PNFL

1. The radical change in physicals. I can see some adjustment, but this was very heavy-handed.

I think this is a major overreach, and while other changes are working. At least for me, this takes a majority of the fun from the league. While I get the motivation, I think there is a failure to understand what is going on here. Most players will be purged out, cut, or roll transfered to another player before they get to the 10+ range. This means you are talking about players who are at the top of their game, like Moss (17 seasons), which has a 0.03% chance of happening, and there are multiple players that play that long in each generation. There is a DE in the NFL this last season who had 18 seasons played. The current system was working, but now it is broken.

2. The switch from the Free Agent purge from the 63-man rosters to the 53-man roster.

This is completely anti-NFL. Players who have no plans of being resigned by their current team, which wouldn't make the end of season 53-man roster, normally sign with other teams. This is normal. The adjustment goes completely against what I suggested. The huge difference between who makes a 63-man roster during the season is about talent, but who makes a 53-man roster at the end of the season is about signability. If you want to make it tougher, lower the year and keep it so the player is safe if he is on the 63-man roster at the end of week 16. Drop it down to 4+, but keep it at 63. (After a rookie contract, not making a team out of the league)

I know Charlie and Rich are trying to do what is best for this league, and I generally trust them. But none of the above changes were discussed, and both original rules were proposed by me and now have been warped in a way I wouldn't support them. One of the best things about this league is we discuss things. Neither of these changes was discussed, and they were just spoken from up high.

I understand wanting to get talent out of the league, but the above is way too heavy-handed. I think there is way too much overreach. I have serious concerns about the direction of this league. Especially over the last few years of the new trend of commissioners rewriting rules. One reason this league works is there's a lot of input from all people in the league. Because 19 minds are better than 1.

I will be honest, this is personal for me because these were my ideas, which were completely destroyed by radical changes. I hate to see a league I have put a lot of time and thought into destroyed by shortsightedness.

I will say finally both these changes are, in my opinion, bad for the league, and the way things are going is even worse.

I feel my track record has proven that I am not far off on how this stuff goes. YouTube games, Discord, Purge, and physicals all originated with me. What do all of these things have in common? They are about increasing the fun while decreasing the work and time. This is how you keep niche hobbies alive. When you increase frustration and the time you destroy the hobby; that is what the above changes do.

I understand your concerns, but I disagree.

I believe the adjustments to the physicals make sense. We can argue a percentage point here or there, but when you look at the numbers the PNFL has far more players on active rosters with 10+ years experience than in the NFL. There are 140 players on PNFL rosters current with 10+ years of experience vs just 105 players in the NFL. Remember, we only have 18 teams vs 32 teams. The number of players in the PNFL are roughly 55% of the total number of players in the NFL. TO break it down further, there are 35 players in the NFL with 13+ years experience with 23 players with 13+ years experience in the PNFL. Again, based on the total number of players in the league, the PNFL has a much higher percentage of 13+ year players than the NFL.

Yes, there are the rare players that have extreme longevity in the NFL, just as there are and will be in the PNFL. However, it is not the norm.

As far as players being purged after the cut to the 53-man roster, my understanding is that players who retire after the button push stay retired and players are over a specific years experience are cut in order to keep the FA pool more realistic. I might misunderstand your point, but it seems like we are on the right track.

The first question we should ask is why is that?

I say the biggest reason is something, Mitch, you suggested yourself. We nerfed the draft pool, which I agree with. The rookie of the year was a kicker because we don't have rookies playing considerable minutes in the PNFL because the talent in the draft class is so below the vets because we have been nerfing the draft pools. Why don't we talk about the percentage of rookies starting in the PNFL vs. the NFL? This is a problem that most likely with the purge and the slow retiring of older players would have fixed itself with time. The systems were designed to do this over time. But it won't reach an equilibrium until a few years after the draft pool hits the bottom. This is trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer; you might kill it, but you now have a hole in your wall.

The other issue is transferring rolls. Yes, removing transfers would increase the number of year 10 and 11 players but would decrease the number of older players.

Let's take Moss for example. Right now, the current league for Moss to play 17 seasons has 0.03%. That means in every 10,000 WR, 3 would make it to 17.

The old system Moss would be .4%, so 4 in 1000, which is about where you are when you consider what percent of players retire before they get to year 9. If anything, that number is still too low.

The reason we have those numbers has nothing to do with the original physical system. It has a lot to do with the league's choices as owner and trying to fix the attribute creep in this league.

As far as age, you are only looking at one aspect of it. We all know you want to get the older talent out of the league to increase the talent range of the league. But the reality is our rosters are too young compared to NFL teams. Before physicals, so no rookies to bring the rosters down. The oldest is Chicago 6.83, or 28 and 10 months, to Atlanta 4.34, or 26 and 4 months. NFL at the start of last year: Washington at 28 and 7 months and Green Bay with 26 and 3 months. It seems right on until you realize NFL numbers include rookies vs. PNFL rosters, which don't.

How many NFL teams have 10 starters retire in one season off their roster? Heck, how many have 4 retire in one season? They don't. Another way the PNFL isn't like the NFL is because of these changes.

Mitch I do get what you are saying, but what I am pointing out is this: fix one number but mess up a bunch more. That is why I designed a system that took that into account. When you combine the purge and the physical, it works perfectly with the nerfing of the draft classes to get the end result you want. But you see one chip of paint on the wall and take a sledgehammer to it when it was scheduled to be repainted in a year or two. Yes, the chip is gone, but now the room is a bit chilly in winter.



The other point is there are rules being put into place without discussion. And no offense to Rich and Charlie, but you aren't perfect; that is why discussion matters. I have suggested rules that might be considered bad. That is why we discuss things as a league. Rich likes to point out they know what they are doing because the league has lasted so long. I ask you this: if you were trying to juggle the in-game retirement system with no YouTube games or Friday Night Lights on Discord, how would this league be doing right now? Rich and Charlie do an amazing job, but they aren't the only reason the league is still around. It is all of us. That is why it is better to discuss these things as a league.


TLDR. Need more league discussion before changes and stop fixing symptoms and focus on core reasons of problems.

If you think these draft classes are nerfed, you would have loved what I actually suggested to Charlie a few seasons ago. Ha!

Yes, if our classes weren't nerfed, I would have 5-7 top 15 CBs in the league. I don't because when I started drafting my team was when we started the nerf. You can even look at the young CBs on my roster; they are slightly weaker than the previous year. If your issue is the draft, talk to Charlie; don't nerf vets because you are frustrated with how slow the draft nerf is going. Getting there right is better than getting there quick.
According to AI
"NFL

About 150 drafted rookies start at least once during an NFL season, which is roughly 50% of all drafted rookies. This number has remained consistent over recent years, with approximately 40 rookies starting in Week 1 of the regular season, averaging about one to two per team.

2024: 33 Week 1 starters
2023: 38 Week 1 starters
2022: 42 Week 1 starters
2021: 47 Week 1 starters
This trend suggests that while most rookies don’t start immediately, a significant number—especially first- and second-round picks—earn starting roles early in their careers. Undrafted free agents (UDFAs) also contribute, with 15.2% of 2024 starters being UDFAs, a figure greater than any single experience level. "

"If your issue is the draft, talk to Charlie; don't nerf vets because you are frustrated with how slow the draft nerf is going. Getting there right is better than getting there quick."

I did share my concerns about the draft pool... about 15 seasons ago. ha! I've had no part of all this FA stuff.

For additional insight...

The NFL has 35 players with 13 or more years of experience on end of season rosters, including IR.

Of those 35 players:

12 - Ps, Ks and Long Snappers
9 - QBs (Philip Rivers, Aaron Rogers and Joe Flacco being the only QBs with 17+ years experience, Matt Stafford being the only full-time starter on the remaining list)
5 - LBs (None over 14 years experience)
3 - Gs (None over 13 years experience)
3 - DEs (Calais Campbell at 17 yrs)
1 - T
1 - DT
1 - S

0 - WRs, CBs, HBs, Cs, TEs, FBs

Exactly what I was speaking out against. We are overreacting to what we see as a problem.

1. I agree we need to weaken the draft classes to create a large gap between starters and bench players. The problem I am point out is this created temperory problem that now. Rich appears hard-set to fix it when it would fix itself with time.

2. 63 vs. 53 needs to be fixed because while the 63-man roster thing is based on player talent, the 53-man roster isn't so flawed a system.

3. Knee-jerk rule changes need to be stopped. Let systems work and do what they were designed to do. Things take time.

The thing is if this is the mindset we going to have lets retire anyone 9+ at the end of the year and next year point total should be 25. We both know that is nuts; well, that is basically what is being done to these systems. The thing when you rush things is you create more problems. Let the systems work; the purge is only in its second season, and already we have to destroy it to make it work faster. The physical system is working. It is allowing teams to decide how to build their teams. As I pointed out, yes, we have some older players, but the age of our rosters is a little younger than the NFL. We don't need to do mass retiring of players. It isn't really a problem. So let's kill fun to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Mitch-Dolphins wrote:For additional insight...

The NFL has 35 players with 13 or more years of experience on end of season rosters, including IR.

Of those 35 players:

12 - Ps, Ks and Long Snappers
9 - QBs (Philip Rivers, Aaron Rogers and Joe Flacco being the only QBs with 17+ years experience, Matt Stafford being the only full-time starter on the remaining list)
5 - LBs (None over 14 years experience)
3 - Gs (None over 13 years experience)
3 - DEs (Calais Campbell at 17 yrs)
1 - T
1 - DT
1 - S

0 - WRs, CBs, HBs, Cs, TEs, FBs

One season snap shot also information is wrong
WR DeAndre Hopkins 13 season
TE Marcedes Lewis 20 seasons
G Kevin Zeitler 14 seasons
FB Kyle Juszczyk 13 seasons
HB Raheem Mostert only has 11 seasons

We both can count a handful of guys from memory that played 15 or more season at WR Moss, Rice, Fitzgerald, Harrison, Owens, Bruce etc. I didn't even have to look it up. 1 or 2 might have 13 or 14 years, but it is more common than you are pretending it to be. Yes, it isn't every year that there is a WR above 13 or 15, but it does happen more than you are pretending it does. The new system makes it near impossible. The old system was working with a few outliers, so response lets make it destroy it. Honestly, it looks like the new percentages don't understand how probability works because to reach year 20 after making it to 15, which happens, is a 0.00015%. That is 1 in 666,667. That is completely wrong and not anything NFL-like.

I want to point this is a game. If I was going to error one direction it would be more players playing longer than less. THe new systems would make it a lot less.