2036 Preseason Talk

[Guest]

That's true.

We could nix the Franchise Tag.

I actually like that because it gives the AI a slight edge that it needs. Allow the AI to use Franchise Tags, but not humans.

[Sharkn20]

That's true.

We could nix the Franchise Tag.

I actually like that because it gives the AI a slight edge that it needs. Allow the AI to use Franchise Tags, but not humans.

I am AGAINST this!! Is a good way to manage your Cap!!

[Aston]

If it helps with gameplay, I'm all for it. Here's what Ben says about franchise tagging in his FOFC post on 7.1 contract handling:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...87&postcount=6

I don't think that the tag itself is that big of a deal. I just like having more guys hit free agency. I think it's good for the league in MP. Eliminating the tag is an easy way to increase the talent in free agency.

That said, there's definitely synergy between allowing one-year deals and ditching the franchise tag. With no ability to lock the guy up without him hitting the open market, the power of the one-year deal gets taken away. The FOOL is allowing one-year deals but disallowing the tag, and as a result, the only players getting one-year offers are the ones that people only want for one year: old guys and temporary solutions.

I guess maybe you could put in an exception where players who have never been signed by another team can be tagged, or something like that, maybe that'd strike a fair balance. I get the idea that no tag would help out FA, so it might be neat.

In general, I think the less rules, the better (and easier for everyone).

By the way, saw, if you meant WR Doyle, he's an 81 loyalty player who took $4.11M ($1.5M bonus) to stay in Boston over a 2-year deal averaging $4.85 at his preferred sign stage. So that seems about right? 1-year deals are attractive to players so they can't be easily locked up for a good chunk of their careers, and combined with no tag option, helps keep FA well stocked.

[Guest]

I guess maybe you could put in an exception where players who have never been signed by another team can be tagged, or something like that, maybe that'd strike a fair balance.

That sounds like a strange rule to remember.

[umd]

Too many FA and CAP rules = too hard to understand and keep up.

[Delandis]

I'm with UMD. Plus aren't all of v his deals on guys with 10+years in the v league? I'd be worried about injuries with that b kind of roster?

[Aston]

That sounds like a strange rule to remember.

Yeah, probably too odd.

[Nemesis]

Not to change the subject, but to FA for a sec....

Field position? check

[umd]

Added some depth this sim in CB Cris Hutchins, DE Brandon Hill and two OGs my scout likes in Karl Howard and Jeremy Stevenson.

[Guest]

I don't like FA rules. Free agency should be a free market economy.

[Sharkn20]

I don't like FA rules. Free agency should be a free market economy.

+1

[Nemesis]

I hate you guys that snuck in better bids on the specialteamers.

[Aston]

Boston's FA.

The bad: Uh oh, we somehow really screwed up the LB situation. Lost out on Nelson, who signed a stage early. Outbid on the top LB target this stage. The other LB on the market also signed a stage early. And we lost our own ILB Benson without my noticing. Also forgot to put in a bid on G Thingvold the stage he was going to sign earlier, so we didn't quite get the whole Bees gang back together.

The good: We signed everybody. Two safeties back, another stud corner (before I knew the safeties would both be back), DE Kau, DT Fike, G Samuels, and a stud TE. That's not including the headliners of the class: DE Cleaver and the RB.

[Delandis]

My 2nd round pick comes in at 36/36 but was supposedly 42% developed before the draft. Thoughts? Is that a good thing?

[Aston]

I think that's a good thing. You'd expect him to be higher than that in the end. I see him at 39/44, for what it's worth.