NFL retirement numbers

[Brian-Broncos]

I don't think realism is something we should try to match. When I look at something, it really is about whether it adds more fun to the hobby vs. how much work and frustration it adds.

I want realism where it makes sense without detracting from the game (i.e. doesn't just add work and have no real benefit) or when something is so unrealistic that it itself detracts from the game.

Aging players:
To me, not aging players fits the latter. It's so completely backwards from reality that it takes away from the game just by the oddity of it. More importantly, it completely de-emphasizes the draft and young players. I took a CB with the 5th pick of the draft last year and he was my 6th best ranked corner, though I played him 5. That is nonsensical.

NFL player arc (draft, aging, retirement):
I brought up we could try to mimic the entire NFL player arc, but that would take a lot of work to get right and would make rounds 5-7 of the draft completely useless. That would be awful. Don't do that.

Retirement:
Getting players to retire at about the same proportion by age as the NFL would add realism, is logical, and doesn't really add any additional work. It makes no sense to me to not do this, though this should work in conjunction with aging, so should be added at the same time.

Free agency:
This one drives me absolutely bonkers. We currently have 299 Walmart workers in our Free Agent pool. Many of them are good enough to plug into a roster spot and take the field. Nothing detracts more from our league than that. It de-emphasizes the draft, young players, free agency, points, trading, and roster management in general. The '46 draft pool was a little weak in the later rounds. A big reason it seemed that way was that there were Walmart cashiers available in several positions that were as good or better than the players available half-way thru the draft. That is insane. The draft pool wasn't the problem, the free agent pool was. I'm guessing there were complaints because the '47 draft pool, and this season's, seem excessively strong. I get it - we need decent players in rounds 5-7, otherwise why have those rounds?? But how exactly are we spreading the range of ratings if those players need to be better than the 299 sitting available in free agency? So, lets make it realistic and follow the NFL here. Why? Because we already know it works. There is a reason they have a 7-round draft. They found it makes the most sense for the quantity of quality players available. Players not drafted or signed as UFAs are done, they go work in other careers. So lets do that. 10 players per team make it into the league at draft time and the rest of the pool gets purged immediately. Each season, like the NFL, the same number of players entering the league either retire or don't get signed. They get purged - immediately at the end of the season, before roster cutdown. (If an owner thinks a player is good enough to have on their PS, then they'd possibly feel the same way next year.) There is absolutely zero reason to not do this. It has zero impact besides making it easier on us to sift thru the free agent pool and to decide if a player is worth drafting, and increases the value of the draft, young players, free agency, points, trading, and roster management in general.

One hiccup to work thru is that maybe would need to be worked thru is that, in general, points have been pretty meaningless until now. So, making them suddenly meaningful (due to limited free agent supply) may not be agreeable to everyone since it could be looked at as rewarding teams that collected points when they were less meaningful. (Yes, I griped when I joined the league because I had an extremely high percentage of my roster to sign and had very few points. But, even then, I only lost one or two players, and I just really had to watch how I spent points for a couple of seasons. I'm still low on points, comparatively, because of that.)

[Brian-Broncos]

Thinking on it, maybe the remainder of the draft class is kept as potential practice squad?? I'll have to figure out how this plays out in the NFL so the size of our free agent pool wouldn't rise indefinitely. Mimic what works.

[James-Eagles]

While I get what you are saying, artificially trying to meet the NFL numbers, which are always changing, isn't realistic. Also, part of what makes this fun is we get to make different choices than NFL teams do, which leads to different numbers. I think people look at age and retirement with a colored lens. When you look at the player pool, we have a very young pool.

Age nummber of players % of total
0 280 14.0
1 258 13.0
2 294 14.8
3 203 10.2
4 265 13.3
5 160 8.0
6 154 7.7
7 97 4.9
8 63 3.2
9 69 3.5
10 53 2.7
11 47 2.4
12 25 1.3
13 16 0.8
14 4 0.2
15 1 0.05
16 1 0.05
17 1 0.05

[James-Eagles]

The old system might have been mimicking it better than everyone though

Since our numbers are at the beginning of the year, I am, and players usually retire at the end. I am comparing our draft class to players who retire in year 1

Pentage in are players: Percentage of players that retired at that age
0(1) 14% : 26.7% (We wanted smaller draft classes and I think that is good)
1(2) 13.0%: 15.2%
2(3) 14.8%: 11.3%
3(4) 10.2%: 8.5%
4(5) 13.3% : 7.3%
5(6) 8.0%: 5.9%
6(7) 7.7%: 5.5%
7(8) 4.9%:5.0%
8(9) 3.2%:4.2%
9(10) 3.5%: 3.6%
10(11) 2.7%:2.5%
11(12) 2.4%:1.8%
12(13) 1.3% :1.0%
13(14) 0.8%:0.7%
14 (15) 0.2%:0.4%
15(16) 0.1%:0.2%
16(17) 0.1%:0.1%
17(18) 0.1%:0.1%

Looking at these numbers, the old system was actually working. Since the NFL data was taken over a long period of time instead of being compared to a single year.

[James-Eagles]

Yes I removed teh No ones from the pool before calculating nummbers.

[Brian-Broncos]

You're missing me. The point isn't at all just to match NFL numbers, at least regarding free agency. The point is the draft and roster management is nearly meaningless when you can do nearly as well by fielding an entire team out of the free agents pool. Following NFL numbers would be done just because we know it works: If we make the draft pool comparable to the NFL's draft pool, then we know a 7-round draft should be about right, and 180 players entering and 180 players leaving the league each year should be about right.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

You're missing me. The point isn't at all just to match NFL numbers, at least regarding free agency. The point is the draft and roster management is nearly meaningless when you can do nearly as well by fielding an entire team out of the free agents pool. Following NFL numbers would be done just because we know it works: If we make the draft pool comparable to the NFL's draft pool, then we know a 7-round draft should be about right, and 180 players entering and 180 players leaving the league each year should be about right.

I pretty much shared this same type information and sentiment 15+ seasons ago and brought it several times since then. I've come to grips with "it is what it is".

[James-Eagles]

I think the purge will keep that balance. I gave up on the draft classes.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I'm looking forward to Rich's vision of multiple Buffalo rosters across the league.

[Brian-Broncos]

I think the purge will keep that balance. I gave up on the draft classes.

What are the details regarding the purge rule again? Or is it documented somewhere?

Also, what did you give up on regarding the draft classes?

I think the draft pools have been fine in general, though usually a bit too large. One was perfect size, maybe '45?? But right now the Free Agent pool is so strong that the draft is practically meaningless. Same with trading. It's why I don't even bother looking in the Trade Talk list: every time I've looked I found I could do just as well and for cheaper picking up a free agent. Hopefully this purge thing fixes it.