2036 Season Questions

[Mitch-Oilers]

I've taken some time to think about these questions and I've decided that we should most leave things as is for now. As I look at my roster and the decisions I'll have to make this offseason, I'll have to decide on whether to spend my points on AAing top players and giving extended contracts. That will eat into my point farely quickly if I do that with 4 or 5 players. Not to mention, if I'm playing in the AA space with a lot of players, the likelyhood that I'll need to spend point on UR is a high possibility as well.

The only changes I propose to the current is are as follows:

1) raise AA to 5 pts - makes my decisions even tougher on who to gamble on. Also, trading for points becomes even more important if I prefer to keep a veteran roster versus extra draft picks.

[Mitch-Oilers]

My post looks strange because I only posted one change recommendation and it looks like I meant to ha e multiple recommendations. I decided against my 2nd recommendation while typing. It sounded silly once I typed it out.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think some are overlooking the interaction of things as far as players and experience. The PNFL does have a few more 7+ experienced players then the actual NFL on avg. Two seasons ago we implemented a new cap and increased the anti aging cost by 50 %. The commish also had started changing the talent spread via the draft. Rich did not set the cap too low to let things settle in. People need to give it all time to work together I think. I believe the talent level is driving what players people think are worth the higher salary and the point cost. The cap is already starting to have an impact. There will be more big player cuts this season. This should also drive more decisions as we move forward for teams to control their cap position. Just like in the NFL, if a team can get similar results with a cheaper player they do it. Now this can be an older player in the NFL who will accept a lower salary. In the PNFL, this will not happen as the talent level drives the cap number. This means as the talent bell curve changes with less studs, younger players will be closer to older ones for a larger % of the roster. This will cause lower salary guys to be kept instead in order to hold onto the true studs whose price will continue to be large and have cap implications. This is an opinion I believe will be validated if we give it time to work out as I think all of it hasn't finishing settling in yet. Especially the player talent component.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

I think we should leave everything as it is as far as all of this...the only change I would like to see made is in the draft pools. I would like to see fewer studs, fewer good players, and widen the gaps between them. Many years ago I thought the small differences played a bigger role than I believe they do now. At the end of the day, you have a WR with 95 HA, and one with 91 HA...what is that really? Both are going to catch the ball almost exactly the same. The same can be said about many of the attributes with small differences. But if a 84 spd wr becomes hard to come by, and the rest of your WRs are 80 and below, then you might think really hard about trading for one.

It’s just some things I believe I have noticed roster building wise by playing in the USAFL, which is a total sim only league. It’s almost 100% roster building. After many many years watching those get simmed, I simply don’t believe the differences we have here are worth working out trades over...but I wish they were.

Our league is almost 100% game planning/coaching. Rich could take the worst team and go 15-1 and we all know this. If we ever want to make roster building super important here, we should make the players much less similar to eachother. It will take time over many drafts and retirements of course. But for the time being, this league is truly almost ONLY about coaching your team, which is fun too. I don’t mind the extra salary stuff either, so I would say don’t change it.