Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 22:42:34 GMT -5
You can say that "you can't have 2 starters" but sometimes the starter isn't named until the day of or before the game is played. So there's nothing to stop this from happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 16, 2021 0:42:18 GMT -5
Well my point is that say your starting QB gets benched or hurt. I have the back up for your QB on my taxi squad. You go to activate the QB off my taxi squad. I have 24 hours to activate him over you because he's on my squad. Now I force you to trade for one of my QBs. You don't think that's abusing the rule? So what you appear to be describing is the situation that already exists, whereby, if a team has one starting QB, and another QB already on their roster becomes a starter, they have until Thursday at 5 PM of the next week to rid themselves of one of them, or else they’ll be forced from that team’s roster. The difference is, with a practice or taxi squad, if that QB is housed on that squad, and he becomes a starter (And both he has a starter and you do not), you can claim him, and at least have a chance at picking him up for NOTHING, OR as Jordan and I have both suggested, we may mandate that claiming a QB off your PS/TS who has just become a starter (While you still maintain a starter on your regular roster) CANNOT BE DONE. So the situation you’re explaining, provided we mandate that it’s the same as bidding, CANNOT HAPPEN. Also, in the event that it even could, how would you be worse off in getting a shot to claim a starting QB for free than to trade and give up an asset for him, as it currently stands? |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 16, 2021 0:50:27 GMT -5
You can say that "you can't have 2 starters" but sometimes the starter isn't named until the day of or before the game is played. So there's nothing to stop this from happening. There is no fix to this. Unless we want to force QBs off rosters right up to and even after games have begun (Thinking back to the Tyrod/Justin Herbert and Denver QB situations of just last year), there is no humanly possible way to force each team have a starter every week. Existent circumstances exist. While we certainly hope never to have to employ such a Draconian policy, because it would ruin the fun of building a team if a league member was forcing your rookie 1st rounder off your team on gameday with no say from you. That’s why, with input from over 20 GMs at the time, we instituted a policy three seasons ago that allowed each team a one-week buffer (Meaning by the time the next game was played, the QB situation for that team would have to be reconciled). Anything else—including knowing exactly who NFL teams are actually going to start—would be asking for more than perfect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2021 8:00:33 GMT -5
So I stash a QB that I really like on my taxi squad. Starting QB goes down and the other team automatically gets to claim him just because he needs a starter? What's the point of even having a taxi squad if the QB rule is going to trump it? QB rule has already upset quite a few owners in this league and I'm sure the taxi squad will just had more circumstances. This is alot of trouble to go through just for 2 extra rookie spots on everyone's bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 16, 2021 9:04:39 GMT -5
So I stash a QB that I really like on my taxi squad. Starting QB goes down and the other team automatically gets to claim him just because he needs a starter? What's the point of even having a taxi squad if the QB rule is going to trump it? QB rule has already upset quite a few owners in this league and I'm sure the taxi squad will just had more circumstances. This is alot of trouble to go through just for 2 extra rookie spots on everyone's bench. Yes, BUT/AND you get to block that GM’s claim if you want to keep him—but you have to part with your other starting QB (Either immediately, or by the QB rule standard that already exists, by the next week’s games). If you’re not for it just because you’re not for it/you think it sounds bad, say that. But the idea that it somehow makes the QB Rule worse is just demonstrably untrue—which I think we have demonstrated. At worst, it’s the same. At best/as intended, teams who lose a starter mid-season get an opportunity to more easily acquire another team’s now 2nd starter, or another non-QB player that they like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2021 13:58:03 GMT -5
I'm not for it but I think half the league has been victim to the QB rule and this would just add more oputinties for that to happen. Free spots on your roster doesn't seem right. The salary and year cap is what makes this league interesting so extra roster spots would be the way to go over a taxi squad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 16, 2021 20:31:29 GMT -5
I'm not for it but I think half the league has been victim to the QB rule and this would just add more oputinties for that to happen. Free spots on your roster doesn't seem right. The salary and year cap is what makes this league interesting so extra roster spots would be the way to go over a taxi squad. Again, feel how you want to feel about it, but your assertion here is just a factually incorrect one. It WILL NOT do what you’re espousing that it will. I think we have clearly demonstrated that many multiple times. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 16, 2021 23:52:35 GMT -5
The measure has failed
|
|
