New QB Rule

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Okay folks, this is the new part of the QB Rule that we will be adding this off-season. Thanks goes out to Trey (LAR), Matt (MIN), Mett (ARI) for their work on it, and Steve (DEN) and Castle (MIA) for their input. I think we achieved our goal of closing the most loopholes, while making it both fair to a GM who rosters a backup that becomes all-of-the-sudden becomes a starter, as well as those GMs who lose a starter in that same manner. By moving the trade deadline back to Week 12, it prevents a teams' ability to tank by refusing to sign or trade for a starting QB. The new rule also prevents teams from signing one-week fill-ins for their QB's bye week. If anyone has any questions, comments, or suggestions, feel free to post below.

So, without any further delay, here is the new part of the QB Rule:

New QB Rule:
1. Every team must have a starter by Week 1 (Determined by Rotoworld Depth Charts after the last pre-season game, as always).
2. Starting Week 1, no team may bid on another starting QB.

During the regular season, a starting QB will be determined by either of the following:

• Listed as the starting QB by the Rotoworld Depth Charts
• Named as a starter by the player's team (As defined by an announcement by that team's owner, GM, Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, or Quarterbacks Coach), this will include a QB that is named as a starter due to injury, but not listed as the starter by Rotoworld Depth Charts. In this event, Rotoworld will be used as the official source for the story naming the player as the starter
• The only exception to the rule will be when a General Manager is placing a bid on the backup QB (Who has been named the starter) to his starting QB
  

3. Every team must have a starter EVERY week (Not including byes), up until the week of the trade deadline (The last week of the regular season, Week 12), EXCEPT if a team has one starter and another QB on his team is also named a starter for that same week. In that case, and assuming that player stays a starter and is not just a 1-week fill-in/injury replacement, he has until the following week's trade cutoff (Thursday at 5 P.M. ET) to have posted and had a trade accepted involving one of the two starting QBs, EXCEPT FOR IN WEEK 12. The general manager will have the amount of time in between to decide on which one he wants to keep and which he wants to trade away (Except for in Week 12, where he must choose by the Thursday 5 P.M. ET deadline THAT WEEK), or else the league will FORCE TRADE one of that team's QBs to a team with no QBs at their discretion. If the quarterback does not stay the starter for more than that one week, no action is required (Unless this occurs in Week 12).

[Baltimore Ravens (Goose)]

Great rule. The only problem is if a team is force to trade a QB and the team that is short a QB does not offer adequate compensation or they do not have the Cap room or contract yrs to fit that QB on their roster, what resolution does the league have for that? This could easily come up with rookie QBs taking over for starters and the owner will have to make a decision what is fair compensation for the vetern QB he has to give up and the team owner that is short a QB now has to take on that QB with a high salary that does not fit under their cap and the compensation may be a 3rd rd pick. So I think some guidlines need to put in the rule for these scenarios.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Great question Goose. The answer is that it’ll work the same way it has the past two years in that regard, as we have not changed the QB Arbitration Panel part of the rule (Though we may have to update the timelines to be more expedient in-season). That panel of three GMs, decided/selected by LMs, would come up with what they felt an appropriate price would be, taking into account the QB in question, things such as contract and contract length, as well as which players/assets the team forfeiting the QB was interested in (As well as the players that the other team didn’t want to give up under any circumstance). Then the panel will submit their proposal to both GMs involved (I believe 24 hours before the deadline to allow them to try to work it out with one another again, knowing that if they don’t, the trade that the QB Panel suggested will be pushed through at the end of that time). Fortunately, however, in the two years where this has been a rule, we’ve yet to have to use it, but I do see it as a distinct possibility going forward with the new QB Rule.

[Seattle Seahawks (Cecil)]

Aug 19, 2018 14:17:58 GMT -5 Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) said:

Great question Goose. The answer is that it’ll work the same way it has the past two years in that regard, as we have not changed the QB Arbitration Panel part of the rule (Though we may have to update the timelines to be more expedient in-season). That panel of three GMs, decided/selected by LMs, would come up with what they felt an appropriate price would be, taking into account the QB in question, things such as contract and contract length, as well as which players/assets the team forfeiting the QB was interested in (As well as the players that the other team didn’t want to give up under any circumstance). Then the panel will submit their proposal to both GMs involved (I believe 24 hours before the deadline to allow them to try to work it out with one another again, knowing that if they don’t, the trade that the QB Panel suggested will be pushed through at the end of that time). Fortunately, however, in the two years where this has been a rule, we’ve yet to have to use it, but I do see it as a distinct possibility going forward with the new QB Rule.

Acknowledging it as a distinct possibility now but not doing something until sometime in the future does not help when enacting the new rule today.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

I’m acknowledging that it’s a distinct possibility that we’ll actually use part of the rule that is already on the books for the first time, not that the rule won’t work. Read carefully sir.