FanGM

Nathan S. wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason for the draft being around the actual start time of the draft is to prevent people from watching mini camps, etc. and drafting based off of those results.

Bingo. We need to draft based on pre-draft scouting knowledge, not off the mini-camp performance reports. Plus, you risk injuries in those mini-camps playing an outcome on our draft if we delay it.

RyanM wrote:

Nathan S. wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason for the draft being around the actual start time of the draft is to prevent people from watching mini camps, etc. and drafting based off of those results.

Bingo. We need to draft based on pre-draft scouting knowledge, not off the mini-camp performance reports. Plus, you risk injuries in those mini-camps playing an outcome on our draft if we delay it.

Exactly!

RyanM wrote:

Nathan S. wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason for the draft being around the actual start time of the draft is to prevent people from watching mini camps, etc. and drafting based off of those results.

Bingo. We need to draft based on pre-draft scouting knowledge, not off the mini-camp performance reports. Plus, you risk injuries in those mini-camps playing an outcome on our draft if we delay it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that each club can hold one 3-day rookie minicamp at some point after the first weekend after the draft. After that, OTAs don't start until May 17 at the earliest (https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/NFL ... unced.aspx). There is a substantial gap between the draft and May 17, so I don't see the need to slam our draft in immediately on that basis.

Edit: Also, I think it's beneficial to have a few days to analyse the team fit of where players have landed as that's a layer of data that is not available until the NFL draft.

Do we have a set of dates yet where we are looking to do the offseason items?

rabbitrun wrote:Do we have a set of dates yet where we are looking to do the offseason items?

No not yet, rules discussions will have to conclude, new finances will have switched over for the new year, team check-ins will have to be setup where we see how many GMs need to be replaced, and new GMs will need to be placed into those spots. I'm expecting rules discussion to mostly be done here soon, with me working on transitioning finances to new league year this weekend and setting up team check-ins. At that time teams will also be able to tag players and select LTCs, so some transactions will be allowed starting next week. Hopefully we get a good picture of openings next week and can work on replacements. I'm still shooting for a mid-to-probably later April start for free agency depending upon how that all goes.

I'm not sure where this fits so I'll put it here. I've been thinking of free agency and some things that would make it more competitive. Right now free agency starts and every free agent is available and can be signed pretty quickly. I believe we should have two waves to free agency. We would start wave 1 as we normally do and it would last a week or ten days. The difference would be that every contract in Wave 1 would have to be 3 years or longer and would have to have at least 2 million dollars in signing bonus for each year. For example, a 3 year deal would have to have at least 6 million in signing bonus. Also, teams would not be able to open bidding on their own players during wave 1. Although they could counter bid if another team opened bidding. Then wave 2 would start and it would run just like free agency does now.

This would make things more realistic. For example, last year in DFFL - Allen Bailey - a DE with an 80 rating was signed on the first day for 3 years at the minimum and with a $1000 signing bonus. Basically everybody bid on the big fish and this flew under the radar. This is not realistic. No NFL player signs a minimum deal in the first week of free agency. Also, once free agency begins now, everybody can sign all their free agents and practice squad players and will get most of them because other teams will not have enough bids.

I believe these changes should be considered and would make things more competitive, realistic, and fun.

robroach wrote:I'm not sure where this fits so I'll put it here. I've been thinking of free agency and some things that would make it more competitive. Right now free agency starts and every free agent is available and can be signed pretty quickly. I believe we should have two waves to free agency. We would start wave 1 as we normally do and it would last a week or ten days. The difference would be that every contract in Wave 1 would have to be 3 years or longer and would have to have at least 2 million dollars in signing bonus for each year. For example, a 3 year deal would have to have at least 6 million in signing bonus. Also, teams would not be able to open bidding on their own players during wave 1. Although they could counter bid if another team opened bidding. Then wave 2 would start and it would run just like free agency does now.

This would make things more realistic. For example, last year in DFFL - Allen Bailey - a DE with an 80 rating was signed on the first day for 3 years at the minimum and with a $1000 signing bonus. Basically everybody bid on the big fish and this flew under the radar. This is not realistic. No NFL player signs a minimum deal in the first week of free agency. Also, once free agency begins now, everybody can sign all their free agents and practice squad players and will get most of them because other teams will not have enough bids.

I believe these changes should be considered and would make things more competitive, realistic, and fun.

I would be 100% against this. There are 32 teams that get 5 bids every day. If people want to keep a player from going for a minimum bid the first week of free agency, there are enough bids to go around.

I'd support increasing the minimum signing bonus for multiple year deals, but not creating a system that has "waves" of free agency.

Yeah I am with Ben. Perhaps doing something to avoid the guy who sneaks through with a major steal but the wave option is something I am no where near interested in.

tino38 wrote:Yeah I am with Ben. Perhaps doing something to avoid the guy who sneaks through with a major steal but the wave option is something I am no where near interested in.

Just thinking out loud here. Would it be easy to program and make it so that the 1st day each team gets maybe 6 or 7 bids so some players don't get stuck with the 3 year min deal? That would make 32 or 64 more bids making it less likely for those contracts to get hrough.

stevebarrett24 wrote: Just thinking out loud here. Would it be easy to program and make it so that the 1st day each team gets maybe 6 or 7 bids so some players don't get stuck with the 3 year min deal? That would make 32 or 64 more bids making it less likely for those contracts to get hrough.

I think this is an interesting option. More bids on day 1 would be a good way to keep ridiculous bargains from happening.