|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:40:32 GMT -5
With us having 24 teams I want to leave it open to everyone to discuss how we should handle this.
I personally would like us to figure out a way to keep teams to 1 QB, but working on a rule that deters 2 QBs is also fine with me, like I said I will leave it open to the league to discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2020 11:16:20 GMT -5
Any thoughts on this?
DFL, where some of you are from, has a $10 cap hit(would be pretty steep given our set up here), so we could go with a different number for the $ penalty
Canton, another league some of you are from, just states that teams can't own a 2nd QB and if such a time comes the team must trade the QB away, but that is a 32 team league, so it is a little harder to do that here
We could say you are not allowed to own 2 QBs except for your QBs bye week, and if you own 2 QBs on any other week not the bye week you must drop them or be subject to some form of penalty.
Or (not an option I would really want to go down) we just allow teams to own 2 QBs, but that could create an imbalance where a team or a few teams end up with 2 high end QBs and it hurts the league as a whole
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Cardinals (Chris) on Apr 17, 2020 12:10:21 GMT -5
I definitely would be opposed to allowing 2 QBs, but that's only if they're starting. I'm good either way, with a penalty or just simply not allowing to own two (starting) QBs. If we go with the penalty option, I think $10 is fine....anything less doesn't seem to be enough of a penalty to prevent people from keeping a 2nd starter.
|
|
|
|
Post by New England Patriots (Brian) on Apr 17, 2020 13:35:56 GMT -5
I'm against preventing teams from owning 2 QBs. I don't necessarily think owning 2 QBs is an advantage. I definitely don't think it's clear cut enough to make a rule about it. Of course, a team with 2 QBs could take advantage of a team with 0 QBs (e.g. due to injury), but that's what we have the trade review committee for. They would vote against a totally unfair trade in theory. The team with 2 QBs would also have a ton of sunk costs in the 2nd QB. They'd have to use a roster spot, salary, and generally just ride with points on the bench rather than using the 2nd QB to improve their team. There's already an incentive against owning 2 QBs.
Maybe that's just me though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 22:25:50 GMT -5
i feel like we should have 2 QB's, mostly because of the bye weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Justin) on Apr 18, 2020 1:01:30 GMT -5
Having two starting QB’s is an advantage. You can play match ups, if one gets hurt you can’t put the other one in. 16 teams don’t have this opportunity, so it becomes unfair. I vote for having only 1 starting qb on roster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 8:38:14 GMT -5
I'm in favor of having a penalty for 2 starting qbs on your roster in season. If that means a salary tax or years tax that's fine. Maybe even 1st round draft pick being forfeited for the next season? Now I think teams should be allowed to have multiple qbs in the off season to build equity for trades or just figuring which is the best player they want to keep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Las Vegas Raiders (Jacob) on Apr 18, 2020 9:00:06 GMT -5
What happens if I have a starting qb from one team and a backup from another? Say I have Mahomes as my starting qb and Kyle Allen as my developmental qb this past season. Allen becomes the starter so I have a penalty now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 10:33:11 GMT -5
I think you should start only 1 QB, but can have a secondary QB. Reason being, a young player such as Tua Tagovailoa probably won’t play this year to learn the ropes and get past his injury. (That’s what there talking about as corona has changed training camps) Maybe you could have a “developmental” QB that cannot be started but you have rights to him for next season on the roster? There is a lot of young QBs who may not have a chance to play this year and I feel they should be on rosters still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 14:56:09 GMT -5
Admin can correct me if I’m wrong, but the rule would only apply to starting QBs. So, regardless of the rule it would not be relevant to your example mate
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:15:49 GMT -5
Oh thanks for pointing that out.... thought it said sum else
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2020 16:24:15 GMT -5
Correct the 2 QB/2 K rule only applies to starters, so you can own a starter, a rookie backup, and a vet backup with no penalty.
On the other note of if a guy isn't a starter and becomes a starter I would lean towards this not resulting in a penalty, because most of the times guys draft those rookie's to be their future starter and didn't really plan on that guy playing that season.
We also would have 8 FA QBs that a team that lost its starter would be able to pick up, likely if the guy lost his job to a rookie he wasn't a high end QB anyways so replacing him with a FA QB isn't gonna hurt that team much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 21:57:03 GMT -5
Correct the 2 QB/2 K rule only applies to starters, so you can own a starter, a rookie backup, and a vet backup with no penalty. On the other note of if a guy isn't a starter and becomes a starter I would lean towards this not resulting in a penalty, because most of the times guys draft those rookie's to be their future starter and didn't really plan on that guy playing that season. We also would have 8 FA QBs that a team that lost its starter would be able to pick up, likely if the guy lost his job to a rookie he wasn't a high end QB anyways so replacing him with a FA QB isn't gonna hurt that team much. Personally, think we should have a 1starting QB rule to start every season. Teams should be allowed to pick up a FA QB to fill in for bye weeks with no penalty as long as said QB is dropped the following week. Maybe put something in place like a practice squad spot for rookie QBs. Just a thought |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 23, 2020 11:32:34 GMT -5
So I want to bring this back up. I feel like the rules being suggested are
1. No Penalty Teams Can Own Multiple QBs/Ks (K I think is less important, as I doubt people roster 2 except for maybe bye weeks)
2. A $ Penalty of $5/$10 (We can split this into two options to vote for) if teams own 2 STARTING QBs
3. Not Allowing Teams To Own 2 QBs At All, Any Move To Own QBs Would Be Voided Immediately
4. A Draft Capital Penalty (I would be strongly against this one as I think it is a little too harsh)
Do these options sound good? Does anyone have any other ideas? If no, I will post it for vote later today
|
|
|
|
Post by New England Patriots (Brian) on Apr 23, 2020 12:43:08 GMT -5
So I want to bring this back up. I feel like the rules being suggested are 1. No Penalty Teams Can Own Multiple QBs/Ks (K I think is less important, as I doubt people roster 2 except for maybe bye weeks) 2. A $ Penalty of $5/$10 (We can split this into two options to vote for) if teams own 2 STARTING QBs 3. Not Allowing Teams To Own 2 QBs At All, Any Move To Own QBs Would Be Voided Immediately 4. A Draft Capital Penalty (I would be strongly against this one as I think it is a little too harsh) Do these options sound good? Does anyone have any other ideas? If no, I will post it for vote later today I think this is accurate. I'd like to withdraw my suggestion for #1, though, given it's nearly unanimously opposed. I would prefer to vote on the 3 remaining options. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2020 12:28:53 GMT -5
I will post this here shortly. I forgot to do it last night. Blame the draft lol I was to busy watching that and forgot about this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 12:53:10 GMT -5
I think you should start only 1 QB, but can have a secondary QB. Reason being, a young player such as Tua Tagovailoa probably won’t play this year to learn the ropes and get past his injury. (That’s what there talking about as corona has changed training camps) Maybe you could have a “developmental” QB that cannot be started but you have rights to him for next season on the roster? There is a lot of young QBs who may not have a chance to play this year and I feel they should be on rosters still. I love that idea |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2020 9:10:49 GMT -5
I'm new, and reading other opinions. We have 32 teams . Every team has a starting QB. They could have on their roster a non starter QB. That's it. No penalty. If 2 starters, one have 2 b removed
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 25, 2020 10:08:56 GMT -5
I'm new, and reading other opinions. We have 32 teams . Every team has a starting QB. They could have on their roster a non starter QB. That's it. No penalty. If 2 starters, one have 2 b removed we only have 24 teams in this league, not 32 |
|
