View Full Version : 2015 ATRD Archive Thread
Pages :
1
2
3
[
4]
5
6
7
8
Wrench
08-04-2015, 10:22 AM
UTB requests
Fran Tarkenton, QB
Vince Wilfork, DT
Wrench
08-04-2015, 10:22 AM
Turk Edwards, OT
warfelg
08-04-2015, 10:42 AM
I sent LS a list for today so he will make my picks if I'm out.
Andrei00
08-04-2015, 11:02 AM
Rosey Grier, DT
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 11:36 AM
Steam Roller requests Mike Michalske
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 11:52 AM
The Pro Bowl only has 1st and 2nd team. If you make the Pro Bowl in any given season your considered 1 of the 2 best players at your position, or 1 of the 4 best if its a position like CB. Hall Of Fame, they just vote to add new players every season.
In my opinion Lynn Swann did not deserve to be in the HOF, you can make a argument for others but I think Lynn Swann is cut and dry. Lynn Swann as a pro was overrated. I don't see what he did that he deserves to be in the HOF. Players off the top of my head in that ERA who did not make the HOF who are better than Lynn Swann....Harold Carmichael, Cliff Branch, and Harold Jackson
Fred Dean is another player. I am not even going to look for DE better than him. He was excellent for a small span, but he wasn't a game changer, and it wasn't long before he became a liability against the run and he was nothing more than a sack specialist. P.S. Give me without a doubt Mark Gastineau over Fred Dean.
Terry Bradshaw. QB of the most loaded teams in the history of my lifetime. Half the QB's in the NFL could of won 3 Super Bowls starting for the Steelers. Ken Stabler, Ken Anderson, and Archie Manning in my opinion all better QB's than Terry Bradshaw. If Archie Manning could of just played for a decent franchise he probably would be listed as 1 of the top 10 QB's of the last 50 years. If your going to judge QB's by Super Bowls then Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman deserve to be in the HOF, but if your going to judge by on field performance then they are lacking.
Joe Namath. John Hadl was a better QB but that 1 Super Bowl prediction and the rock star persona helped Joe Namath into the HOF.
I could go through and find a ton of comparisons of players who with argument you could argue are better than players who played at the same time. Clay Matthews about the same as Andre Tippet. Doug English and Dan Hampton. If I wanted to spend the next 2 hours I can probably find a 100 players that are from the same time span that did not make the HOF that can be compared to players who did make the HOF.
I am not disillusioned about the HOF. I just don't think because your in the HOF that your better than someone who is not in the HOF.
When I say political, I don't mean something live on ESPN. I don't think Jack Tatum deserves to be in the HOF, but his reputation probably killed any chances of him getting in the HOF. Floyd Little has attributed his induction into the Hall Of Fame in large part to John Mackey lobbying for him. I know its another sport but I was listening to Rick Barry talk on the radio and he said that when he was a player he was a huge A Hole to his teammates, when his career was over he couldn't get a job as a coach because everyone hated him as a player. You know there is players who lost votes because they were A-Holes. The politics of voting plays a part in who get elected or not elected.
LOL yeah, but the Pro Bowl is reflective of only one season. There are lots of guys who can have one or two very good seasons. HoF induction requires a strong prime and several good years before and/or after it, in most cases.
Very good on that stuff. Interesting read. I definitely agree on the QBs. I understand the point on Swann. He got in because he was on a lot of good teams and was a really good WR for a long time. Even though he didn't have the dominant prime that a lot of players had.
Possibly true, but the HoF does have a baseline. If a guy is in the HoF, he was AT LEAST a very good player in his era. Even if he's Lynn Swann or Joe Namath.
All of the AFL guys that had to wait/have waited because the NFL at one point refused for recognize it as a cog in pro football history, guys like Derrick Thomas who likely would have been in and just as deserving had it not been for an early death, the ridiculous bottleneck of great receivers who get forced to wait because the hall doesn't want to add multiple of the same position annually (go ahead and try to make an argument that Bullet Bob, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, Art Monk, and James Lofton are all clearly more deserving than Marvin Harrison, despite the fact that he's the only one that isn't in the hall of the group). Oh, not to mention ****ing Chris Carter. Prior to when Carter got in, were we really going to put him in a tier lower than all of the HOF guys?
There's totally bias that goes into the votes, and I think it's delusional to think there isn't at least some. That's part of the reason they established the senior committee, to pluck out the greats that somehow got overlooked at the time: Humphrey, Hanburger, Butler, etc. It'll get Kramer in there someday too, I'm sure of it. I think the HOF tag definitely holds weight and I totally respect the guys who get in, but I hate the idea of totally discounting some of the greats just because of a process that is super subjective and definitely not fool proof when it comes to recognizing football's best players ever
Well, the AFL guys that are deserving HAVE gotten in now...so I don't see how there's a point to be had there.
I think you can afford to be a little more lenient on the guys that have recently come eligible. I mean, it's common knowledge that WR is bottle-necked right now.
Of course there is BIAS. There's a difference between calling it bias and calling it a political game, though. There has to be bias because it's people judging on how good a guy was during his era, which requires a personal evaluation of the player. There is plenty of personal bias in the process. It's a matter of how much of it is a political game for getting votes.
Who said to totally discount them?
Plague
08-04-2015, 11:53 AM
I don't dismiss it. But it is not a better measuring stick than HOF, you don't think players have biased opinions of other players. Just cause you don't play in the NFL doesn't mean that you don't know about the game.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, hopefully I have another HOFer on my roster by the time I wake up.
Just because you are in the media doesn't mean you should be qualified to judge players on field. How many of the media personal that vote in the HOF committee have ever played in the NFL? I respect the opinion of someone who played on the field better than a media person. There is a reason why color commentators are always ex players and coaches, they have insight that a regular media person does not.
I do think someone brought up a good point. Guys like Andy Dalton who are the 12th choice for Pro Bowl get the honor next to their name because others play limp. Until the mid to late 80's the Pro Bowl had a high prestige, players only missed if they were really injured. Now players are coming up limp on a regular basis.
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 11:55 AM
Is there a decade restriction as far as how many for each MUST be named in starting lineups?
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 11:59 AM
Lost in this is homie/norm last pick, Jimmy Graham, who they will try to sell as great pick, despite homies thoughts on Revis (sure fire HOF), Watt (best defensive player in the game today) and Gronk (best TE since Gonzo).
-Taken 13 rounds later than Revis
-Taken 11 rounds later than Watt
-Taken 9 rounds later than Gronkowski
The difference is, Jimmy Graham is a niche player for us. He's a RZ threat/match-up guy in our offense. That's it. You built your roster around those guys.
Plague
08-04-2015, 12:03 PM
LOL yeah, but the Pro Bowl is reflective of only one season. There are lots of guys who can have one or two very good seasons. HoF induction requires a strong prime and several good years before and/or after it, in most cases.
Very good on that stuff. Interesting read. I definitely agree on the QBs. I understand the point on Swann. He got in because he was on a lot of good teams and was a really good WR for a long time. Even though he didn't have the dominant prime that a lot of players had.
Possibly true, but the HoF does have a baseline. If a guy is in the HoF, he was AT LEAST a very good player in his era. Even if he's Lynn Swann or Joe Namath.
Well, the AFL guys that are deserving HAVE gotten in now...so I don't see how there's a point to be had there.
I think you can afford to be a little more lenient on the guys that have recently come eligible. I mean, it's common knowledge that WR is bottle-necked right now.
Of course there is BIAS. There's a difference between calling it bias and calling it a political game, though. There has to be bias because it's people judging on how good a guy was during his era, which requires a personal evaluation of the player. There is plenty of personal bias in the process. It's a matter of how much of it is a political game for getting votes.
Who said to totally discount them?
I wasn't trying to say that HOF players are bad, I am just saying that there are comparable players or even better players that did not make the HOF in comparison to players who are in the HOF.
I watched Fred Dean and Mark Gastineau play, it would be hard for you too convince me that Fred Dean was a better player than Mark Gastineau. However Dean is in the HOF while Gastineau is not. I am not saying Dean wasn't a excellent player.
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 12:06 PM
-Taken 13 rounds later than Revis
-Taken 11 rounds later than Watt
-Taken 9 rounds later than Gronkowski
The difference is, Jimmy Graham is a niche player for us. He's a RZ threat/match-up guy in our offense. That's it. You built your roster around those guys.
You keep saying this, but it's not true. They are part of the overall roster, not built around them.
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 12:12 PM
Is there a decade restriction as far as how many for each MUST be named in starting lineups?
Yes
*3 from 20s-40s TOTAL
*3 from 50s,60s,70s,80s EACH
*2 from 90s and 00s EACH
So you have 19 requirements and 3 flexible spots in your starting lineup. Additionally, no more than 7 TOTAL players can be from 90s-00s.
You keep saying this, but it's not true. They are part of the overall roster, not built around them.
Gronk was your top receiving target pick. You said you expect Revis to "shutdown" top WRs. Aren't you counting on Watt to be your top pass rusher?
StriveGreatness
08-04-2015, 12:16 PM
LA Raiders will take Dave Grayson
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 12:19 PM
Yes
*3 from 20s-40s TOTAL
*3 from 50s,60s,70s,80s EACH
*2 from 90s and 00s EACH
So you have 19 requirements and 3 flexible spots in your starting lineup. Additionally, no more than 7 TOTAL players can be from 90s-00s.
Gronk was your top receiving target pick. You said you expect Revis to "shutdown" top WRs. Aren't you counting on Watt to be your top pass rusher?
Not true. Gonzo was my first target.
I'm counting on Watt, to beast, with a very good unit.
It's about the whole, not the parts.
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 12:32 PM
Is there a decade restriction as far as how many for each MUST be named in starting lineups?
Not true. Gonzo was my first target.
I'm counting on Watt, to beast, with a very good unit.
It's about the whole, not the parts.
Gronk is the top one still on your roster is what I mean.
LOL okay, but the foundation of your "whole" was largely wrought on the guys you just compared to Jimmy Graham, who was taken MUCH later than all of them.
The Jokemaker
08-04-2015, 01:06 PM
With pick 312, the Miami Dolphins select Mike Kenn OT
AP=MVP
08-04-2015, 01:08 PM
To combat the cheap strategy of drafting a team full of 1990s and 2000s players, we are going to shift to something a little different this year. We will require every team to have three players from the 20s-40s, plus three from each of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Each team will be required to have at least two players from 90s, and 00s and later. Combined, you will not be allowed to have more than 7 total players on your team from the 90s and later. You should determine a player’s decade by the decade in which they played their MOST seasons. We won’t be real sticklers about this if a guy played 6/4 or 5/5, but please be fair about what decade the player came from. For example, don’t list a guy as a 70s player if he started his career in 1978, or retired in 1972. This rule will be monitored very closely, and any team not in compliance at the end of the game will be disqualified from the playoffs without prejudice. If you decide to play someone two-ways, they will count twice for their decade.
The rules say nothing about those our required decade players having to be listed as starters.
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 01:12 PM
Gronk is the top one still on your roster is what I mean.
LOL okay, but the foundation of your "whole" was largely wrought on the guys you just compared to Jimmy Graham, who was taken MUCH later than all of them.
And he's far less talented.
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 01:12 PM
The rules say nothing about those our required decade players having to be listed as starters.
From the rules thread:
Because I'm still a little worried about people skirting the decades rules:
You will have to denote 11 offensive and 11 defensive players as starters by marking them with an asterisk. Your parameters are as follows:
Offense:
*1 QB
*No more than 3 backs (HB/TB/WB/FB/RB/whatever)
*No more than 3 WRs
*No more than 2 TEs
*5 OLs
Defense:
*No more than 5 DLs
*No more than 4 LBs
*No more than 5 DBs
Remember, two-way STARTERS will count twice for your roster limit and your decade requirements. Back-ups DO NOT COUNT TWICE.
Whatever players you mark as starters, plan on them being judged as your PRIMARY players (IE don't list 3 backs as starters and say "well, we will run just as much 3 and 4 WR formations."
AP=MVP
08-04-2015, 01:20 PM
OK so we need 3 players from 20-40's but if we start one of them 2-ways we only need 2.
Thanks, was just making sure I could have one be my backup
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 01:25 PM
OK so we need 3 players from 20-40's but if we start one of them 2-ways we only need 2.
Thanks, was just making sure I could have one be my backup
That's right.
BCB mwat15
08-04-2015, 01:43 PM
Staleys select LB Wilbur Marshall
The Long Shot
08-04-2015, 02:05 PM
Vikings take DT-Dave Butz.
TDjacksonville
08-04-2015, 02:17 PM
Isiah robertson olb
killthesux
08-04-2015, 03:43 PM
Titans select OC/LB Charley Brock
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 03:49 PM
Nolan Cromwell
Wolverines want Keith Millard DT, if he's there can't check.
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 07:11 PM
Maroon request Joey Porter
Lost in this is homie/norm last pick, Jimmy Graham, who they will try to sell as a great pick, despite homies thoughts on Revis (sure fire HOF), Watt (best defensive player in the game today) and Gronk (best TE since Gonzo).
I didn't say an effing word to defend Graham...and I defended you on Watt...and would on Revis or Gronk....
Why you tryina start somethin
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 09:30 PM
Steagles skipped
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 09:40 PM
I didn't say an effing word to defend Graham...and I defended you on Watt...and would on Revis or Gronk....
Why you tryina start somethin
Just poking fun at homie.
You're just guilty by association.
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 09:41 PM
Tommy Nobis to Philly please and thanks.
Just poking fun at homie.
You're just guilty by association.
Sadface
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 10:14 PM
Bulldogs request Laverne Dilweg and Hugh McElhenny
BDawk4Prez
08-04-2015, 10:18 PM
Steve Smith - Eagles
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 10:22 PM
Westy skipped
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 10:23 PM
Maroons request Ollie Matson
WildWesty
08-04-2015, 10:25 PM
Eh **** it I'll take Sam Mills
WildWesty
08-04-2015, 10:28 PM
And Joe Stydahar if he is still there
The Long Shot
08-04-2015, 10:30 PM
And Joe Stydahar if he is still there
Nope. Canton took him a few rounds ago.
Wrench
08-04-2015, 10:33 PM
Got my 50s
WildWesty
08-04-2015, 10:33 PM
Nope. Canton took him a few rounds ago.
Ugh damnit, no control F, I'll make a pick eventually
WildWesty
08-04-2015, 10:35 PM
Bucko Kilroy?
homestarunner93
08-04-2015, 11:07 PM
Hines Ward
killthesux
08-04-2015, 11:18 PM
Titans pick WR Gary Collins
Plague
08-05-2015, 12:32 AM
From the rules thread:
Just to make sure I understand. I have read the rules multiple times and I did not see anywhere where it says I must have 3 players from the 20-40's starting? Is that correct?
For example I picked Hugh from the 50's, he is basically my third down/passing back. Even though he is not starting he counts as 1 of my players from the 50's?
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 12:37 AM
Just to make sure I understand. I have read the rules multiple times and I did not see anywhere where it says I must have 3 players from the 20-40's starting? Is that correct?
For example I picked Hugh from the 50's, he is basically my third down/passing back. Even though he is not starting he counts as 1 of my players from the 50's?
No, it's not. You do have to start them. You have to start any player you want to count towards your decade requirements.
You have to start:
*Three from 20s-40s
*Three from 50s, 60s, 70, 80s EACH
*Two from 90s, 00s EACH
Which puts you at 19 required spots for starters. You have three "flex" spots for starters as far as decades go. Your backups can be from any decade, but they DO NOT count towards the decades. The only requirement that you have other than the starting requirement is that you cannot have more than seven TOTAL players from 90s-00s.
It's all there in the rules thread. Part of it isn't in the initial post, but is further in the thread.
Plague
08-05-2015, 12:45 AM
No, it's not. You do have to start them. You have to start any player you want to count towards your decade requirements.
You have to start:
*Three from 20s-40s
*Three from 50s, 60s, 70, 80s EACH
*Two from 90s, 00s EACH
Which puts you at 19 required spots for starters. You have three "flex" spots for starters as far as decades go. Your backups can be from any decade, but they DO NOT count towards the decades. The only requirement that you have other than the starting requirement is that you cannot have more than seven TOTAL players from 90s-00s.
It's all there in the rules thread. Part of it isn't in the initial post, but is further in the thread.
If thats what was intended I will adjust but that is not how I have been drafting and its also not how its worded
Even the copy and paste you told MVP does not state that the decade requirement must be starters, no where are the 2 connected, all it says is if you start a player both ways you can count him as 2 players from the decade, but no where does it say you must have 3 starters from each decade, it just says you must have 3 players from each decade.
Plague
08-05-2015, 12:53 AM
I just read the entire NFL rules thread 2 more times and I still see no where that it leads me to believe that the decade requirement means the players must be starters.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 12:59 AM
If thats what was intended I will adjust but that is not how I have been drafting and its also not how its worded
Even the copy and paste you told MVP does not state that the decade requirement must be starters, no where are the 2 connected, all it says is if you start a player both ways you can count him as 2 players from the decade, but no where does it say you must have 3 starters from each decade, it just says you must have 3 players from each decade.
Actually, yes it does. How does it make any sense for me to be concerned about people skirting the decades rule, then have the people denote starters and not connect it at all to the decades rule? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Plus, I go on to say that backups don't count, particularly in the instance of two-way players.
And further, although I think it's pretty clear, anyone who really finds this unclear should have asked long before the 20th round.
Plague
08-05-2015, 01:09 AM
Actually, yes it does. How does it make any sense for me to be concerned about people skirting the decades rule, then have the people denote starters and not connect it at all to the decades rule? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Plus, I go on to say that backups don't count, particularly in the instance of two-way players.
And further, although I think it's pretty clear, anyone who really finds this unclear should have asked long before the 20th round.
I didn't ask because it is clear. Where does it link the decade requirement with the starter requirement?
You may be concerned people are skirting the rules as you think the rules are stated, but that is not how the rules are actually stated in the thread.
I would of never even considered asking if MVP didn't bring it up in this thread. It point blank says 25 man roster and the decade requirements but no where does it say anything about the starters must be from those particular decade..
In the post you made later it still didn't link the two. You just state that we must have 11 offensive players listed as starters and 11 defensive players as starters. Not once do you link that to the decade requirement.
Plague
08-05-2015, 01:17 AM
To combat the cheap strategy of drafting a team full of 1990s and 2000s players, we are going to shift to something a little different this year. We will require every team to have three players from the 20s-40s, plus three from each of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Each team will be required to have at least two players from 90s, and 00s and later. Combined, you will not be allowed to have more than 7 total players on your team from the 90s and later. You should determine a player’s decade by the decade in which they played their MOST seasons. We won’t be real sticklers about this if a guy played 6/4 or 5/5, but please be fair about what decade the player came from. For example, don’t list a guy as a 70s player if he started his career in 1978, or retired in 1972. This rule will be monitored very closely, and any team not in compliance at the end of the game will be disqualified from the playoffs without prejudice. If you decide to play someone two-ways, they will count twice for their decade.
This is the decade requirement. No where does it talk about starters.
Because I'm still a little worried about people skirting the decades rules:
You will have to denote 11 offensive and 11 defensive players as starters by marking them with an asterisk. Your parameters are as follows:
Offense:
*1 QB
*No more than 3 backs (HB/TB/WB/FB/RB/whatever)
*No more than 3 WRs
*No more than 2 TEs
*5 OLs
Defense:
*No more than 5 DLs
*No more than 4 LBs
*No more than 5 DBs
Remember, two-way STARTERS will count twice for your roster limit and your decade requirements. Back-ups DO NOT COUNT TWICE.
Whatever players you mark as starters, plan on them being judged as your PRIMARY players (IE don't list 3 backs as starters and say "well, we will run just as much 3 and 4 WR formations."
Here is the part you talk about the 11 offensive and defensive starters. The only time you mention decade requirement is regarding 2 way starters.
You state 2 way starters will count twice for your roster limit and decade requirement, but backups do not. ThE way I read that is if the player is a 2 way starter he will count as 2 players for the decade requirement, if the player is a backup he will only count as 1 spot.
The question I ask is if the decade requirement is for starters only why even say that backups will only count as 1? That makes no sense.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 01:24 AM
This is the decade requirement. No where does it talk about starters.
Here is the part you talk about the 11 offensive and defensive starters. The only time you mention decade requirement is regarding 2 way starters.
You state 2 way starters will count twice for your roster limit and decade requirement, but backups do not. ThE way I read that is if the player is a 2 way starter he will count as 2 players for the decade requirement, if the player is a backup he will only count as 1 spot.
The question I ask is if the decade requirement is for starters only why even say that backups will only count as 1? That makes no sense.
Yes, the original rule did not address it. That's why the other rule was added early on in the game last year. Because it was obvious people were just going to bury their early guys on their roster as token players and not incorporate them into their game at all.
Because I'm still a little worried about people skirting the decades rules
Why would I start out a rule post in regards to starters with that statement and not connect it to the decades rule? It's the same question I asked before. That makes zero sense.
How does it read that way at all? That is addressing two-way players. That means if you start a guy on one side and use him as a backup on the other side, he doesn't count twice for the decades requirement.
Sorry, it reads plainly enough to me, and apparently most of the people in this. It's certainly not going to change.
Plague
08-05-2015, 01:38 AM
Yes, the original rule did not address it. That's why the other rule was added early on in the game last year. Because it was obvious people were just going to bury their early guys on their roster as token players and not incorporate them into their game at all.
Why would I start out a rule post in regards to starters with that statement and not connect it to the decades rule? It's the same question I asked before. That makes zero sense.
How does it read that way at all? That is addressing two-way players. That means if you start a guy on one side and use him as a backup on the other side, he doesn't count twice for the decades requirement.
Sorry, it reads plainly enough to me, and apparently most of the people in this. It's certainly not going to change.
Why would I start out a rule post in regards to starters with that statement and not connect it to the decades rule?
That is what I am asking. Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you make a correction to the decades rule if that is your goal. Why wouldn't you come out and say the original decades rule was intended to be starters not roster size like its currently stated. This was a simple fix
Wrench
08-05-2015, 01:49 AM
What is the issue here? It's not like the post is new in the rules thread.
Last edited by homestarunner93; 05-18-2014 at 04:53 PM.
If this is news to you, then you didn't read the rules thread completely. It was 5 posts (3 before 2 are gone), your fault if you read one.
Plague
08-05-2015, 01:53 AM
What is the issue here? It's not like the post is new in the rules thread.
Last edited by homestarunner93; 05-18-2014 at 04:53 PM.
If this is news to you, then you didn't read the rules thread completely. It was 5 posts (3 before 2 are gone), your fault if you read one.
What are you talking about my fault if I read one?
I have read the rules and the whole thread multiple times. Thats my point.
Andrei00
08-05-2015, 06:45 AM
What is the issue here? It's not like the post is new in the rules thread.
Last edited by homestarunner93; 05-18-2014 at 04:53 PM.
If this is news to you, then you didn't read the rules thread completely. It was 5 posts (3 before 2 are gone), your fault if you read one.
To be honest, I've read that and it's still confusing. Up until AP asked, I thought the decade requirements were for the whole roster as well, not starters only.
I think it's probably because I've never played the game before. And I understand that now since homie clarified on the subject, it does make sense what he was trying to say with his other post in the rules thread. But at a first look (or 2nd or 3rd for that matter) for someone who hasn't played this game before, that in no way points to me that only starters count for the decade requirements.
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 07:41 AM
It's confusing, which is why I brought it up.
I see what the intent was, but it's more connect the dots than it is crystal clear.
No big deal though.
Plague
08-05-2015, 10:24 AM
It's not a big deal because its a game. But from the game stand point it is a big deal. My 23rd and 24th picks will now have to start and replace players I picked somewhere around the 15th round, they will have to be from particular decades limiting my choices. Game wise that will be a difference.
Until last night the below part is what I thought he meant when he said he felt people were trying to skate (which to me is a nicer term of bending or cheating) the rules, its the only part of the rules that he stressed he would be watching closely, the rest of the rules seem cut and dry. The remaining part that was in his updated post I took as additional rules. No where in that post did it say the rules would replace the original rules.
We won’t be real sticklers about this if a guy played 6/4 or 5/5, but please be fair about what decade the player came from. For example, don’t list a guy as a 70s player if he started his career in 1978, or retired in 1972. This rule will be monitored very closely, and any team not in compliance at the end of the game will be disqualified from the playoffs without prejudice. If you decide to play someone two-ways, they will count twice for their decade.
Plague
08-05-2015, 10:31 AM
To be honest, I've read that and it's still confusing. Up until AP asked, I thought the decade requirements were for the whole roster as well, not starters only.
I think it's probably because I've never played the game before. And I understand that now since homie clarified on the subject, it does make sense what he was trying to say with his other post in the rules thread. But at a first look (or 2nd or 3rd for that matter) for someone who hasn't played this game before, that in no way points to me that only starters count for the decade requirements.
Thats probably where the problem lies.
The rules seem to be written in a matter of additions over time. The people who wrote the rules know what they are trying to convey. You always understand the intent that you write even if others do not. People that played the game in the past have probably seen the rules evolve either through threads like this one or the game itself. First year players do not have that luxury.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 10:46 AM
That is what I am asking. Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you make a correction to the decades rule if that is your goal. Why wouldn't you come out and say the original decades rule was intended to be starters not roster size like its currently stated. This was a simple fix
Because that wasn't the intent of the original rule at the beginning of the last game. We instituted that after I talked to a couple of people about the likely direction of roster-building, which is what I already explained.
It's not a big deal because its a game. But from the game stand point it is a big deal. My 23rd and 24th picks will now have to start and replace players I picked somewhere around the 15th round, they will have to be from particular decades limiting my choices. Game wise that will be a difference.
Until last night the below part is what I thought he meant when he said he felt people were trying to skate (which to me is a nicer term of bending or cheating) the rules, its the only part of the rules that he stressed he would be watching closely, the rest of the rules seem cut and dry. The remaining part that was in his updated post I took as additional rules. No where in that post did it say the rules would replace the original rules.
So, despite the colon suggesting that what I was about to say applied to my initial statement in that post, you thought it was germane to an entirely different section of another post? It doesn't replace the original rules. It is an update. There's nothing in the rules that is contradictory.
If it was confusing to the new people, sorry. However, I do not feel bad about it at this point. You had plenty of time to ask any clarification questions before it would have affected your roster-building, and not a single one of you did. It's not my fault that you waited until near the end of the draft to figure you might want to ask these questions. The rules will not change, either.
Cowboys take Erik Williams, tackle. Just because he can.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 10:59 AM
Round 21
341. Baltimore Colts - 4:15-4:30
342. Duluth Eskimos - 4:30-5:00
343. New York Jets - 5:00-5:30
344. Providence Steam Roller - 5:30-6:00
345. Los Angeles Raiders - 6:00-6:30
346. Miami Dolphins - 6:30-7:00
347. Decatur Staleys - 7:00-7:30
348. Minnesota Vikings - 7:30-8:00
349. Buffalo All-Americans - 8:00-8:30
350. Kansas City Cowboys - 8:30-9:00
351. Tennessee Titans - 9:00-9:30
352. Dayton Triangles - 9:30-10:00
353. Detroit Wolverines - 10:00-10:30
354. Pottsville Maroons - 10:30-11:00
355. Phil-Pitt Steagles - 11:00-11:30
356. Philadelphia Eagles - 11:30-12:00 AM
357. Canton Bulldogs - 8/06 AM 10:00-10:15
Round 22
358. Canton Bulldogs - 10:15-10:30
359. Philadelphia Eagles - 10:30-11:00
360. Phil-Pitt Steagles - 11:00-11:30
361. Pottsville Maroons - 11:30-12:00
362. Detroit Wolverines - PM 12:00-12:30
363. Dayton Triangles - 12:30-1:00
364. Duluth Eskimos (via Titans) - 1:00-1:30
365. Kansas City Cowboys -1:30-2:00
366. Buffalo All-Americans - 2:00-2:30
367. Minnesota Vikings - 2:30-3:00
368. Decatur Staleys - 3:00-3:30
369. Miami Dolphins - 3:30-4:00
370. Los Angeles Raiders - 4:00-4:30
371. Providence Steam Roller - 4:30-5:00
372. New York Jets - 5:00-5:30
373. Duluth Eskimos - 5:30-6:00
374. Baltimore Colts - 6:00-6:15
Round 23
375. Baltimore Colts - 6:15-6:30
376. Duluth Eskimos - 6:30-7:00
377. New York Jets - 7:00-7:30
378. Providence Steam Roller - 7:30-8:00
379. Los Angeles Raiders - 8:00-8:30
380. Miami Dolphins - 8:30-9:00
381. Decatur Staleys - 9:00-9:30
382. Minnesota Vikings - 9:30-10:00
383. Buffalo All-Americans - 10:00-10:30
384. Kansas City Cowboys - 10:30-11:00
385. Tennessee Titans - 11:00-11:30
386. Dayton Triangles - 11:30-12:00 AM
387. Detroit Wolverines - 8/07 AM 10:00-10:30
388. Pottsville Maroons - 10:30-11:00
389. Phil-Pitt Steagles - 11:00-11:30
390. Philadelphia Eagles - 11:30-12:00
391. Canton Bulldogs - PM 12:00-12:15
Round 24
392. Canton Bulldogs - 12:15-12:30
393. Philadelphia Eagles - 12:30-1:00
394. Phil-Pitt Steagles - 1:00-1:30
395. Pottsville Maroons - 1:30-2:00
396. Detroit Wolverines - 2:00-2:30
397. Dayton Triangles - 2:30-3:00
398. Tennessee Titans - 3:00-3:30
399. Kansas City Cowboys - 3:30-4:00
400. Buffalo All-Americans - 4:00-4:30
401. Minnesota Vikings - 4:30-5:00
402. Decatur Staleys - 5:00-5:30
403. Miami Dolphins - 5:30-6:00
404. Los Angeles Raiders - 6:00-6:30
405. Providence Steam Roller - 6:30-7:00
406. New York Jets - 7:00-7:30
407. Tennessee Titans (via Eskimos) - 7:30-8:00
408. Baltimore Colts - 8:00-8:15
Round 25
409. Baltimore Colts - 8:15-8:30
410. Duluth Eskimos - 8:30-9:00
411. New York Jets - 9:00-9:30
412. Providence Steam Roller - 9:30-10:00
413. Los Angeles Raiders - 10:00-10:30
414. Miami Dolphins - 10:30-11:00
415. Decatur Staleys - 11:00-11:30
416. Minnesota Vikings - 11:30-12:00
417. Buffalo All-Americans - PM 12:00-12:30
418. Kansas City Cowboys - 12:30-1:00
419. Tennessee Titans -1:00-1:30
420. Dayton Triangles - 1:30-2:00
421. Detroit Wolverines - 2:00-2:30
422. Pottsville Maroons - 2:30-3:00
423. Phil-Pitt Steagles - 3:00-3:30
424. Philadelphia Eagles - 3:30-4:00
425. Canton Bulldogs - 4:00-4:30
Plague
08-05-2015, 11:03 AM
Because that wasn't the intent of the original rule at the beginning of the last game. We instituted that after I talked to a couple of people about the likely direction of roster-building, which is what I already explained.
So, despite the colon suggesting that what I was about to say applied to my initial statement in that post, you thought it was germane to an entirely different section of another post? It doesn't replace the original rules. It is an update. There's nothing in the rules that is contradictory.
If it was confusing to the new people, sorry. However, I do not feel bad about it at this point. You had plenty of time to ask any clarification questions before it would have affected your roster-building, and not a single one of you did. It's not my fault that you waited until near the end of the draft to figure you might want to ask these questions. The rules will not change, either.
I thought it was a addition. Never before was anything stated that you need 11 offensive starters or defensive starters. Now you are stating you need 11 of both and then you give a reason why at the end.
Whatever players you mark as starters, plan on them being judged as your PRIMARY players (IE don't list 3 backs as starters and say "well, we will run just as much 3 and 4 WR formations."
It's obviously not just I who read it as the roster is 25 players not the starters. The original rule is clear, you have to meet the decades requirement within your 25 man roster, the addition of the offense and defense never once states its now 22 players. I thought the 2 went hand in hand and not one replace the other.
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 11:05 AM
Because that wasn't the intent of the original rule at the beginning of the last game. We instituted that after I talked to a couple of people about the likely direction of roster-building, which is what I already explained.
So, despite the colon suggesting that what I was about to say applied to my initial statement in that post, you thought it was germane to an entirely different section of another post? It doesn't replace the original rules. It is an update. There's nothing in the rules that is contradictory.
If it was confusing to the new people, sorry. However, I do not feel bad about it at this point. You had plenty of time to ask any clarification questions before it would have affected your roster-building, and not a single one of you did. It's not my fault that you waited until near the end of the draft to figure you might want to ask these questions. The rules will not change, either.
Simmer down. It's a bit confusing, I didn't realize it until I went back and looked for something else personally. The rule isn't clear, people read it one way and didn't feel a need to ask.
It wasn't an elaborate scheme to wait until the end, people legitimately, and for good reason didn't read it as you intended.
Plague
08-05-2015, 11:06 AM
To ask for clarification one would first need to have a doubt. It's too easy of a out to say anyone that misunderstands a rule based on how its written should of ask for clarification.
TDjacksonville
08-05-2015, 11:50 AM
Aa's Jeff bostic
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 11:53 AM
Simmer down. It's a bit confusing, I didn't realize it until I went back and looked for something else personally. The rule isn't clear, people read it one way and didn't feel a need to ask.
It wasn't an elaborate scheme to wait until the end, people legitimately, and for good reason didn't read it as you intended.
I don't need to simmer down. The rule is what it is. It has not changed. You just said in the same sentence that it's confusing, then people read it one way and didn't feel the need to ask. If it's confusing, why wouldn't you ask?
I didn't say it was an elaborate scheme. I didn't accuse anyone of scheming. I'm just saying that I don't feel bad if it affected your strategy because you had plenty of time to clarify it.
And both you say it's confusing on one hand and on the other hand say you didn't think you needed to ask. If something is remotely confusing to you and you choose to make your own assumptions without asking anyone, I can't help you. Sorry.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 11:55 AM
To ask for clarification one would first need to have a doubt. It's too easy of a out to say anyone that misunderstands a rule based on how its written should of ask for clarification.
"It's too easy of an out..."
LOL
What do I need an out for? The rule is not changing. The rule is what it has always been. I don't need an out. It's not changing, so quit *****ing and get over it. I'm done addressing it.
The Long Shot
08-05-2015, 11:56 AM
Vikings take OG-Conrad Dobler.
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 11:57 AM
Aa's Jeff bostic
Didn't you tell me once upon a time that every Clemson player was a bust? Woops.
Plague
08-05-2015, 11:58 AM
I don't need to simmer down. The rule is what it is. It has not changed. You just said in the same sentence that it's confusing, then people read it one way and didn't feel the need to ask. If it's confusing, why wouldn't you ask?
I didn't say it was an elaborate scheme. I didn't accuse anyone of scheming. I'm just saying that I don't feel bad if it affected your strategy because you had plenty of time to clarify it.
And both you say it's confusing on one hand and on the other hand say you didn't think you needed to ask. If something is remotely confusing to you and you choose to make your own assumptions without asking anyone, I can't help you. Sorry.
I personally never said its confusing. I think its obvious. The rule states 25 man roster, you must meet the decade rule within the 25 man roster. You must denote 11 offensive starters and 11 defensive starters among your 25 players and your starters will carry more weight than your backups.
If I thought that was confusing I would of asked. To date I would still think thats the rule if someone else did not bring it up in the 20th round. I have read and re read the rules a dozen times now during the course of the draft looking for rules I may of missed and not even once did I see anywhere that led me to believe that your decade limit was within the 22 starters and not the 25 man roster like the rules clearly state.
You did a poor job of writing the rules if your intention was otherwise.
Plague
08-05-2015, 12:00 PM
"It's too easy of an out..."
LOL
What do I need an out for? The rule is not changing. The rule is what it has always been. I don't need an out. It's not changing, so quit *****ing and get over it. I'm done addressing it.
I won't bring it up again. The rule as written is not how you are playing the game.
TDjacksonville
08-05-2015, 12:04 PM
Didn't you tell me once upon a time that every Clemson player was a bust? Woops.
Don't flatter yourself. Clemson still sucks. I only picked him cuz He Was the center of the best oline in nfl history
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 12:06 PM
Lol.
It's confusing now, looking back. It wasn't confusion initially, it was just worded poorly. The confusion came after the clarification.
It's only a minor blip for me, so **** you. :)
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 12:09 PM
I personally never said its confusing. I think its obvious. The rule states 25 man roster, you must meet the decade rule within the 25 man roster. You must denote 11 offensive starters and 11 defensive starters among your 25 players and your starters will carry more weight than your backups.
If I thought that was confusing I would of asked. To date I would still think thats the rule if someone else did not bring it up in the 20th round. I have read and re read the rules a dozen times now during the course of the draft looking for rules I may of missed and not even once did I see anywhere that led me to believe that your decade limit was within the 22 starters and not the 25 man roster like the rules clearly state.
You did a poor job of writing the rules if your intention was otherwise.
Last point:
You said the introduction at the beginning of the rule didn't make any sense to you in reference to the rule below it, and thus you thought it was addressing something totally separate from the rule at the bottom. That right there seems enough of a logical disconnect to think, "Hey, maybe I'm not getting the full essence of the rule correct in my head here."
To me, that is enough of a question mark to ask for clarification. Which I don't mind at all. I will clarify anything and everything that people have questions about pertaining to this game.
But let's move on. This is an unnecessary discussion at this point. I probably should not have fostered it this long.
The Long Shot
08-05-2015, 12:10 PM
If you're confused about the rule, then don't wait until ****ing Round 20 to bring it up. Pretty simple.
Andrei00
08-05-2015, 12:12 PM
Because that wasn't the intent of the original rule at the beginning of the last game. We instituted that after I talked to a couple of people about the likely direction of roster-building, which is what I already explained.
So, despite the colon suggesting that what I was about to say applied to my initial statement in that post, you thought it was germane to an entirely different section of another post? It doesn't replace the original rules. It is an update. There's nothing in the rules that is contradictory.
If it was confusing to the new people, sorry. However, I do not feel bad about it at this point. You had plenty of time to ask any clarification questions before it would have affected your roster-building, and not a single one of you did. It's not my fault that you waited until near the end of the draft to figure you might want to ask these questions. The rules will not change, either.
I'm not complaining about it. Guess I'm lucky enough AP or Bdawk or whoever brought it up did, but I can work around it. Thing is, like Bdawk and Plague already said, the rule isn't really confusing at a first look. You get the idea that you have to build a roster of 25 players and start 22, and there are decade restrictions, but it doesn't really imply anything about who you have to choose to start according to them. So it's pretty simple to get that, as it's currently written. It's confusing now that the whole thing has been brought up, and going back to the original rule, there's simply nothing that would connect the decade restrictions to the starting lineup.
Anyway, like I said, I don't have a problem with the rule. I'm not saying you should change it, in fact I think it makes the whole thing a little bit more complex. Which is good. But you should at least reformulate how the original rule was written.
WildWesty
08-05-2015, 12:16 PM
FWIW I saw at the beginning the post where the decade stuff applies to starters, but then everytime I went back I was confused that the original post didn't include it even though I swore seeing that the 3 20s-40s/50s/60, etc HAD to be starters. I drafted with flexibility just in case and I'm glad I did so, but I hate the rule TBH, lol. I get why it's in place, though.
BCB mwat15
08-05-2015, 12:17 PM
Staleys select DE Jim Katcavage
The Jokemaker
08-05-2015, 12:20 PM
With the 335th pick, the Miami Dolphins select a former Superbowl MVP, Jake Scott, S.
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 12:59 PM
If you're confused about the rule, then don't wait until ****ing Round 20 to bring it up. Pretty simple.
How about not overreacting?
Kthanxbai
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 12:59 PM
I'm not complaining about it. Guess I'm lucky enough AP or Bdawk or whoever brought it up did, but I can work around it. Thing is, like Bdawk and Plague already said, the rule isn't really confusing at a first look. You get the idea that you have to build a roster of 25 players and start 22, and there are decade restrictions, but it doesn't really imply anything about who you have to choose to start according to them. So it's pretty simple to get that, as it's currently written. It's confusing now that the whole thing has been brought up, and going back to the original rule, there's simply nothing that would connect the decade restrictions to the starting lineup.
Anyway, like I said, I don't have a problem with the rule. I'm not saying you should change it, in fact I think it makes the whole thing a little bit more complex. Which is good. But you should at least reformulate how the original rule was written.
Well said.
The Long Shot
08-05-2015, 01:00 PM
Meh, I guess I'll try and do some overall PR's. This is going off the most recent clubhouse updates, so if they haven't been updated lately, tough beans.
1. Triangles (homie/Norm)
2. Eskimos (Wrench)
3. Maroons (warfelg)
4. Dolphins (Jokemaker)
5. Eagles (BDawk)
6. Steagles (Westy)
7. Wolverines (Ebbs)
8. Steam Rollers (AP)
9. Colts (utb)
10. Raiders (Strive)
11. Titans (kts)
12. Jets (Quinn/Andrei)
13. Bulldogs (Plague)
14. Staleys (BCB)
15. All-Americans (TDj)
16. Cowboys (rawz)
TDjacksonville
08-05-2015, 01:57 PM
Who can take a board for me
Wrench
08-05-2015, 03:30 PM
Picking in my time slot being its 3:30
Bobby Dillion, S
Wrench
08-05-2015, 03:31 PM
UTB requests
C George Svendsen
and
WR CHAD JOHNSON
Wrench
08-05-2015, 03:32 PM
Stanley Morgan, WR to the Eskimos
WildWesty
08-05-2015, 03:39 PM
Willing to package both my upcoming picks (21/22) for pick otc and a 23.
Andrei00
08-05-2015, 04:07 PM
Eugene Lipscomb DT
Andrei00
08-05-2015, 04:09 PM
And Richmond Webb OT
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 04:28 PM
Steam Roller requests Wes Welker and Roger Brown
homestarunner93
08-05-2015, 04:34 PM
Raiders skipped for active skip
TDjacksonville
08-05-2015, 04:43 PM
I sent a board to wrench
The Jokemaker
08-05-2015, 05:07 PM
With the 346th pick, the Miami Dolphins select Ed Budde, OG.
AP=MVP
08-05-2015, 06:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ
You'd swear there was like a 10 million dollar prize for this sometimes.
warfelg
08-05-2015, 06:24 PM
Meh, I guess I'll try and do some overall PR's. This is going off the most recent clubhouse updates, so if they haven't been updated lately, tough beans.
1. Triangles (homie/Norm)
2. Eskimos (Wrench)
3. Maroons (warfelg)
4. Dolphins (Jokemaker)
5. Eagles (BDawk)
6. Steagles (Westy)
7. Wolverines (Ebbs)
8. Steam Rollers (AP)
9. Colts (utb)
10. Raiders (Strive)
11. Titans (kts)
12. Jets (Quinn/Andrei)
13. Staleys (BCB)
14. All-Americans (TDj)
15. Cowboys (rawz)
Lov ya LS.
Boom Raffi bomb.
AP=MVP
08-05-2015, 06:29 PM
You'd swear there was like a 10 million dollar prize for this sometimes.
Theres a prize!!!! I didn't see that in the rules!!!!!!!!! :mad:
StriveGreatness
08-05-2015, 06:30 PM
Mac Speedie with the Raiders first skipped pick
BCB mwat15
08-05-2015, 06:40 PM
Staleys select CB Jimmy Patton if he is still available. Skip me if he is gone.
Theres a prize!!!! I didn't see that in the rules!!!!!!!!! :mad:
I've actually debated putting 50 bucks up like Amazon or something just to make it interesting but IIRC a mod told me that's not allowed, I guess.
I've given away stuff in the GB forum for our draft game though. I'm so naughty.
unleashthebeast
08-05-2015, 07:21 PM
I've actually debated putting 50 bucks up like Amazon or something just to make it interesting but IIRC a mod told me that's not allowed, I guess.
I've given away stuff in the GB forum for our draft game though. I'm so naughty.
https://d3htz3r28tzhqz.cloudfront.net/bO0W1ZGy-xXcmC87aYqjfabnOz0=/original-9974f34a-1bdb-46af-b5f2-046a39b9f3a4.gif/LmG4Y.gif?c=popkey-web&l=direct&f=.gif
The Long Shot
08-05-2015, 07:24 PM
Vikings take a hometown boy to be our final starter in C-Clayton Tonnemaker.
WildWesty
08-05-2015, 07:51 PM
I've actually debated putting 50 bucks up like Amazon or something just to make it interesting but IIRC a mod told me that's not allowed, I guess.
I've given away stuff in the GB forum for our draft game though. I'm so naughty.
Bait/reported
Bait/reported
Why they won't just ban lobster is mind blowing.
He's so completely worthless as a poster. He just got a posted deleted, still nothing.
He's post counted baited me about 10 times the last week. Just brings up my post count out of nowhere, I wasn't even talking to him or anything.
Nobody cares.
It's getting old.
Rule One Of a Forum
1. Ban Trolls
Wrench
08-05-2015, 08:05 PM
Link Lyman for tdj
WildWesty
08-05-2015, 09:02 PM
Why they won't just ban lobster is mind blowing.
He's so completely worthless as a poster. He just got a posted deleted, still nothing.
He's post counted baited me about 10 times the last week. Just brings up my post count out of nowhere, I wasn't even talking to him or anything.
Nobody cares.
It's getting old.
Rule One Of a Forum
1. Ban Trolls
Yeah especially when subroc gets the axe for pretty much the same stuff, idk banning stupidity is tough to justify I suppose
Yeah especially when subroc gets the axe for pretty much the same stuff, idk banning stupidity is tough to justify I suppose
It's all politics.
lobster is just a troll in the NFL. None of the mods really care THAT much unless he's going way overboard.
Lots of people didn't like subroc over political and social opinions he had.
That's how it works.
BDawk4Prez
08-05-2015, 09:15 PM
I've actually debated putting 50 bucks up like Amazon or something just to make it interesting but IIRC a mod told me that's not allowed, I guess.
I've given away stuff in the GB forum for our draft game though. I'm so naughty.
I've given stuff away several times, mainly in Cubs forum. :shrug:
I've given stuff away several times, mainly in Cubs forum. :shrug:
Yeah I know. Idk. Someone said I couldn't
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 12:03 AM
Cowboys - skipped at 9:00
Titans - skipped at 9:30
Triangles - select Mark Bavaro
Wolverines - select Mark Clayton
Maroons - skipped at 11:00
Steagles - skipped at 11:30
Eagles - skipped at 12:00
Please make these picks when you get a chance.
Plague
08-06-2015, 12:36 AM
If they are still available Canton will take John Riggins and Steve Mcmichael.
If they are not available just skip my pick.
WildWesty
08-06-2015, 12:49 AM
The unbelievably available Dutch Clark
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 01:03 AM
Thanks wrench for making the pick
killthesux
08-06-2015, 03:38 AM
Titans select OT Ralph Neely
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 07:59 AM
Not being on and skipped at ****ing midnight on a work night is pretty ******. Especially losing the guy I wanted. Horseshit.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 08:02 AM
Eric Allen and Jerry Kramer
WildWesty
08-06-2015, 08:18 AM
Eric Allen and Jerry Kramer
Kramer is mine sowwy
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 09:16 AM
Jim Covert
StriveGreatness
08-06-2015, 10:36 AM
Charley Brock with the Raiders second skip (345)
Wrench
08-06-2015, 10:48 AM
Not being on and skipped at ****ing midnight on a work night is pretty ******. Especially losing the guy I wanted. Horseshit.
The time slots tell you 100% when you will be OTC, and if you can't be on at that time to make your pick you send in a list and it wil be made for you. TDj sent me a list for his pick and I made his pick for him in his slot.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 10:56 AM
The time slots tell you 100% when you will be OTC, and if you can't be on at that time to make your pick you send in a list and it wil be made for you. TDj sent me a list for his pick and I made his pick for him in his slot.
There were 8 people in front of me, lol. Plus, this late, depending on who picks who, it could change a ton in what you need to do.
Point being, running this thing at midnight is quite unreasonable. Why not 6AM?
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 11:07 AM
My first go at Power Rankings, so there. Looking at clubbies, judging off of what is there. My team excluded.
1. Eskimos
2. Triangles
3. Dolphins
4. Jets
5. Maroons
6. Vikings
7. Wolverines
8. Steagles
9. Steam rollers
10. Titans
11. All Americans
12. Rawz
13. Colts
14. Canton
15. Raiders
16. Staleys
WildWesty
08-06-2015, 11:13 AM
Mark Gastineau is done sliding.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 11:16 AM
No ranking for me. :(
I did accidentally leave out Plague from my rankings, though. I think he would have been right around BCB if I remember correctly.
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 11:48 AM
There were 8 people in front of me, lol. Plus, this late, depending on who picks who, it could change a ton in what you need to do.
Point being, running this thing at midnight is quite unreasonable. Why not 6AM?
It's not really unreasonable. The clock period is designed to account for every US time zone. I understand 11-12 is late for the East, just like 10-11 is early for the West. But, I don't think the clock is unreasonable. Besides, Plague was the only one that picked that was due up after you. So the other 2-3 that were taken would likely have gone in front of you anyways.
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 11:51 AM
Maroons are skipped. The list they sent was terrible.
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 11:51 AM
The time slots tell you 100% when you will be OTC, and if you can't be on at that time to make your pick you send in a list and it wil be made for you. TDj sent me a list for his pick and I made his pick for him in his slot.
The problems of working at night and knowing it was going to be a hell of a busy night.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 11:52 AM
It's not really unreasonable. The clock period is designed to account for every US time zone. I understand 11-12 is late for the East, just like 10-11 is early for the West. But, I don't think the clock is unreasonable. Besides, Plague was the only one that picked that was due up after you. So the other 2-3 that were taken would likely have gone in front of you anyways.
I'm Central. Regardless, midnight is VERY late. Maybe I'm old, and I get that's not your all's problem, but up at 4AM to make a 90 minute commute sucks balls.
I'm better now, but still.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 11:54 AM
No ranking for me. :(
I did accidentally leave out Plague from my rankings, though. I think he would have been right around BCB if I remember correctly.
Sorry, I edited. :)
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 11:55 AM
It's not really unreasonable. The clock period is designed to account for every US time zone. I understand 11-12 is late for the East, just like 10-11 is early for the West. But, I don't think the clock is unreasonable. Besides, Plague was the only one that picked that was due up after you. So the other 2-3 that were taken would likely have gone in front of you anyways.
Complaining aside (and this is the only time I have complained), I think the time slots is a wonderful addition to the game. Just seems like I am the one who has been hit with midnight every time, lol.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 11:58 AM
Sorry, I edited. :)
Sweet, I'm happy with 6th. I noticed you had the Titans listed twice; I'll assume one of them was meant to be the Bulldogs?
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 11:58 AM
Who can take a board for my 2nd pick of the night.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 11:59 AM
Sweet, I'm happy with 6th. I noticed you had the Titans listed twice; I'll assume one of them was meant to be the Bulldogs?
Ugh! Yes.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 12:02 PM
Who can take a board for my 2nd pick of the night.
I can. (At this point I'm just picking backups, so don't worry about me stealing your pick.)
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 12:03 PM
I can. (At this point I'm just picking backups, so don't worry about me stealing your pick.)
My 2nd pick is more of a sub package player
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 12:23 PM
Uhhh...are punters allowed to be drafted in this? I know they're not listed under the roster requirements.
The Jokemaker
08-06-2015, 12:26 PM
Punters can be but worthless given we don't need them.
SOMEBODY ( ;) ) didn't read the rules
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 12:27 PM
Punters can be but worthless given we don't need them.
SOMEBODY ( ;) ) didn't read the rules
Wait, someone waited until round 22!!!!!!!!!!!!
Off with their head.
Kidding. :)
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 12:28 PM
Ray Guy Punter
Good pick if we used punters in the game.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 12:31 PM
Punters can be but worthless given we don't need them.
SOMEBODY ( ;) ) didn't read the rules
Well...I guess he has his backup QB now.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 12:32 PM
Wait, someone waited until round 22!!!!!!!!!!!!
Off with their head.
Kidding. :)
Lol. Hey, it's not like it would have affected me in any way. I knew they weren't required, and I wasn't planning on drafting one regardless.
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 12:36 PM
Triangles want Karl Mecklenburg
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 12:37 PM
Darn there goes my next pick.....jk
Wrench
08-06-2015, 12:51 PM
Fred Smerlas, DT
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 12:55 PM
Cowboys automatically skipped due to previous skip. All-Americans OTC.
TDjacksonville
08-06-2015, 01:02 PM
Steve Wisniewski
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 01:04 PM
Vikings take S-Joey Browner.
BCB mwat15
08-06-2015, 01:28 PM
Staleys select KR/PR Devin Hester
The Jokemaker
08-06-2015, 03:28 PM
With pick 369, the Miami Dolphins select "Sweet lips" Cornell Green, CB.
warfelg
08-06-2015, 03:43 PM
With one of the two skipped picks the Maroons take Keith Brooking LB
warfelg
08-06-2015, 03:50 PM
With the other skipped pick the Maroons select Tom Dahms.
StriveGreatness
08-06-2015, 05:15 PM
Charley Brock with the Raiders second skip (345)
scratch this pick. didn't see he was taken
345 - Clarke Hinkle
370 - Jim Marshall
Wrench
08-06-2015, 06:11 PM
With my 5:30-6:00 slot the Eskimos will take,
Bobby Boyd, CB
Wrench
08-06-2015, 06:33 PM
With my 6:30-7:00 time slot the Eskimos will take,
Roger Craig, RB
unleashthebeast
08-06-2015, 06:37 PM
First pick MLB Luke Kuechly
Lol weird... I thought we always drafted Punters and Kickers...
unleashthebeast
08-06-2015, 06:46 PM
CB Pat Fischer with my other pick
Andrei00
08-06-2015, 06:48 PM
Bill Fralic, G with one of my picks
Joe Watson center cowboys
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 07:02 PM
Lol weird... I thought we always drafted Punters and Kickers...
We do. I just took it out this year because it never makes a difference in voting. You can still list KR/PR if you want to, though.
Lol weird... I thought we always drafted Punters and Kickers...
I started this trend a while back in one of the games.
It's never mattered, ever, once. It's only a waste of time.
Finally someone else realized that.
Andrei00
08-06-2015, 07:13 PM
Nnamdi Asomugha, CB with my second pick
Oh ok, can I repick then?
homestarunner93
08-06-2015, 07:54 PM
No, you have to keep your useless punter.
Of course you can re-pick
Oh ok, can I repick then?
You get Tebow.
Congrats on your ATRD win.
unleashthebeast
08-06-2015, 08:12 PM
You get Tebow.
Congrats on your ATRD win.
Undrafted, I demand a fine
Undrafted, I demand a fine
We're fined 1000m in cap space.
Noob.
unleashthebeast
08-06-2015, 08:40 PM
We're fined 1000m in cap space.
Noob.
#Justice
The Jokemaker
08-06-2015, 09:12 PM
I think I'm up on the slots.
With pick 380, the Miami Dolphins select a man with a tragically short career, Terrell Davis, RB.
warfelg
08-06-2015, 09:55 PM
We're fined 1000m in cap space.
Noob.
I demand a draft pick. Then again that gives you a cap advantage.
BDawk4Prez
08-06-2015, 09:58 PM
No, you have to keep your useless punter.
Of course you can re-pick
Not to be a dick, but that rule was pretty clear.
Why should he get to repick? That's his mistake, should have to wait.
Not to be a dick, but that rule was pretty clear.
Why should he get to repick? That's his mistake, should have to wait.
You guys need to hug it out
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 10:16 PM
Vikings take DE-Ed "Too Tall" Jones.
The Long Shot
08-06-2015, 10:17 PM
All-Americans request Greg Townsend.
AP=MVP
08-06-2015, 10:20 PM
Skipped pick... roller takes former cyclone and viking Matt Blair
AP=MVP
08-06-2015, 10:21 PM
Also Sam Madison
SteelCurtain
08-06-2015, 10:40 PM
After just a quick glance, damn. Payton, Marino and Butkus fell big time this year.
StriveGreatness
08-07-2015, 07:30 AM
Art Powell to the Raiders
Plague
08-07-2015, 12:07 PM
One of Cantons picks I will take C-Ray Weitcha....The other pick soon to come.
Plague
08-07-2015, 12:25 PM
I did not notice his name being pick so if it was let me know.
My other pick with be Ken Strong- I will be playing him as a DB and not a RB.
BDawk4Prez
08-07-2015, 12:33 PM
Have no idea who is up.
The Long Shot
08-07-2015, 12:35 PM
Have no idea who is up.
You are. You also have a skipped pick to make up.
Plague
08-07-2015, 12:52 PM
Ignore me, I misread the quote.
BDawk4Prez
08-07-2015, 02:43 PM
Walt Sweeney - Eagles
BDawk4Prez
08-07-2015, 02:45 PM
Dwight Freeney - eagles
The Long Shot
08-07-2015, 03:21 PM
Dwight Freeney - eagles
He's mine, my friend.
TDjacksonville
08-07-2015, 04:02 PM
Well it's 4pm on 8/7 so I'll take Billy Howton WR
The Long Shot
08-07-2015, 04:40 PM
Vikings take our backup QB in Sid Luckman.
WildWesty
08-07-2015, 04:50 PM
Believe I have two picks:
Les Bingaman
Spec Sanders
The Jokemaker
08-07-2015, 05:03 PM
Was told I was OTC.
With the 403rd pick, the Miami Dolphins select Cliff Branch, WR.
WildWesty
08-07-2015, 05:04 PM
After just a quick glance, damn. Payton, Marino and Butkus fell big time this year.
Yeah was pretty shocked to get Marino, I think I grabbed him with a skipped pick, too lol
The Long Shot
08-07-2015, 05:07 PM
Updating the draft board.
Round 21
341. Baltimore Colts - Chad Johnson, WR
342. Duluth Eskimos - Stanley Morgan, WR
343. New York Jets - Richmond Webb, OT
344. Providence Steam Roller - Roger Brown, DT
345. Los Angeles Raiders - Clarke Hinkle, FB
346. Miami Dolphins - Ed Budde, G
347. Decatur Staleys - Jimmy Patton, CB
348. Minnesota Vikings - Clayton Tonnemaker, C
349. Buffalo All-Americans - Link Lyman, T
350. Kansas City Cowboys - Joe Watson, C
351. Tennessee Titans - Ralph Neely, OT
352. Dayton Triangles - Mark Bavaro, TE
353. Detroit Wolverines - Mark Clayton, WR
354. Pottsville Maroons - Keith Brooking, LB
355. Phil-Pitt Steagles - QB/RB Dutch Clark
356. Philadelphia Eagles - Eric Allen, CB
357. Canton Bulldogs - John Riggins, FB
Round 22
358. Canton Bulldogs - Steve McMichael, DT
359. Philadelphia Eagles - Jim Covert, OT
360. Phil-Pitt Steagles - Mark Gastineau, DE
361. Pottsville Maroons - Tom Dahms, OT
362. Detroit Wolverines - Butch Byrd, CB
363. Dayton Triangles - Karl Mecklenburg, LB
364. Duluth Eskimos (via Titans) - Fred Smerlas, DT
365. Kansas City Cowboys - SKIPPED 1x
366. Buffalo All-Americans - Steve Wisniewski, G
367. Minnesota Vikings - Joey Browner, S
368. Decatur Staleys - Devin Hester, WR
369. Miami Dolphins - Cornell Green, CB
370. Los Angeles Raiders - Jim Marshall, DE
371. Providence Steam Roller - Matt Blair, LB
372. New York Jets - Bill Fralic, OG
373. Duluth Eskimos - Bobby Boyd, CB
374. Baltimore Colts - Luke Kuechly, LB
Round 23
375. Baltimore Colts - Pat Fischer, CB
376. Duluth Eskimos - Roger Craig, RB
377. New York Jets - Nnamdi Asomugha, CB
378. Providence Steam Roller - Sam Madison, CB
379. Los Angeles Raiders - Art Powell, WR
380. Miami Dolphins - Terrell Davis, RB
381. Decatur Staleys - SKIPPED 1x
382. Minnesota Vikings - Ed Jones, DE
383. Buffalo All-Americans - Greg Townsend, DE
384. Kansas City Cowboys - SKIPPED 2x
385. Tennessee Titans - SKIPPED 1x
386. Dayton Triangles - SKIPPED 1x
387. Detroit Wolverines - SKIPPED 1x
388. Pottsville Maroons - SKIPPED 1x
389. Phil-Pitt Steagles - Les Bingaman, NT
390. Philadelphia Eagles - Walt Sweeney, OL
391. Canton Bulldogs - Ray Weitcha, C
Round 24
392. Canton Bulldogs - Ken Strong, DB
393. Philadelphia Eagles - Re-pick
394. Phil-Pitt Steagles - Spec Sanders, RB/QB/P
395. Pottsville Maroons - SKIPPED 2x
396. Detroit Wolverines - SKIPPED 2x
397. Dayton Triangles - SKIPPED 2x
398. Tennessee Titans - SKIPPED 2x
399. Kansas City Cowboys - SKIPPED 3x
400. Buffalo All-Americans - Billy Howton, WR
401. Minnesota Vikings - Sid Luckman, QB
402. Decatur Staleys - SKIPPED 2x
403. Miami Dolphins - Cliff Branch, WR
404. Los Angeles Raiders - OTC
405. Providence Steam Roller -
406. New York Jets -
407. Tennessee Titans (via Eskimos) -
408. Baltimore Colts -
The Long Shot
08-07-2015, 05:12 PM
Updated the draft board the best I could.
The Jokemaker
08-07-2015, 05:17 PM
Good job TLS
warfelg
08-07-2015, 05:57 PM
Two skipped picks:
Mike Jarmoluk DT
Roy Winston LB
AP=MVP
08-07-2015, 07:39 PM
Roller takes the meanest man in football..... DE Ed Sprinkle
Cowboys take George Blanda, Nate Newton and mark stepnoswki
Wrench
08-07-2015, 08:36 PM
In my 8:30-9:00 slot the Eskimos will take 9x Pro Bowler,
Maxie Baughan, LB
AP=MVP
08-07-2015, 10:14 PM
Roller -- Bill Dudley
BDawk4Prez
08-07-2015, 10:24 PM
Repick - Lomas Brown - Eagles
The Jokemaker
08-07-2015, 10:40 PM
According to the time slots I believe I am up.
With our final pick at 414 of the 25th round, the Miami Dolphins select Ernie "The Big Cat" Ladd, DT.
Andrei00
08-08-2015, 09:54 AM
Wes Chandler, WR
Chuck Foreman, RB
The Long Shot
08-08-2015, 11:15 AM
Vikings round out our draft with RB-Billy Sims.
Skipped picks I'll take Leroy Kelly RB and Lyle Alzado as my situational pass rusher
Who is gonna be the first guy to have 8 90's/00's guys on their team?
Because it was almost me lol. I didn't realize it was 7 total and not 7 starters.
AP=MVP
08-08-2015, 05:34 PM
Not me but damn I really wanted one of SC's boys as a backup
StriveGreatness
08-08-2015, 05:38 PM
404-Erich Barnes
TDjacksonville
08-08-2015, 05:51 PM
Doak walker
will updated clubhouse and everything monday. have to work again today, will be gone 16 hours, sorry
Wrench
08-09-2015, 10:14 AM
All of the time slots have past so you should have 25 players, if not pick till you do.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 10:39 AM
Hello friends. Sorry I've been AWOL. I've been moving to Athens and have had basically no time to do anything.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 10:52 AM
Draft board should be updated. Anyone who has open picks left can make them.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 10:59 AM
Triangles take Bruno Banducci, Russ Letlow, and Bob Jeter
Andrei00
08-09-2015, 12:17 PM
Hello friends. Sorry I've been AWOL. I've been moving to Athens and have had basically no time to do anything.
Athens as in Greece?
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 01:03 PM
Athens as in Greece?
No. Georgia. Haha.
Plague
08-09-2015, 01:20 PM
Canton will take LB Walt Michaels
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 02:49 PM
We will open the Free Agency rounds on Monday 8/10 at 7 PM eastern. You have to wait at least 6 hours between additions. You can add up to 5 players, depending on how many two-way starters you have. If you have three players starting two-ways, that means you can only add 2 players in Free Agency. This is all first come, first serve. You do not have to max out your 30 spots if you don't want to. This is entirely optional.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 02:50 PM
We will open the Free Agency rounds on Monday 8/10 at 7 PM eastern. You have to wait at least 6 hours between additions. You can add up to 5 players, depending on how many two-way starters you have. If you have three players starting two-ways, that means you can only add 2 players in Free Agency. This is all first come, first serve. You do not have to max out your 30 spots if you don't want to. This is entirely optional.
Plague
08-09-2015, 03:31 PM
We will open the Free Agency rounds on Monday 8/10 at 7 PM eastern. You have to wait at least 6 hours between additions. You can add up to 5 players, depending on how many two-way starters you have. If you have three players starting two-ways, that means you can only add 2 players in Free Agency. This is all first come, first serve. You do not have to max out your 30 spots if you don't want to. This is entirely optional.
I would like to get some clarification on how the roster limits work during free agency.
The rules state during free agency you must drop a player to add a player. In the announcements it says you do not have to max out your 30 roster spots.
The Long Shot
08-09-2015, 03:47 PM
I would like to get some clarification on how the roster limits work during free agency.
The rules state during free agency you must drop a player to add a player. In the announcements it says you do not have to max out your 30 roster spots.
The rules say nothing about having to drop a player to add a player. You may add and/or drop players until you reach the roster limit of 30 players, at which point you must drop a player if you want to add one.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 03:59 PM
The rules say nothing about having to drop a player to add a player. You may add and/or drop players until you reach the roster limit of 30 players, at which point you must drop a player if you want to add one.
This is correct. And thank you TLS for helping update the board.
Plague
08-09-2015, 05:35 PM
The rules say nothing about having to drop a player to add a player. You may add and/or drop players until you reach the roster limit of 30 players, at which point you must drop a player if you want to add one.
I don't really care one way or another as a 30 man roster is easier for me to manage compared to a 25 man roster. However the rule is at best a incomplete sentence. The wording implies that you if you choose to sign a player you will be dropping a player.
When writing rules your target audience is first time players, you guys have written rules that appear to target returning players who already understand how the game is played.
This is how the rule is written
The Draft will consist of 25 draft rounds and 5 OPTIONAL free agency rounds with no order. In the Free Agency round you may drop AND sign any player that has yet to be selected. Free Agency is strictly first come, first serve.
Below is how it would read if it implied what you claim it implies. Below is not how I would of wrote the rule, but I am trying to keep the wording as close to the original rule as possible.
The Draft will consist of 25 draft rounds and 5 OPTIONAL free agency rounds with no order. In the Free Agency round you may either drop any player from your roster or you may sign any player who has not already been selected. Free Agency is strictly first come, first serve.
WildWesty
08-09-2015, 07:20 PM
If he's still available I want Tim Krumrie
warfelg
08-09-2015, 08:46 PM
With my 25th round pick the Maroons pick Dick Stanfel OG
warfelg
08-09-2015, 08:47 PM
.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 08:59 PM
I don't really care one way or another as a 30 man roster is easier for me to manage compared to a 25 man roster. However the rule is at best a incomplete sentence. The wording implies that you if you choose to sign a player you will be dropping a player.
When writing rules your target audience is first time players, you guys have written rules that appear to target returning players who already understand how the game is played.
This is how the rule is written
Below is how it would read if it implied what you claim it implies. Below is not how I would of wrote the rule, but I am trying to keep the wording as close to the original rule as possible.
What part of 5 optional FA rounds don't you understand? As always, you are welcome to ask questions for clarification. You ***** way too much, though. I won't do this song and dance with you again.
Plague
08-09-2015, 10:07 PM
What part of 5 optional FA rounds don't you understand? As always, you are welcome to ask questions for clarification. You ***** way too much, though. I won't do this song and dance with you again.
I didn't *****. I asked a simple question asking for clarification.
You wouldn't have to do a song or dance if the rules were not so poorly written. It's not a coincidence that about 6 of the new players didn't understand the rules as they were written. If the rules were clearly written that wouldn't be the case
To answer your question which also involves a question. What part of my question had anything to do with the 5 optional rounds? My question asked for details within those 5 optional rounds. The rules as written imply you must drop a player to pick up a player. Then in the lounge you stated a roster of 30 players. That led me to ask the question for you guys to clarify the rules. If you or long shot would of just answered the question I would of said "Thank you for clarifying the question" and moved on. However Long Shot made the comment about the rules never stating about dropping a player to pick up a player. That's when I pointed out the sentence that implies drop and pickup a player and then I stated how it could of been written more clearly.
If your plan is to recruit new owners for future seasons you need to do a rewrite of the rules to better explain the rules or you're going to be putting those new players at a disadvantage just like you did this group of new owners. The other option is to continue your arrogant ways and leave the rules written as is.
homestarunner93
08-09-2015, 10:12 PM
I didn't *****. I asked a simple question asking for clarification.
You wouldn't have to do a song or dance if the rules were not so poorly written. It's not a coincidence that about 6 of the new players didn't understand the rules as they were written. If the rules were clearly written that wouldn't be the case
To answer your question which also involves a question. What part of my question had anything to do with the 5 optional rounds? My question asked for details within those 5 optional rounds. The rules as written imply you must drop a player to pick up a player. Then in the lounge you stated a roster of 30 players. That led me to ask the question for you guys to clarify the rules. If you or long shot would of just answered the question I would of said "Thank you for clarifying the question" and moved on. However Long Shot made the comment about the rules never stating about dropping a player to pick up a player. That's when I pointed out the sentence that implies drop and pickup a player and then I stated how it could of been written more clearly.
If your plan is to recruit new owners for future seasons you need to do a rewrite of the rules to better explain the rules or you're going to be putting those new players at a disadvantage just like you did this group of new owners. The other option is to continue your arrogant ways and leave the rules written as is.
TLS told you what the rule meant, since you didn't understand it. And then I said it was correct. Then you continue to whine about how the rule was written, blah blah blah. If you just wanted clarification, you could have left it at that. Instead you continue on because you have some weird need to feel vindicated in every discussion or something. I dunno what it is. But I'm tired of it. You were a good addition to the game, but I'm tired of that crap going on in the lounge.
Plague
08-09-2015, 10:29 PM
TLS told you what the rule meant, since you didn't understand it. And then I said it was correct. Then you continue to whine about how the rule was written, blah blah blah. If you just wanted clarification, you could have left it at that. Instead you continue on because you have some weird need to feel vindicated in every discussion or something. I dunno what it is. But I'm tired of it. You were a good addition to the game, but I'm tired of that crap going on in the lounge.
This will be my last post on this subject. You're the pot calling the kettle black. I am going to give you my suggestion going forward, if you don't like it that's your choice. If you don't want people too "whine" I suggest for next season rewriting clearly defined rules. It's not just 1 rule that needs to be rewritten. The rules are filled with incomplete sentences and written in a manner that is implied differently than what is intended. It would be a fairly short and easy rewrite, and it would be better for new playrers going forward instead of having the rules benefit the veteran players.
homestarunner93
08-10-2015, 12:08 AM
This will be my last post on this subject. You're the pot calling the kettle black. I am going to give you my suggestion going forward, if you don't like it that's your choice. If you don't want people too "whine" I suggest for next season rewriting clearly defined rules. It's not just 1 rule that needs to be rewritten. The rules are filled with incomplete sentences and written in a manner that is implied differently than what is intended. It would be a fairly short and easy rewrite, and it would be better for new playrers going forward instead of having the rules benefit the veteran players.
Which sentence is an incomplete sentence?
Plague
08-10-2015, 12:43 AM
Which sentence is an incomplete sentence?
I don't want to continue arguing. I am only responding because you asked the question.
The bolded part is implying you can drop any player that has yet to be selected. Even new people can figure that to be illogical, However each person may interpret it differently. The first thing that hit me is if I can have 30 players, and I am going into the free agent round with 25 players and only 5 free agent rounds, why would I drop a player to draft a player? So to me the first logical thought would support my understanding that roster sizes are 25 players, I saw nothing in this sentence to make me believe roster sizes are 30 players. Thats why it came across to me as you need to drop a player to sign a player. The original rules to me came across as 1 action. The original sentence was incomplete so my mind filled in the blanks with what I thought was intended.
Now that you clarified the rule I understand what was intended, but no where in the rules did it say the roster size is 30 players. The way I recalled everything was rosters are 25 players, 12 starters and 3 backups and the players must meet the decades rules.
The Draft will consist of 25 draft rounds and 5 OPTIONAL free agency rounds with no order. In the Free Agency round you may drop AND sign any player that has yet to be selected. Free Agency is strictly first come, first serve.
A complete sentence in the framework of the original sentence would of went something like this. "The draft will consist of 25 rounds and 5 optional free agency rounds. In the Free Agency rounds you may either drop a player from your roster or sign any player that has yet to be selected by another team."
With the above sentence you are clarifying that drop and sign is not 1 action but two separate actions.
WildWesty
08-10-2015, 11:03 AM
Right or wrong about the way the rules are worded, homie, I don't think telling new GMs that they "***** too much" is necessary at all, especially as a commish. Shouldn't we be encouraging suggestions for clarity rather than getting pissed off about it?
BDawk4Prez
08-10-2015, 11:20 AM
It's been fun, let's not ruin it now.
There are some things that could be more clearly written, but kudos to you guys for taking on the challenge of something that will be forgotten by most in a few weeks. It's a daunting task, and as fair as criticism can be, it still sucks to hear.
Appreciate all the effort, looking forward to smashing all of your candy ***** in the playoffs.
BDawk4Prez
08-10-2015, 11:23 AM
Bob Kuechenberg - skipped pick
homestarunner93
08-10-2015, 11:47 AM
I don't want to continue arguing. I am only responding because you asked the question.
The bolded part is implying you can drop any player that has yet to be selected. Even new people can figure that to be illogical, However each person may interpret it differently. The first thing that hit me is if I can have 30 players, and I am going into the free agent round with 25 players and only 5 free agent rounds, why would I drop a player to draft a player? So to me the first logical thought would support my understanding that roster sizes are 25 players, I saw nothing in this sentence to make me believe roster sizes are 30 players. Thats why it came across to me as you need to drop a player to sign a player. The original rules to me came across as 1 action. The original sentence was incomplete so my mind filled in the blanks with what I thought was intended.
Now that you clarified the rule I understand what was intended, but no where in the rules did it say the roster size is 30 players. The way I recalled everything was rosters are 25 players, 12 starters and 3 backups and the players must meet the decades rules.
A complete sentence in the framework of the original sentence would of went something like this. "The draft will consist of 25 rounds and 5 optional free agency rounds. In the Free Agency rounds you may either drop a player from your roster or sign any player that has yet to be selected by another team."
With the above sentence you are clarifying that drop and sign is not 1 action but two separate actions.
That's not an incomplete sentence. Personally, I see a subject and a predicate.
Right or wrong about the way the rules are worded, homie, I don't think telling new GMs that they "***** too much" is necessary at all, especially as a commish. Shouldn't we be encouraging suggestions for clarity rather than getting pissed off about it?
Suggestions are fine. Suggestions don't require pages of discussion. The whining is the annoying part. If it was just, "hey, maybe this could be worded better." That's fine.
Plague
08-10-2015, 12:10 PM
That's not an incomplete sentence. Personally, I see a subject and a predicate.
Suggestions are fine. Suggestions don't require pages of discussion. The whining is the annoying part. If it was just, "hey, maybe this could be worded better." That's fine.
If you would of dealt with the situation reasonably from the start instead of like a Narcissist you would of had a reasonable and productive discussion instead of pages of I am always right and everyone else is always wrong, instead you get what you call pages of whining and I would call pages of dealing with a Narcissist.
I am out of the discussion.
homestarunner93
08-10-2015, 12:33 PM
If you would of dealt with the situation reasonably from the start instead of like a Narcissist you would of had a reasonable and productive discussion instead of pages of I am always right and everyone else is always wrong, instead you get what you call pages of whining and I would call pages of dealing with a Narcissist.
I am out of the discussion.
What was the reasonable way to deal with it? I explained the rules to you. You didn't like the explanation and continued on and on. What was the reasonable course that you would suggest?
BDawk4Prez
08-10-2015, 12:46 PM
Seriously, let it go.
warfelg
08-10-2015, 12:53 PM
I think it was fine. We all dealt with it last year as it was the first time for the rule.
Could they be clearer? Sure.
But at the same time as a first timer you should ask as many questions as possible and find someone you can trust for advice. I did that last year for the first time in the two games I did and people were happy to help me out.
Edit:
To add, it's on the player to read the rules and ask questions, not on the commissioner to ask everyone if they understand it and explain them to everyone.
Plague
08-10-2015, 01:00 PM
What was the reasonable way to deal with it? I explained the rules to you. You didn't like the explanation and continued on and on. What was the reasonable course that you would suggest?
I was ok with the explanation. I didn't agree with your explanation based on the wording of the rules but as I said in my very first response I would adapt. I understand first time players in any game are at a disadvantage and that I would be almost surely going to be making rookie mistakes, but you came across strong in your stance that I am right and several newcomers are wrong.
For me the reasonable response would of been something along these lines.
This is how we have been playing the game for years (or however long you guys have been playing). Even though its clear to me and veteran owners I can understand how the wording could be misconstrued for first time players, but its too late in the draft to change as some people drafted based on experience playing the game, and others drafted based on the written rules. In this case of making the best of a bad situation I think the correct path is too play according to past practice. In the off season I will look to make some corrections to the rules to better avoid this happening again.
Plague
08-10-2015, 01:06 PM
I think it was fine. We all dealt with it last year as it was the first time for the rule.
Could they be clearer? Sure.
But at the same time as a first timer you should ask as many questions as possible and find someone you can trust for advice. I did that last year for the first time in the two games I did and people were happy to help me out.
Edit:
To add, it's on the player to read the rules and ask questions, not on the commissioner to ask everyone if they understand it and explain them to everyone.
This is a case where the rule appeared to be clear so there was no need to ask questions. If someone did not ask a question in the 20th round contradicting the rule I would still be drafting according to how I thought the rule was stated.
P.S. I meant this response to the first discussion not the more recent discussion. This rule I made assumptions based on what I thought was logical.
Plague
08-10-2015, 01:16 PM
One more quick rule question.
Does the 7 player limit for 90s+ players include these 5 free agents?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.