2016 Forum Mock: Discussion Thread

[rmw10]

And Geving is your new Chiefs owner.

[PaRAYdise]

1 minute ago, rmw10 said:

And Geving is your new Chiefs owner.

Good welcome back

[Geving]

2 minutes ago, PaRAYdise said:

Good welcome back

Thanks buddy

[Archeearl92]

You are the man Geving !

[RavensFanMania]

21 minutes ago, Archeearl92 said:

You are the man Geving !

The Pinch runner hits a home run

[-Truth-]

2 hours ago, ClintLB8 said:

I'm surprised JJ Nelson got cut. He showed real potential as a rookie and he was super cheap.

Same here. I would've traded for him.

[arnie_uk]

2 hours ago, ClintLB8 said:

I'm surprised JJ Nelson got cut. He showed real potential as a rookie and he was super cheap.

Error on my part didn't realise that was him. Cut uncut him at this stage unfortunately

[52520Andrew]

Props to Geving for getting everything up quickly. Makes all you people who need to get stuff up and updated look bad

[52520Andrew]

11 minutes ago, -Truth- said:

Same here. I would've traded for him.

Yeah he was a guy who did very well with Arizona

[Mt. Crushmore]

Just a reminder, when you are calculating totals on trades, you don't factor in the value of draft picks. If you do that, you take the draft pick into effect twice when you subtract your draft allocation from your cap room left.

[52520Andrew]

Timmons 9 stars can be had for a ham sandwich(not even cheese, ham and a piece of bread)

[Geving]

Forgot about the special cut/trade rule.

Can I slap that on Colquitt or Fanaika and save another 0.5 stars, or is it too late now?

[Mt. Crushmore]

Really happy to add Kareem Jackson to my secondary. The move means I won't really participate in free agency (cap), but my CB corps needed help and I wasn't going to be winning any big names in FA. 

If the Keenan Lewis trade gets confirmed then I'll have Lewis and Jackson at CB1 and 2, which will be a good combo. 

Just now, Geving said:

Forgot about the special cut/trade rule.

Can I slap that on Colquitt or Fanaika and save another 0.5 stars, or is it too late now?

It can be used retroactively, so put it on either of those guys if you want.

[Geving]

1 minute ago, Mt. Crushmore said:

 

It can be used retroactively, so put it on either of those guys if you want.

Thanks

[Mt. Crushmore]

Another transition tag!

[Mt. Crushmore]

15 players on the franchise tag and 4 on the transition tag 

[arnie_uk]

If I want a transition tag player, do I just give up my first round pick?

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, arnie_uk said:

If I want a transition tag player, do I just give up my first round pick?

No compensation for transition tag players.  Just a matter of the team matching the offer or not.

[CalvinSmoke]

what exactly is a transition tag?

[PaRAYdise]

5 minutes ago, CalvinSmoke said:

what exactly is a transition tag?

would compare it to a RFA but without compensation attached to it

[JO_75]

Finally updated my SOF. If someone can double check to ensure everything is correct, I should be good to go to participate in FA.

[Mt. Crushmore]

56 minutes ago, PaRAYdise said:

would compare it to a RFA but without compensation attached to it

This

[52520Andrew]

3 minutes ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Justin Forsett must go!!!!! Anything I can afford will be in consideration

If I didn't already have 2 good RBs and not much cap space I would throw you a 7th in a heartbeat lol

[ClintLB8]

9 hours ago, Mt. Crushmore said:

Just a reminder, when you are calculating totals on trades, you don't factor in the value of draft picks. If you do that, you take the draft pick into effect twice when you subtract your draft allocation from your cap room left.

You're absolutely right. I am one who has been doing that. Haha

[RavensFanMania]

7 hours ago, ClintLB8 said:

You're absolutely right. I am one who has been doing that. Haha

I've done that on the trade post and confirmation, but not on the SoF thread. 

[GrimCoconut]

17 hours ago, Mt. Crushmore said:

Just a reminder, when you are calculating totals on trades, you don't factor in the value of draft picks. If you do that, you take the draft pick into effect twice when you subtract your draft allocation from your cap room left.

This rule requires modification. It's an unfair handicap for teams with a finite amount of cap space without much room to release players. It also doesn't make sense since NFL teams don't have their caps handcuffed in such a way. These picks aren't on the team until officially drafted and shouldn't count against that particular team's cap space until they're actually on team. 

I recognize the importance of accountability since teams could theoretically have a problem during the draft, but that problem should be that team's problem at that point. Instead of requiring teams allocate cap to their draft picks, I say there should simply be a rule preventing the team from using their pick if they lack the cap space to afford it. 

Now I understand some will point to the fact that it's a wash since the team will eventually have to allocate that cap space for those players, which is true; however, the rule of 51 means we deduct 0.5 star from each player's salary after the team has 51 players. Therefore, cap strapped teams are evidently being handicapped in this instance if they have 51 players or more and also have to account for draft picks that would otherwise be free or discounted. 

I'd love to hear an argument against this. I feel like I've brought this up three years now, starting in 2014.

Edited February 15, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[-Truth-]

19 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

This rule requires modification. It's an unfair handicap for teams with a finite amount of cap space without much room to release players. It also doesn't make sense since NFL teams don't have their caps handcuffed in such a way. These picks aren't on the team until officially drafted and shouldn't count against that particular team's cap space until they're actually on team. 

I recognize the importance of accountability since teams could theoretically have a problem during the draft, but that problem should be that team's problem at that point. Instead of requiring teams allocate cap to their draft picks, I say there should simply be a rule preventing the team from using their pick if they lack the cap space to afford it. 

Now I understand some will point to the fact that it's a wash since the team will eventually have to allocate that cap space for those players, which is true; however, the rule of 51 means we deduct 0.5 star from each player's salary after the team has 51 players. Therefore, cap strapped teams are evidently being handicapped in this instance if they have 51 players or more and also have to account for draft picks that would otherwise be free or discounted. 

I'd love to hear an argument against this. I feel like I've brought this up three years now, starting in 2014.

That's actually a fair point. I may have missed this discussion in the last two years it's been had since I don't recall taking part of it, but especially with regards to picks between the 3rd and 7th rounds since they're worth .5 Stars. It does handicap teams for the FA periods. If I'm not mistaken, the only augmentation would come deducting picks from those rounds from the total if the team has at least 51 players, which doesn't sound like a difficult task. I'm racking my brain and am not coming up with any significant downsides. If anyone has any specific reservations, please chime in.

Edited February 15, 2016 by -Truth-

[52520Andrew]

Yeah you could deduct .5 stars for each pick if a team has over 51 players. Don't think we should scrap draft allocation as a whole though.

[-Truth-]

3 minutes ago, 52520Andrew said:

Yeah you could deduct .5 stars for each pick if a team has over 51 players. Don't think we should scrap draft allocation as a whole though.

I'd agree on both accounts.

Edited February 15, 2016 by -Truth-

[RavensFanMania]

I agree. I'm think we should keep the accountability for draft allocation since they will come onto the team at one point and agree that players drafted above 51 should be deducted at .5 per player.