to stay on IR as long as an owner wants with a minimum 4 week stay. We could also have a maximum number of activations up to say 8, with any 1 player allowed to be activated a maximum of two times in a season.

We could track it here at the board. Instead of designating to return when a player goes on the list, an owner would have to post in an “activation thread” that they are activating a player off if IR and then make sure that their active roster is compliant with 45 maximum sctive players. I could keep track of the number of activations per team in the OP.

Kind of a cool idea.

We would also need to define what constitutes eligibility for IR again. I’d say either PUPed or IRed during TC/PS or IR during the season as designated by the NFL team. No more “OUT” for multiple weeks allowed since the time on IR has been shortened. Then there would still be roster management required and IR would be less liable to stockpiling players.

I like this one. The current IR rules with "designated to return" handcuff you

[drake]

Mar 4, 2023 10:24:49 GMT -5 TTAC said:

I'm not sure if there is a workable solution but I'd like to have the conversation at least. It seems to me there is a lot more competitive gamesmanship involved with player availability now days. I can't speak for others but it's very frustrating for me to have game time decisions about player availability create situations where I bench a player that ends up playing or start a player that ends up sitting. A couple of times I've had players that ended up being designated one way or another but by the time it was announced I couldn't make a change cuz the clock was seconds past 1pm.

I would also include situations where a starting player gets knocked out of a game really early in the game.

Like I said, there might not be a workable solution. But the game has changed. There is certainly more head games played among the coaches. Definitely more concern for player safety. All of which effects player availability at times.

Yea that is a tough one. I dont think there is a solution though, outside of switching to a bestball format. But it is hard especially if you work on Sundays (like me) and cant always be at that computer at 12:55 waiting to find out any last minute news about your players.

[broncobilly]

Mar 9, 2023 11:27:37 GMT -5 drake said:

Mar 4, 2023 10:24:49 GMT -5 TTAC said:

I'm not sure if there is a workable solution but I'd like to have the conversation at least. It seems to me there is a lot more competitive gamesmanship involved with player availability now days. I can't speak for others but it's very frustrating for me to have game time decisions about player availability create situations where I bench a player that ends up playing or start a player that ends up sitting. A couple of times I've had players that ended up being designated one way or another but by the time it was announced I couldn't make a change cuz the clock was seconds past 1pm.

I would also include situations where a starting player gets knocked out of a game really early in the game.

Like I said, there might not be a workable solution. But the game has changed. There is certainly more head games played among the coaches. Definitely more concern for player safety. All of which effects player availability at times.

Yea that is a tough one. I dont think there is a solution though, outside of switching to a bestball format. But it is hard especially if you work on Sundays (like me) and cant always be at that computer at 12:55 waiting to find out any last minute news about your players.

I’m always available to help owners make late subs if you email me the scenario/players involved.

[drake]

Thanks Jay thats good to know.

[plunge]

Position changes from LB to DE is getting outrageous.

I just had 3 LBs move to DE.

I don’t need 6 DEs but now only have 4 LBs.

Is there something we can do about this.

Change lineup to Front Seven and Secondary

Start 5-7 front seven and 4-6 Secondary

Front seven must consist of 1-2 DT, 1-2 LB, 3-4 others. Min of 3 combined DT and LB.

Secondary must start 2 CB

[plunge]

Talking with Def,

It looks like they moved all Outside LBs to DEs.

To create a combined Edge position.

[broncobilly]

Here is mfl’s (via Fantasy Sharks, who mfl uses for positional designations):

Entire explanation is here:

www.fantasysharks.com/fantasy-football-idp-player-position-changes-2023/


And the summary explanation:

WHAT IS THE CHANGE?
This really isn’t that complicated or earth-shattering. No new positions are being added. All that is being changed is how players are classified.

All 4-3 defensive ends and 3-4 outside linebackers will now be classified as “DE.” If it makes you feel better to call them “defensive edge,” then have at it.
All 3-4 defensive linemen and 4-3 defensive tackles will be classified as “DT.”
That’s it. That’s the change. Some in the IDP community have given this a name — “True Position” and it’s simply a reaction to the evolution of NFL defenses, just as we have seen fantasy football evolve on offense through the years.

Pittsburgh’s T.J. Watt has a lot more in common with Cleveland’s Myles Garrett than with the Los Angeles Rams’ Bobby Wagner and his classification should reflect that. The New York Giants’ Leonard Williams has more in common with the New York Jets’ Quinnen Williams than with Garrett and his eligibility should reflect that.

There will also be occasional exceptions. Dallas’ Micah Parsons and Philadelphia’s Haason Reddick are listed as 4-3 outside linebackers on depth charts. They are also (by any objective measure) edge rushers. So they will be classified as such.

It’s nice when common sense occasionally wins out.

Edge rushers are grouped together. Interior defenders are grouped together and off-ball linebackers, given their respective roles in today’s defenses, are linebackers.

[broncobilly]

Here’s our starting D requirements after our last vote on starting requirements:

DEFENSE - 11 players

DL - MIN 3, MAX 4 (Start Min 1DT and Min 1 DE)

LB - MIN 2, MAX 4

DB - MIN 4, MAX 6 (Start Min 2, Max 3 CB; Start Min 2, Max 3 S)


With the position change of 3-4 DLs becoming DTs, 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 DEs being grouped as DEs, and LBs being 4-3 OLBs and MLBs our new flex starting requirements actually seem to translate well with the mfl change. DTs and DEs should score better, and teams can start 3 DEs and 2 LBs if they want. Theoretically that means teams could start 1 3-4 DE at DT and 3 3-4 OLBs as DEs each week as their 4 DLs that comply with the rules.

Welcoming any thoughts on this, but I think this is probably a good thing for us and the transition seems to be fairly seamless.

[Gringoloco]

I'm sort of confused. Are just suggesting that the MFL changes work for our current lineup requirements, and therefore we could be good already? If so, works for me.

[foos]

What's the scoring differences between DEs and LBs?