Simulating Attribute Aging in the PNFL

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

This whole idea is a big no for me. Just complicates things more.

If you really want to do some kind of aging then how about this?

No more transferring rolls on physicals.
Every player gets three ‘fail’ strikes.
First fail, lose 1 EN, does not retire.
Second fail, lose 1 EN, does not retire.
Third fail, lose 1 EN + final season.

This keeps it tied to a system we already have while reducing work. It eliminates forced retirements through die roll transfers. Plus it’s simple for Rich to track and implement in the Contract file.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

It's pointless... so cynical.

Actually, you know, Dean, you are right. My attitude has sucked when it comes to some of these issues. Negativity doesn't solve anything. Thanks for calling me out on it.

[Brian-Broncos]

Also remember there are over 500 first-year players every year in the NFL at the start of training camp. We would need draft classes over 280 to simulate this.(I am not wanting this)

I'm not exactly sure why this is being discussed in the aging discussion, but, for those that missed it, in order to make the draft, free agency, trades, points, and young players, (i.e. roster management) actually matter, I suggested we purge the free agent pool of nearly everyone, have only 180 players from each draft pool make it into the league (any beyond that would be purged immediately after the draft), and about the same number need to retire each season. This would make roster management actually matter, and the bonus is it's NFL-like. I would love roster management to actually matter, it would be my favorite party of the game. And I really don't understand why the league doesn't want roster management to matter much in the context of the game as many people seem to enjoy ridiculing and judging moves made by NFL GM's. But if it's not what the league wants, then we shouldn't make those changes.

James - I really think you just don't want roster management to matter, which is fine, but just say that rather than pretend that to do so means we would have to do ridiculous things like require a 280 person draft pool that includes dozens of players not good enough to make the league. Nobody suggested this. (The irony is our draft pools already contain dozens of players not good enough to make the league, and after the draft they make it into free agency where we get to sift thru them season after season after season.)

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm all for some roster management as everyone knows, but in my opinion the more we make of it, the larger the gap in teams and the worse for the league. There is no money invested in teams here. Owners tune out when they have no chance and do things like dump rosters. The health of the league would seem to favor having things close enough for anyone to win at some level in my opinion.

I will say this again as well. I think the players should be spread more and 1 or 2 points in key attributes absolutely affects game play. but those who think it should be big are again affecting the health of the league I think. In my opinion, other than QB and a rare one of two other position players, NFL players while having different characteristics are mostly the same in the big scheme of things.

The more competitive the league, the better. It's about fun and 18 having fun is more important.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Maybe we are trying to do too much. Also, I see people getting impatient and not letting changes develop over time. How long have we had the purge? 1 season? How long have we had the physical transfers? No Salary cap? I fear if we keep changing stuff instead of being patient, we run the risk of overwhelming coaches/owners, and could lose people. Remember this is first and foremost a game. It's not the NFL. Now we try to mimic it the best we can, but we can't do everything, nor do we want to do everything. The question is what can we realistically mimic without making it too complex or too overwhelming.

We need to figure out if we want to focus more on coaching and games or rosters and GMing. It sounds like many want both. Which we might be able to do; however, can we have realistic aging and roster management without a salary cap application? Can we have what we are discussing and still make everyone happy or at least a big majority? I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but we need to figure out what we want to do and stick to it instead of being inpatient.

With that said, I think debate is good and we can discuss ideas all we want. At the end of the day, we need to let Rich and Charlie do what has worked for over 50 seasons. I'm here till the end. But, some may not be if we aren't careful with the changes.

[James-Eagles]

[

James - I really think you just don't want roster management to matter, which is fine, but just say that rather than pretend that to do so means we would have to do ridiculous things like require a 280 person draft pool that includes dozens of players not good enough to make the league. Nobody suggested this. (The irony is our draft pools already contain dozens of players not good enough to make the league, and after the draft they make it into free agency where we get to sift thru them season after season after season.)

I would like roster management to matter. I think there are ways to do that. It needs to be simple and allow freedom but still be fun. Trying to mimic NFL numbers decreases freedom and fun. We don't make the same choices as NFL GMs so our numbers don't match.

The first problem I have with almost all of these threads is people focus on one aspect that pushes their narrative and ignores anything that doesn't fit. Mitch keeps focusing on one season's data that pushes a narrative to get rid of older players because he wants a bigger spread of players. (I want this, too.) Even when you look at 30 years of data, we are near spot on.

The second problem is we pull numbers without fully understanding. (why the league is older player )

1. Because rookies are weaker, but this is a good thing. We want to create more of a spread; it is a necessary evil. This is because it is only fair to allow teams to run older rosters to offset weaker classes.

2. We only compare season to season, which has too few data points. When we compare to about 30 years of data, we are about right on. To change stuff would actually make us less NFL-like.

3. The NFL grinds through young players because of the high-risk/high-reward thing in the NFL. I even proposed a system that would be a way to have an inform system to mimic this.

If you are going to fix something, you need to understand the problem. Too many times we say, "Let's do this," but we don't ever look at ripple effects or the causes of the problem. Yes, aging is a great idea. If we are going to discuss this, we need to look at the full picture. Yes, aging, retirement, and roster management are all tied together.

[James-Eagles]

I'm all for some roster management as everyone knows, but in my opinion the more we make of it, the larger the gap in teams and the worse for the league. There is no money invested in teams here. Owners tune out when they have no chance and do things like dump rosters. The health of the league would seem to favor having things close enough for anyone to win at some level in my opinion.

I will say this again as well. I think the players should be spread more and 1 or 2 points in key attributes absolutely affects game play. but those who think it should be big are again affecting the health of the league I think. In my opinion, other than QB and a rare one of two other position players, NFL players while having different characteristics are mostly the same in the big scheme of things.

The more competitive the league, the better. It's about fun and 18 having fun is more important.

100% this.

I think people forget NFL players are very close in athletic ability. In a lot of ways it comes down to coach, environment, and work effort. Yes, there are "unicorns." There are 11,305 D-1 scholarship athletes. About 150 rookies make the field. Only about 1.3% make the NFL their first season, and over half are gone before their first contract is up. D-1 athletes are already elite top athletes, and only the top 1% of those play in the NFL. The difference between playing and not is rarely athletic ability.

[Brian-Broncos]

If you are going to fix something, you need to understand the problem.

Dude. It's not complicated, like, at all. To have 781 players in the free agent pool is so fundamentally broken that it's maddening - and that's after the purge (best I can tell). It breaks the draft, trades, point system, and roster management in general. And I get it, I'm relatively new and don't expect my ideas to be taken very seriously. (I'd be more okay with that if things weren't so broken.) So, I just throw my ideas out there to see if one catches on or someone decides to run with it. And I completely sympathize with the coaches that are tired of nonstop changes. However, these are really basic, fundamental things that are completely broken: free agent pool, lack of aging, and hail mary's in non-hail mary situations. Sounds like some consider the lack of a salary cap as one as well, but points are close-ish at least, and I think would even become meaningful if the free agent pool were ever fixed. But, what do I know? Maybe you all found that making even a hint of roster management part of the game, even with the super small range of player ratings, breaks the entire parity of the game. I doubt that's the case, but if so: 1. I'd argue that's no different than coaches having to learn to game plan better to be competitive (and maybe Rich would enjoy giving advice?) 2. That doesn't excuse the hail mary's.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

If you are going to fix something, you need to understand the problem.

Dude. It's not complicated, like, at all. To have 781 players in the free agent pool is so fundamentally broken that it's maddening - and that's after the purge (best I can tell). It breaks the draft, trades, point system, and roster management in general. And I get it, I'm relatively new and don't expect my ideas to be taken very seriously. (I'd be more okay with that if things weren't so broken.) So, I just throw my ideas out there to see if one catches on or someone decides to run with it. And I completely sympathize with the coaches that are tired of nonstop changes. However, these are really basic, fundamental things that are completely broken: free agent pool, lack of aging, and hail mary's in non-hail mary situations. Sounds like some consider the lack of a salary cap as one as well, but points are close-ish at least, and I think would even become meaningful if the free agent pool were ever fixed. But, what do I know? Maybe you all found that making even a hint of roster management part of the game, even with the super small range of player ratings, breaks the entire parity of the game. I doubt that's the case, but if so: 1. I'd argue that's no different than coaches having to learn to game plan better to be competitive (and maybe Rich would enjoy giving advice?) 2. That doesn't excuse the hail mary's.

You better be careful, you might get accused of sounding like me. LOL!

I spoken my mind about a lot of these issues for years.

There is a fear that if all these things are done and there is noticeable diversity in player ratings, the poor decisions many coaches make in managing their rosters year after year will be more amplified and cause them to be even less competitive. If they are even less competitive, there's a stronger possibility of them quitting the league.

I agree with you on the draft too. I think it is loaded.

[James-Eagles]

If you are going to fix something, you need to understand the problem.

Dude. It's not complicated, like, at all. To have 781 players in the free agent pool is so fundamentally broken that it's maddening - and that's after the purge (best I can tell). It breaks the draft, trades, point system, and roster management in general. And I get it, I'm relatively new and don't expect my ideas to be taken very seriously. (I'd be more okay with that if things weren't so broken.) So, I just throw my ideas out there to see if one catches on or someone decides to run with it. And I completely sympathize with the coaches that are tired of nonstop changes. However, these are really basic, fundamental things that are completely broken: free agent pool, lack of aging, and hail mary's in non-hail mary situations. Sounds like some consider the lack of a salary cap as one as well, but points are close-ish at least, and I think would even become meaningful if the free agent pool were ever fixed. But, what do I know? Maybe you all found that making even a hint of roster management part of the game, even with the super small range of player ratings, breaks the entire parity of the game. I doubt that's the case, but if so: 1. I'd argue that's no different than coaches having to learn to game plan better to be competitive (and maybe Rich would enjoy giving advice?) 2. That doesn't excuse the hail mary's.

It is also never that simple; everything is interconnected.

1. Free agent pool will never be fixed until we can have a system where the player can refuse a contract or hold out. Caps don't work. Even with a hard cap, we will just cut the bottom 10-20% of the roster. The reality is the NFL cap doesn't really work either. Teams just move money around. In the list of top 100 free agent signings, number 14 was a punter, and 5 of the players above that signed with their original team. Heck, Of the top 5 3 signed with the original team. The other 2 missed a ton of action the previous season due to injury. NFL Free Agency really isn't a thing either.

2. Aging is neat in concept, but honestly most of us like the idea and don't want to deal with the headache. Aging is very complicated. Players don't age the same, and if you hit physicals, do you boost mentals? Does the game even use mentals that way, or does it use physicals as a hybrid of physicals and instinct? We don't really know. We project what we believe, but we have no idea. If you think we do. I have an example that shows how little we do know. Retiring had many guides back in the day. I one year systematically test retirement. They were all wrong; some only had a couple of things wrong, but none were 100% right.

3. One razzle-dazzle pass is just a Hail Mary. NFL teams do go that deep on non-Hail Mary situations. The other thing is I think what makes this league great is we don't always have to follow the NFL pattern. Nothing that is too broken or outside the box, given we sim games.

What I have noticed is most people have what they believe to be true stuck in their head. They accept anything that ages with it and disregard anything that doesn't. There actually have been studies that show this. It is part of being human, so even something that is clearly factual will not be to everyone.