Crazy? Idea

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I think we need to keep the system we have without making much of a change. Let's say we implement the 5 restructures allowed rule I suggested. This is the impact on the league if implemented today:

IND (no impact), JAX (would cut 2), NE (would cut 9), NYJ (would cut 4), DEN (would cut 9), HOU (would cut 1), LA (would cut 6), LVR (would cut 5), PIT (would cut 6), ATL (would cut 4), NYG (would cut 12), PHI (no impact), WASH (would cut 4), CHI (would cut 4), GB (no impact), MIN (no impact), SEA (would cut 12), SF (would cut 2)

That's about 74 players going into FA. Yes there would be bidding wars for some of those players.

We'd obviously implement it for next offseason simply because some coaches were ready and others weren't.

Contracts run out at different times. There are going to be seasons where you will have to cut a good player.

[James-Eagles]

I disagree

I think we need to keep the system we have without making much of a change. Let's say we implement the 5 restructures allowed rule I suggested. This is the impact on the league if implemented today:

IND (no impact), JAX (would cut 2), NE (would cut 9), NYJ (would cut 4), DEN (would cut 9), HOU (would cut 1), LA (would cut 6), LVR (would cut 5), PIT (would cut 6), ATL (would cut 4), NYG (would cut 12), PHI (no impact), WASH (would cut 4), CHI (would cut 4), GB (no impact), MIN (no impact), SEA (would cut 12), SF (would cut 2)

That's about 74 players going into FA. Yes there would be bidding wars for some of those players.

We'd obviously implement it for next offseason simply because some coaches were ready and others weren't.

Contracts run out at different times. There are going to be seasons where you will have to cut a good player.

Too easy to abuse too complicated for inexperience GM.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Let's assume we implemented the 5 Restructures limit today. This is one possible impact on the currently unsigned players on my team.

QB Prescott 14 (CUT)
HB Sanders 12 (XT)
T Bolles 12 (CUT)
T Garcia 12 (CUT)
LB Brown 12 (XF)
WR Wilson 10 (CUT)
CB Crawford 9 (RESTRUCTURE)
QB Herbert 7 (RESTRUCTURE))
LB Quarterman 7 (RESTRUCTURE)
WR Moore 5 (RESTRUCTURE)
HB Herbert 4 (XR)
S Gillespie 4 (RESTRUCTURE)
S Williams 4 (XR)
K Yepremian 3 (CUT)
P Cunningham 3 (CUT)

Special teams would be obvious cuts. I have too many QBs and would rather go young, so Dak gets to test Free Agency. Choosing who gets the XF and XT tag not so easy. Had to choose between veteran LB, HB and my T1 and T2. XRs became obvious because there is no way I ever put Gillespie at risk.

Yeah, some coaches would do it differently, but the point is had to make hard decisions and the tags and number of aged players kind of forced me to go a certain way too. Throw in the results of physicals and this whole picture likely changes some.

But using the example, I'd be cutting QB Prescott, T Bolles, T Garcia, WR Wilson, K Yepremian, P Cunningham --- I'd have to be prepared to not only make bids for these players if I want to bring them back, but I'd also have to be ready to match bids for two very talented XRs.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Implementing a 5 restructure limit is not complicated and it can't be abused. Hell, if you wanted to make it complicated, Rich could change the limit every season, but if we leave at a simple number - say 5 - quite simple. And if a coach is so inexperienced at GM they'll learn like everyone else does by making mistakes.

[James-Eagles]

Implementing a 5 restructure limit is not complicated and it can't be abused. Hell, if you wanted to make it complicated, Rich could change the limit every season, but if we leave at a simple number - say 5 - quite simple. And if a coach is so inexperienced at GM they'll learn like everyone else does by making mistakes.

It is more complex than our current system. People already have enough issuse with the current system. This would add more to it so more complex. Also it doesn't really improve free agent market much because you are still dealing with the bottom of the roster. I appreciate what you trying to do but you are adding more work and nothing really gained. It benefits the better GMs and coaches but hurts the bottom teams. Seriously anything you come up with is more complex by definition.

A good GM will never lose a player to this system while a bad GM will be dealing with a mess. This system will do exactly what I said before there will be only 3-4 teams up for super Bowls and may be 9 teams in the Playoffs. THe bottom 9 teams I say 4-5 will be a complete and total mess. I won't name names but I can point to 2-3 teams right, now that will be messes for season under this system. I am sure you can point to 2 right now at least.

[James-Eagles]

Contracts run out at different times. There are going to be seasons where you will have to cut a good player.

This is completely false. You control when contracts end so you can set it up so that only 9 contracts end each season. There is no way if you know what you are doing that a good player will be cut. If you lose a good player you are a bad GM. Even if you are cutting 6 players you aren't cutting any starter unless they are about to retire.

I understand what you are trying to do but we are all way to smart to lose good player to any system that doesn't force it so isn't going to happen. I promise I will lose no one to any of your creative system unless its a cap or destroys all other teams.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I'm done with this discussion. This league is just fucked. LOL

[James-Eagles]

As a math person let me break it down a little.
If you keep all your picks you should have 22 players under contract at the beginning of the season
8 players from tags

That means you have 30 people and only spending 6-10 points a year

That means you have 23 people unsigned so if you do 4 restructures a season use 5 year contract only and cut 3

4 5 year contract at 9 points per is 36

So now you have spent 42-46 points and have 50 players on your roster plus your draft final 3 spots are your first 3 round picks . That means you have 7-11 points plus 4 draft picks to fill out your practice squad. That means you would have 1 restructure left. COme on guys this isn't rocket science there is no reason you should ever have to cut anyone but the inactive roster players.

[Justin-Chicago]

Does anyone have an appetite to have hidden POTS for each draft class.
Where the only person who knows is me.
All players will show 99 potentials in all attributes.
After the draft, I unhide the real potentials.
This would add some randomness and spice to the draft for sure.
It's not like the NFL knows every players ceiling.
Just curious because it's very easy and doable.

In regards to Rich's original question I'll just say I'm intrigued by the idea but think any implementation would have to be done gradually over several seasons. Start with masking DI POT only the first season, then IN and DI POTs the next season, and so on. Maybe the key ratings POTs never get masked. I am not the get off my lawn guy but I'll remind you to never cut off more than 1/3 of the blade at once.

As far as all the other GM ideas there are many valid concepts. But this has always been a coaches league, that's what brought us all here. I tend to think the system as we have it is adequate, constant conversation around overhaul leads us in many different directions.

At this point if we were to make a slight adjustment to one thing I think the points allotment each season is a little too high, it could be reduced for the playoff teams if not everyone.

[Mitch-Oilers]

We are 5 pages into this thread and I'm asking myself, "What is the reason we are wanting to change the system?" I feel like Biden, I can't remember.

Anyway...

If we don't eventually move to using a SalCap utility, then I really like Barney's idea. That said, I'm not sure how we could fully do away with a point system for bidding on FAs.

Here's a thought:

- Teams cut to 53 players at the end of the season (pre-button)
- Teams cut to 40 players (possibly higher) after physicals
- Teams use allocated points to bid on available FAs prior to the draft
- League draft with continued FA point bidding
- Teams must be at a min of 53 player after draft and prior to training camp (more with practice squad)
- Training Camp
- Start season with continued FA point bidding (no ZERO point bids)

I don't know if 40 is the right number, but I think more than 46 would be create enough "tough" decisions for GMs.

Again, just a thought... If we change nothing, I'm cool...