Hey guys, I've had a lot of time to think about this and the last few days, and in doing so, I realized how much a part of my life this league is and why instead of giving in to the bullying and claims made against my integrity and credibility, I should stand up to those who are making those claims, disprove them where they have contradicted themselves in their own words (And similar moves in the past), and fight. I will demonstrate all of these things within this post.
One of the things that we've long had issues with is the inconsistency of the rulebooks. Last season, when we moved from the NFFL to the CDFL, I decided as Commissioner (At the time) to embark on one of my passion projects: Rewriting the rulebooks to correct contradictory, confusing, incorrect and impossible to enforce rules, as well as spelling and grammatical mistakes, and to make the rules section more consistent/easier to read, so every section looked professional and the same. So, on June 28th, 2016 I officially convened a panel of league members I respected and who had been a big help in voicing their concerns about league rules for a "Rules Committee" to help rewrite the league's rulebooks. The committee's #1 goal was to determine "which rules we have already identified as incorrect, review them/how they should be worded, and correct them."
I asked the four members I thought would be best suited for the job at the time to join me on the committee: (In alphabetical order) Arizona Cardinals (Mett), Buffalo Bills (Sal), Los Angeles Rams (Trey), Seattle Seahawks. All four of those parties accepted, and on that date, we began to rewrite much of the rulebook (A massive undertaking, as many of these rules hadn't been touched since they were hastily written by Mike, our old commissioner, when our league first navigated to Proboards in 2010, and a process that was never completed). One of the most challenging rules was and still is the QB/K part of the rulebook, due to its complexity, and the nature of our league (32 teams=32 starters...though sometimes that's not clear). The process went as follows: I wrote the draft up of every rules section, showing the old rule and the way the proposed new rule was written, highlighting the changes. I then submitted it to the committee, and they replied to the proposed re-wording of each section of the rulebook that we corrected. We discussed those suggestions as a group, and if they made sense/there were no issues, we implemented them into a second draft of that rules section. Once everyone was satisfied with how the final draft looked, I posted it in the section as the new rule for the league. As the process went on, several members got busy with other things, and we were no longer able to have a functional process as detailed above, which ultimately led to us abandoning the committee short of our goal of fixing
every section. However, one section that we
did cover was the QB/K rule.
Here is first draft that I submitted to the committee for the QB/K rule. As I detailed above, it shows the old rule and the proposed new rule, as well as the changes in between the two highlighted in bold.
Keep in mind, the rule that we had in place from 2010-2016 read as follows:
"NEW RULE 2
Any team with two starting Quarterbacks will have a $10 cap hit. ($1 each additional week) A starting Quarterback is defined as a QB at the top of his team's Depth Chart after the last preseason game (injuries notwithstanding).....NEW RULE 3
During the season you may not bid on a starting QB if you currently have a starting QB on your roster. This will go in effect after the last preseason game, the same time the $10 penalty starts.If you are over the cap you will not be able to compete in any match-ups and will be forced to forfeit - the points will not count for that week."
So, under those rules (The only ones in the rulebook that dictated the QB/starting QB issue), starting quarterbacks were only defined as "A QB at the top of his team's Depth Chart after the last preseason game (injuries notwithstanding)....." That seems to indicate that at no point during the season, if a quarterback should lose his starting job for any reason, is he still not considered the starter. That's one of the reasons it was such a difficult rule; It only ensured teams a starting QB for one week of the regular season: Week 1. However, where it gets a little more murky is on the "NEW RULE 3" part, where it reads, "During the season you may not bid on a starting QB if you currently have a starting QB on your roster." That could be interpreted to mean that any QB that subsequently
becomes a starting QB after Week 1 is then considered a starting QB,
BUT, if we're reading the rule to the letter of the law, it appears that the "NEW RULE 2" points out that's not the case, as starters are determined after the last preseason game. Therefore, regardless of what happens, if a QB was atop the team's depth chart (Which is vague and confusing, because it doesn't specify
whose depth charts we are supposed to consult) after the last preseason game, he was considered, at least by our league rules, the starter for the entire year. Therefore, by the old rules, DeShone Kizer is the Cleveland Browns' 2017 starting QB.
The new rule, that
as a group, we came up with, reads as follows:
"Every team MUST have a starting quarterback on their roster by Week 1 of the regular season.
Starting quarterbacks are determined by Rotoworld Depth Charts after the last pre-season game.
During the regular season, a General Manager may not bid on a starting QB if his team currently has a starting QB (
determined by Rotoworld Depth Charts at that time) on their roster."
Several points that are compelling:
Despite our best attempts, we wrote an incomplete rule, keeping in place some of the confusing verbiage of that original rule. I'll take my part of the blame for that. But once again, we mention that starting quarterbacks are determined by Rotoworld Depth Charts after the last pre-season game. That again, can be interpreted as when a starter is named after the last pre-season game, they are the starter for the entire year. Therefore, by reading the new rules, it is a completely legitimate argument to make the claim that DeShone Kizer is the Cleveland Browns' 2017 starting QB. This is one of the reasons that it is such a flawed and complex rule. The second bolded portion of that rule above makes clear that the only consideration, per the rule, is as is listed by the "Rotoworld Depth Charts at that time." As of the writing of this response, DeShone Kizer is
STILL listed as the Cleveland Browns starting QB. Therefore, by rule, the rule that many of you are referencing, he (Kizer) is the starting quarterback for the Cleveland Browns at current in this league. No amount of spirit of the rule, supposition, comments by a head coach or otherwise were written into the rule (Nor should they be, though we should probably write a better rule in future). And just because a player is named the starting quarterback during a week does not mean he will start that week's game. Just two years ago, I believe it was Ryan Mallett, was named his team's starting quarterback early in the week, before Coach Bill O'Brien reversed course and named another player the starter. The same thing happened the year before with Logan Thomas. Is it not possible for it to happen again here, especially when the Browns have played quarterback carousel for the last two years? And given those potentialities, it would be helpful to determine who is the authority on who is a starting quarterback (As far as this league is concerned)? Luckily, we have entrusted that power to Rotoworld Depth Charts with the new rule (As opposed to the aforementioned "depth charts" in the old rule). And according to Rotoworld Depth Charts, DeShone Kizer is the starter.
Now, we've heard several parties sounding off about the new rule, and I hate to do this, but gentlemen, you have been inconsistent with what you said at the time that we all wrote the rule together and what you are saying now. And to that point, I am going to place your statements side-by-side
The only revision Sal (BUF) suggested regarding the QB/K rules was as follows:
To be fair, Sal is not making any references to the QB/K rule above, but rather as it pertains to the stipulation that teams must wait 30 days to re-acquire players and how that rule is potentially directly contradicted by the rule that says every team MUST have a starting QB Week 1. But again, for someone with such strong objections to the rule now, it does bring to question why he did not raise such concerns at the time.
Trey (LAR) is right in recalling that he was a very vocal opponent to the acquisition of Brian Hoyer by Jordan (JAX) a year ago. We had several discussions about it, but ultimately, the league managers chose to allow it, because the rule does not explicitly prevent it the way it is currently written (And arguably, neither does the old rule the way it was written). But again, I do have to point out that Trey was also a member of said committee, and also did not raise those concerns at that time.
And lastly, I present to you, the smoking gun so to speak: Cecil's commentary in this thread, the most vehement in opposition to this move, versus his comments at the time when the rule was written. I have highlighted the relevant portion.
There we have it folks. Cecil, in his own words, believes that in interpreting the QB rule, we should use "Rotoworld depth charts only." Not the word of Coach Hue Jackson (Or any other coach), not the word of a beat reporter who wrote the story, not the Rotoworld blurbs that he mentions in this thread, but "Rotoworld depth charts
ONLY." And so folks, I think we're done here.
But one last note on this rule, and it pertains to Cecil and Brian Hoyer. I was wrong (Timeline-wise and player-wise) when I suggested that Cecil
acquired RGIII in Week 10 of 2014. In fact, he offloaded BOTH RGIII AND Brian Hoyer to the New York Giants that week for Peyton Manning, taking him from two starting QBs to one and providing NYG with two starters, violating the NEW RULE 2
"Any team with two starting Quarterbacks will have a $10 cap hit. ($1 each additional week) A starting Quarterback is defined as a QB at the top of his team's Depth Chart after the last preseason game (injuries notwithstanding)....." for NYG (It's not Cecil's fault that NYG acquired a 2nd starting QB and violated the rule). But how Cecil
did acquire Hoyer is relevant to this thread because of A. Correcting my mistake, and B. in this very thread, he has stated that, "You are intentionally trying to acquire a 2nd known starter. That is the problem." So here's a timeline of events to illustrate how Cecil acquired Hoyer:
- Week 1: Robert Griffin III (Owned by SEA) is the Redskins' starter on the final pre-season depth chart
- Week 1: Brian Hoyer (Owned by TB) is the Browns' starter on the final pre-season depth chart
- Week 5: SEA acquires Hoyer from TB in a trade, while still rostering Griffin
Therefore, he is acquiring a second "known" starter, or even better, a second starter by depth charts, and therefore he is in violation of the rule that states that any team with two starting quarterbacks will have a $10 cap hit (Which rises $1 each week). As Cecil did not have $10 in cap at that time, he would be subject to the following part of the old QB rule, which states: "If you are over the cap you will not be able to compete in any match-ups and will be forced to forfeit - the points will not count for that week." Meaning that Cecil's 9-3 season and long-playoff run should not have happened, as he should have had to forfeit each of his games between Weeks 5 and 12, missing the playoffs. However, I as a member of the TRC, approved this trade, and processed it myself, as I also did for the RGIII trade later, not knowing that Cecil would one day stab me in the back and call me out on a different loophole in the rules than the one he exploited to accomplish the same goal. Did I do this out of loyalty to Cecil? No. But I do think that I had his back there, because I could have become obstinate and an impediment to his transaction going through if I argued enough. But I didn't want to do that because, A. I do think that there should be some leeway in the rule, and B. RGIII was injured. And despite the part of the old rule that says that injuries don't affect the QB rule, I don't think a team should be penalized for grabbing a different team's starting QB as opposed to going with a handcuff after Week 1. Again, it's a very complex and difficult rule to write. I only include this part to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Cecil's argument about acquiring two starting QBs, as well as to disprove the insinuation that, as Cecil puts it, "I don't think you would have this stance if another person was trying to acquire a 2nd starter thru ufa," when Jordan has stated, and records prove, that I did not make any such squabble about his bid on Hoyer in Rodgers' bye week last year (Despite the fact that my starter, Ryan Fitzpatrick, was benched the previous week and I was one of the teams left without a starter that week, and despite playing Jordan head-to-head and subsequently losing that week). Why? Because in my opinion, Jordan didn't break the rule. Cecil didn't break the rule. And I am not breaking the rule either.
So where does this leave me? Well, I am passionate about this league. Despite the accusations levied at me, that's one that I don't think anyone has made yet. It is not my wish to not continue in this league, and it's certainly not in my nature to quit. As many of you have reached out to me in the past few days know from speaking with me, I was completely ready to quit and leave this all behind. I had even set a deadline in my mind that I
WOULD NOT let this week go by and not be able to control my personnel moves and come back. No one is going to write my history but myself. But then I remembered some details about what had happened in the past, and the more I started researching them, the more it invigorated my fire to prove my detractors wrong and keep this going. Therefore, if the league will have me, I would relish the opportunity to continue in my current position (As the owner of CIN). If for some reason it is deemed that my status as a League Manager (Who has the ears of the commissioners, but otherwise, whose only powers include processing roster moves and writing the league PRs) should be terminated going forward/to process this move, I will voluntarily give that up. I don't think LMs should be treated differently than any other member of the league when it comes to roster moves, and all I am asking is for the league to interpret the rules the way they have been in the past in regards to the same transactions in nature, out of fairness to every member in the league (As I will continue to fight for people like Jordan, and Cecil and myself in these situations if the rules dictate it).
On a closing note, it does distress me when I try to give the benefit of the doubt, call myself out on things, take accountability for the my actions (That aren't always right), and then face an inquisition. That takes advantage of my good nature, and I don't understand the point of beating a dead horse. Cecil, since you have told me no longer to reach out to you or message you, I guess we'll have to handle it on here. I know I waffled on whether or not to continue when you attacked my credibility, but I guess thank you for providing me in your contradictions the reasoning for me to continue in this league. Whether or not you respect me, I'm going to be here for a long time bud. I hope you realize what a hypocrite you've been in this, and what an enormous pain in the ass you've decided to be to the league recently for no other reason, that I can surmise, more than no one else was doing it. We don't need that in here. As long as you and I have been in this league together (Now 8 years), we've never had a cross word. I don't need an apology. I'll drop it this instant. I hope we can put it past us and can try to get along, because if not, it's going to be real uncomfortable. And if we can't and you still feel that you don't respect me, I guess I'll be okay with it then, because the feeling will be mutual, and I don't care what people who I don't respect say about me, because they don't matter. But I will warn you; Don't ever fucking talk to me like that again, be wrong and not be buttoned up yourself. I apologize for my episode, though, those who know me know I don't scratch unless I itch, and I will defend myself if someone decides to come at me for something I feel strongly about, especially if someone is questioning the credibility and respect that I think I have earned and have worked so hard to build in this league. Thank you all for the discussion and the experience that you provide in this league, an experience we should work towards improving to be the best it can be every day. So let's all stop the bitching, deal only in fact and what the rules actually say, and be courteous to one another. Thank you again.
