Anti-Aging - Food for Thought
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:04 pm
Anti-Aging was addressed many seasons ago. Most of the coaches agreed that there are occasionally players in the NFL that exceeds reasonable longevity at their respective positions, most notably the Kickers, Punters, and Quarterbacks. However, every now and then you will also see a Halfback, Wide Receiver, Cornerback or Safety that keeps coming back until the team trades him rather than pay him an exorbitant salary, and he plays a year or two more.
In this regard, I believe that we have already addresses this successfully, maybe too successfully, as we have a lot of elderly statesmen in the League. If you get top-heavy with elderly, but good vets, it is going to bite you in the butt when they all reach retirement age and you need to pay the piper to Anti-Age them. Even the coaches that stockpile points will run out eventually.
So as not to get too heavy in the League with vets, I was, maybe actually did, suggest that coaches could only Anti-Age one player on each side of the ball each year. Maybe the right number is two on each side of the ball, or three in total, but not all three can be offense or defense. This would serve two purposes; a team could not get too heavily weighted in vets, and there would make for trading opportunities where a good vet could be preserved by another team in a trade.
Anti-Aging serves a good purpose, but too much of a good thing might also be not good. I got rid of HB Carlos Hyde for a couple of reasons, but his retention of attributes after the button still has him in the top 20 HBs in the League. Hyde is a great example of the rare anomaly in the NFL. On the flip side, I also cut DE Clowney, and he got hammered without Anti-Aging.
In brief, I think that we could change the existing Anti-Aging provisions at the end of the next season in line with what I have suggested above for the above reasons. What I do not want to see are teams with half their rosters with 10-year plus players. Even after my vet cuts, I still have four players at 10-years and another five at 9-years, and three more at 8-years. Not sure what the right number might be, but that is a lot of guys for me to consider Anti-Aging after this season.
Anti-Aging Comments only
In this regard, I believe that we have already addresses this successfully, maybe too successfully, as we have a lot of elderly statesmen in the League. If you get top-heavy with elderly, but good vets, it is going to bite you in the butt when they all reach retirement age and you need to pay the piper to Anti-Age them. Even the coaches that stockpile points will run out eventually.
So as not to get too heavy in the League with vets, I was, maybe actually did, suggest that coaches could only Anti-Age one player on each side of the ball each year. Maybe the right number is two on each side of the ball, or three in total, but not all three can be offense or defense. This would serve two purposes; a team could not get too heavily weighted in vets, and there would make for trading opportunities where a good vet could be preserved by another team in a trade.
Anti-Aging serves a good purpose, but too much of a good thing might also be not good. I got rid of HB Carlos Hyde for a couple of reasons, but his retention of attributes after the button still has him in the top 20 HBs in the League. Hyde is a great example of the rare anomaly in the NFL. On the flip side, I also cut DE Clowney, and he got hammered without Anti-Aging.
In brief, I think that we could change the existing Anti-Aging provisions at the end of the next season in line with what I have suggested above for the above reasons. What I do not want to see are teams with half their rosters with 10-year plus players. Even after my vet cuts, I still have four players at 10-years and another five at 9-years, and three more at 8-years. Not sure what the right number might be, but that is a lot of guys for me to consider Anti-Aging after this season.
Anti-Aging Comments only