Food for Thought

[Dean-Atlanta]

A simple idea on custom plays...

Keep the four plays per week rule (4 each offense, defense, and special)

Allow four other plays on offense and defense and special to be fixed or edited per week if they can be improved, or just for personnel change from week to week on special.

Change the off-season new plays limit to minimum required in a game plan (let's us develop a new gam plan in the off-season which is realistic) with unlimited fixes of our own plays

Overall limit to 3 times minimum needed in gam eplan if the play files get too congested with plays, which is not unlikely since most GMs don't submit new plays

Allow old plays submitted by previous teams (such as WA, AF, PS, TT for me) to be revised and changed to new team, meaning making them KC plays for me. This should be done in off-season too.

base review of plays on screening out AI busters and unrealistic plays (ridiculously unrealistic plays like those rollout timed passes we banned)

eliminate the fetish over so-called clones

one play design issue: loosen up the "zone" rules on passing as Steve did in XFBS, they are too restrictive and unrealistic. Granted some of the JJ passes were deep passes saved as short pass plays, but we went too far in restricting the passing game.

Maybe raising QB DI by 2-4 points actual and potential might be good?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Regarding this point by Mitch, he's spot on correct:

Trading and the draft, in my opinion, do not carry as much weight for me because there isn't enough differentiation between players. I can rank the players and someone will always be ranked higher. However, the vast majority of players are all 95% of max ratings. The draft pool contains a majority of players 92% or higher of max ratings. Yes, a player might technically be ranked higher than another player. However, it's like we play in a league made of all superstar and elite players. Sure, I can trade Bird for Barkely and Bird is likely rated better. However, is it that much of a fall off?

Let's look at WR ratings for instance:

current change to
==========================================================
SP 70-84 56-84 (doubles the range making for more variety of ratings)
AC 70-86 54-86
AG 70-91 49-91
ST 45-66 45-87 (ST is bit low,double it other way)
HA 70-96 44-96
EN 50-91 70-91 (doubling too much)
IN 55-96 40-99
DI 55-96 40-99

If one rating should have narrow range it's speed. Training doesn't change a 5.5 player in high school to 4.3 in college.

Maybe 4 points maxx range in speed. Wide ranges n the rest. Maybe 80-84 SP for WRs, etc.

[Dean-Atlanta]

How about we keep auto AA as it is today, but discontinue non-auto AA?

This is a great idea and it would be easy to have a simple vote on this.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Charlie, correct me if I am wrong, because I did it with the move to Washington, but I think you own your created plays in my opinion. I looked at the database and removed all DL plays no one really used or where actually effective. I tweaked and added WR ones. There is no reason to duplicate plays for the sake of the first two characters in the play name. Rename them or delete and do a new tweaked version. No reason to clutter the play files. I think it is polite if doing a mass change like I did to let people know it is happening and not just delete or rename a high successful play

The amount to allow to turn in is a Charlie call 100%. He does all the work.

We have hashed out the pass zone rules too many times. They essentially are a way to place them in a category only and you call what you want. If the first WR checked is running a go route it is a go. It is not a short pass. Just built it that way, call it PM and call it in the profile. The current rules do not restrict clearing out zones or running off players in read. Call the play what it is and profile it that way.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - I believe you missed part of my point in regards to differentiation of player ratings. Our current ratings scale is fine in my opinion. However, we do not have any players with a rating in the bottom half of the scale.

[James-Eagles]

I got a middle ground on the AA thing.

1. Automatic works AA
Keep auto AA as it is now I think we could
Convert Franchise and Transitional tags to AA tags
Allow each week gambling winner to get a AA tag.


Free AA
same rolls as retirement

This allows for a Brady but allows for their to be a drop off too.

I would still suggest +2 QB,K years and +1 LB but that is just me.

[James-Eagles]

I am not worries as much about player ratings. I think Trading would happen more if their wasn't a cap. Especially with older teams and picks.

[James-Eagles]

Free AA
same rolls as retirement

Had a random thought after posting. Roll until successful. -2 EN for each failed roll

[Dean-Atlanta]

OK...I'm going to re-test all my stuff and either suggest deletions for ineffective plays (just among my stuff, AF, TT, PS, and KC), renaming of the effective ones to KC something, etc.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think my rant may have went too far in a respect. Things have gone quiet on Rich's question. My only goal was to not be discussing every aspect of every rule too much every off season. Rich brings up a valid point. Has the $$ cap restricted trading and created more complexity to the detriment of the league for current owners and recruiting others. After looking things and having some discussions, I believe I was wrong in my initial support of the $$Cap we implemented and have to agree that it is more likely adding less fun than more and creating negative issues potentially. What are others thoughts on the $$Cap and its implications? I now see the value in less complexity and the impact on other aspects of managing a team. I now believe while we all like some management and building the team, too much distracts from fun. It also may discourage new owners as it builds a higher wall to get over in learning the rules. At this point, I think we should probably go back to the points rules which already exist that allows the way to manage FA and other aspects. They are simple and they worked for over 20 seasons before the cap Less is likely more in this case.