Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Jul 18, 2016 14:59:13 GMT -5
In the past, we've had issues with the current QB Rule in about every season, and while the Rules Committee is working on the Rules Section in the Commissioner's Office, their role is not to change the rules, but rather update them to meet the way that they are currently enforced/eliminate superfluous, outdated or incorrect rules on the books.
The QB Rule that we have used in that past has been vague and variable in its description and selective enforcement. It states (and keep in mind, the Rules Committee has not found time to review this rule yet, so this is verbatim from the MFL):
In some years, teams with no quarterbacks were allowed to skirt NEW RULE 2 by having no plan to acquire a starting or potential starting QB, either by bidding on him or trading for him, until the deadline (The end of FA or trading prior to Week 1), forcing teams with two or more QBs to force release a QB or forfeit the season. Sometimes it worked the other way around, as teams were intentionally predatory on unsuspecting and inactive GMs, stocking up on additional (and sometimes multiple) QBs that were starters or projected to be starters in an attempt to gain assets by forcing the other teams to trade for a starting QB. Lastly, and one of the reasons we had to leave Jacksonville and the old league (NFFL) behind is that he interpreted the rule to mean that no team could acquire/already have what turns out to be a second starting QB at ANY point in the season, and was vehement to the point of threatening to hold inquiries and forcibly remove such players from those rosters. These kinds of behaviors are what make this rule impossible to enforce to the letter of the law at this moment, as we're not in this to see a GM force another GM to release a player just because the league says he cannot have two starting QBs.
But only once (to my recollection), despite these problems, has the league ever intervened. In 2013, the former GM of the Carolina Panthers (Sze) had two starting QBs on his roster, Blaine Gabbert and Terrelle Pryor. He had acquired Pryor during the time that Chad Henne, and NOT Blaine Gabbert, was the Jacksonville Jaguars' starting QB. But as the 2013 season approached, he found that the only GM with no starting QBs had no intention of trading for either player and refused to give a single asset because he did not want Gabbert and was unwilling to pay anything of worth for either. So, the league stepped in to resolve the issue, and I believe (again, if my memory serves me correct) that they investigated becoming an arbiter for the process of facilitating the trade between those two teams, as well as exploring potential punishments for the other team, including dropping his team a draft slot per game he did not own a starting QB to prevent institutional tanking. However, as I recall, Sze was able to move one of the QBs elsewhere and the GM dragging his feet ended up trading for one of those QBs. This is what I think that we should be doing.
In order to avoid enforcing the more hardline aspects of this rule, we can put in place a protection to make sure that we never arrive at that point. Let me be clear, I am in no way advocating changing rules 2 or 3 as displayed above, but rather to be proactive by setting up a panel of arbiters to resolve such conflicts leading up to Week 1 to make sure that; 1. Every team has a starting or projected starting QB (not that no team can have two, as this situation will never arise if these arbiters are given the power to perform this task), and 2. That no GM, neither one without a starting QB nor one with multiple QBs, can hold another team's feet over the fire with the current QB Rule in place.
Logistically, some of this can be hammered out at a later date, but I believe that we could make up such a committee with LMs, TRC members or the league could elect members to this committee. I'm fine with any of those three scenarios. In my mind at least, I have a general sense of how it would work. The committee would get the two teams (or more if this ever happens) needing to make a trade to PM each other (the other party could verify) in an attempt to keep it out of the committee's hands. After consulting with each team involved, they could make suggestions about how to construct a framework to get a deal done, likely asking for small concessions on each side or having the other party to eliminate the sticking points. If the discussions between the two (or more) teams became acrimonious, however, or reached an impasse, that's where this committee would truly step in. First of all, they would acquire a list of players/assets from each GM of who they liked on the other team(s) (sort of like a Player to be Named situation). Secondly, they would analyze those names/picks, do an intensive study/research of the values of said players relative to their contracts, production and importance to the current owner. Then, the committee would decide on an appropriate compensation package, and maybe even have the teams in question to take one final look to see if they could strike a deal themselves (maybe alter the names/assets due to personal preferences, but keep the same or close to the same level of compensation). If that cannot motivate the GMs to make the trade, the committee would then be empowered to force the trade so that all parties would be in line with the QB Rule and therefore, would not require the league to step in and threaten sanctions or have to deal with the obstinate GMs that try to prey upon QB-less teams by hoarding/acquiring multiple starting QBs or those who prey upon active, enterprising GMs who pay attention by forcing them into dropping starting QBs for nothing so that they can make an uncontested FA bid on them for nothing.
If this measure is passed swiftly, we can go ahead and put it in action for this upcoming season as well as all future seasons to come. If you are for such a measure, please vote in favor. If you are against, please vote to that effect. Either way, please vote on the matter so that we can get a majority one way or the other and feel free to post your opinions, make suggestions or ask questions in the thread below.
The QB Rule that we have used in that past has been vague and variable in its description and selective enforcement. It states (and keep in mind, the Rules Committee has not found time to review this rule yet, so this is verbatim from the MFL):
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.
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.
In some years, teams with no quarterbacks were allowed to skirt NEW RULE 2 by having no plan to acquire a starting or potential starting QB, either by bidding on him or trading for him, until the deadline (The end of FA or trading prior to Week 1), forcing teams with two or more QBs to force release a QB or forfeit the season. Sometimes it worked the other way around, as teams were intentionally predatory on unsuspecting and inactive GMs, stocking up on additional (and sometimes multiple) QBs that were starters or projected to be starters in an attempt to gain assets by forcing the other teams to trade for a starting QB. Lastly, and one of the reasons we had to leave Jacksonville and the old league (NFFL) behind is that he interpreted the rule to mean that no team could acquire/already have what turns out to be a second starting QB at ANY point in the season, and was vehement to the point of threatening to hold inquiries and forcibly remove such players from those rosters. These kinds of behaviors are what make this rule impossible to enforce to the letter of the law at this moment, as we're not in this to see a GM force another GM to release a player just because the league says he cannot have two starting QBs.
But only once (to my recollection), despite these problems, has the league ever intervened. In 2013, the former GM of the Carolina Panthers (Sze) had two starting QBs on his roster, Blaine Gabbert and Terrelle Pryor. He had acquired Pryor during the time that Chad Henne, and NOT Blaine Gabbert, was the Jacksonville Jaguars' starting QB. But as the 2013 season approached, he found that the only GM with no starting QBs had no intention of trading for either player and refused to give a single asset because he did not want Gabbert and was unwilling to pay anything of worth for either. So, the league stepped in to resolve the issue, and I believe (again, if my memory serves me correct) that they investigated becoming an arbiter for the process of facilitating the trade between those two teams, as well as exploring potential punishments for the other team, including dropping his team a draft slot per game he did not own a starting QB to prevent institutional tanking. However, as I recall, Sze was able to move one of the QBs elsewhere and the GM dragging his feet ended up trading for one of those QBs. This is what I think that we should be doing.
In order to avoid enforcing the more hardline aspects of this rule, we can put in place a protection to make sure that we never arrive at that point. Let me be clear, I am in no way advocating changing rules 2 or 3 as displayed above, but rather to be proactive by setting up a panel of arbiters to resolve such conflicts leading up to Week 1 to make sure that; 1. Every team has a starting or projected starting QB (not that no team can have two, as this situation will never arise if these arbiters are given the power to perform this task), and 2. That no GM, neither one without a starting QB nor one with multiple QBs, can hold another team's feet over the fire with the current QB Rule in place.
Logistically, some of this can be hammered out at a later date, but I believe that we could make up such a committee with LMs, TRC members or the league could elect members to this committee. I'm fine with any of those three scenarios. In my mind at least, I have a general sense of how it would work. The committee would get the two teams (or more if this ever happens) needing to make a trade to PM each other (the other party could verify) in an attempt to keep it out of the committee's hands. After consulting with each team involved, they could make suggestions about how to construct a framework to get a deal done, likely asking for small concessions on each side or having the other party to eliminate the sticking points. If the discussions between the two (or more) teams became acrimonious, however, or reached an impasse, that's where this committee would truly step in. First of all, they would acquire a list of players/assets from each GM of who they liked on the other team(s) (sort of like a Player to be Named situation). Secondly, they would analyze those names/picks, do an intensive study/research of the values of said players relative to their contracts, production and importance to the current owner. Then, the committee would decide on an appropriate compensation package, and maybe even have the teams in question to take one final look to see if they could strike a deal themselves (maybe alter the names/assets due to personal preferences, but keep the same or close to the same level of compensation). If that cannot motivate the GMs to make the trade, the committee would then be empowered to force the trade so that all parties would be in line with the QB Rule and therefore, would not require the league to step in and threaten sanctions or have to deal with the obstinate GMs that try to prey upon QB-less teams by hoarding/acquiring multiple starting QBs or those who prey upon active, enterprising GMs who pay attention by forcing them into dropping starting QBs for nothing so that they can make an uncontested FA bid on them for nothing.
If this measure is passed swiftly, we can go ahead and put it in action for this upcoming season as well as all future seasons to come. If you are for such a measure, please vote in favor. If you are against, please vote to that effect. Either way, please vote on the matter so that we can get a majority one way or the other and feel free to post your opinions, make suggestions or ask questions in the thread below.