Only 62 players failed...

[Dean-Atlanta]

Rich just ran physicals and ONLY 62 players failed and will play their last season

This number is too low, there is not symmetry in this number.

Each season we draft 126 rookies, so it makes sense that we should retire 126 veterans to make roster spots for them. Drafting 126 and only retiring 62 every season creates a backlog of aging players and makes our teams more aging.

It means the goals that Charlie is seeking in evolving the way rookies are created are taking that much longer to achieve. The gradual reductions in rookie talent, increased ratings differentiation, etc. all takes that much longer and is further delayed.

I know some say no more changes, but a broken system should be fixed. This is a broken system.

How do we fix it? Fail more players by lowing some ages of when physicals start or reducing the odds of passing a physical are possible ideas.

Maybe reduce points so older less talented veteran players are released into FA (to eventually retire) to be replaced by rookies with 4 year rookie contracts.

I think we should should lose 126 players every season as we gain that number in the draft.

[Dean-Atlanta]

62 failed and 104 passed. 166 total players took physicals.

It should have been closer to 40 passed and 126 failed.

[James-Eagles]

I think you see more and more fail numbers will go up as people get older. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Incorrect conclusion. Most drafted players never make it to old age and anti aging is for 6 or 7 years worth of players Players are cut, no different than the NFL to include physical eligible guys. It we had 126 to fail that would show too many making it to late years.

[Mitch-Oilers]

If we discontinue transferring roles to other players, that would likely create numbers you are talking about, Dean.

[Donovon-Steelers]

Maybe it should be higher than it currently is, but strictly equating it with # of rookies is not a good idea because (a) it would leave gimp the FA pool, and (b) more importantly, that system assumes all 126 rookies would make active rosters, which is definitely not the case in NFL realism standards.

What I do like about increasing the retirees however, is that it would make our picks in 5-7 a little more valuable, compared to the process now, where they're an afterthought.

[Dean-Atlanta]

If we discontinue transferring roles to other players, that would likely create numbers you are talking about, Dean.

True. Given what Jerry said we likely don't need to fail 126 each season, but 62 seems too low.

[Dean-Atlanta]

That is a good point, the smaller draft pool means less depth available in those rounds 5-6-7 so we may need something to increase their value.

I found an old email where I was doing a trade negotiation with Jerry (from the 2033 season when I was Pittsburgh), and I said trading is tough because there is too much player talent in the PNFL in general for 18 teams. I still think this is true even now, so maybe the smaller draft pools will help even this out a bit and create more need for teams to make trades to fill needs.

Maybe it should be higher than it currently is, but strictly equating it with # of rookies is not a good idea because (a) it would leave gimp the FA pool, and (b) more importantly, that system assumes all 126 rookies would make active rosters, which is definitely not the case in NFL realism standards.

What I do like about increasing the retirees however, is that it would make our picks in 5-7 a little more valuable, compared to the process now, where they're an afterthought.

[Moxs - Patriots]

I am quoting Jerry's Mantra - we already have multiple global changes in the league happening.
We are changing the points allotment and thus pool.
We are changing the quality and distribution of the draft pool.
Then we changed the size of the draft pool.
We have yet to see the effects these changes will have on the league.
I am sure we are changing something else that i can't remember.

Anyone who does troubleshooting knows you change 1 thing at a time to see accurate results.
We have already thrown that premise out the window.
The things we are already changing hopefully do not overlap effects enough to turn this all into a muddle of inconclusiveness.

NOW, you want to start messing with the already recently renovated retirement process????

Let's just relax on the Mad Scientist "Lets just throw everything into the beaker and wait for the explosion" approach. This is not the Muppet Show. Yet.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

These numbers do not reflect how many of those 126 rookies ended up cut and in the FA pool. Just because we add 126 rookies doesn't mean they all end up on rosters. I agree with Jerry and Mox. I don't see this as something we need to "fix" right now. Let's get more data and see what these other changes impact first.