no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Just expand number of draftees Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-09-03 07:54:44 (ID: 100113440) Report Abuse |
|
Rock777 wrote:
I think you missed the point entirely. It isn't about adding players. Its about giving people some choice of who to draft in the 3rd round. If you are afraid of adding a few extra players to the TM, just delete the undrafted guys. The only teams who lose out if UDFAs are deleted are young teams. If it isn't about adding players, I must have misundersood the name of this thread  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-09-03 07:58:43 (ID: 100113441) Report Abuse |
|
More draft éligible players means more scouting, because IRL you don't have an excel sheet with all the player's caracteristics done in one click
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
noodle
|
posted: 2017-09-03 08:03:00 (ID: 100113442) Report Abuse |
|
MonsterT95 wrote:
Rock777 wrote:
I think you missed the point entirely. It isn't about adding players. Its about giving people some choice of who to draft in the 3rd round. If you are afraid of adding a few extra players to the TM, just delete the undrafted guys. The only teams who lose out if UDFAs are deleted are young teams. If it isn't about adding players, I must have misundersood the name of this thread 
all seems well as it is in my opinion. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2017-09-03 11:43:30 (ID: 100113455) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I respect your endurance in playing RZA, i really do, but veteran or not, i don't like that kind of attitude in pulling a little peace out of someone's sentence, putting it in a totally different context and harp on about something that was never a say in a way that compels the other party to justify oneself. That's just lame.
But nobody is perfect, me included, so, you are shall forgiven. With my suggestion to expand the draft pool it was never the intended target to flood the TM. Please read my first post in context of the threads title carefully. However, it was a long and complex sentence where it comes on how to handle UDFAs then, and I've put 2 options (2!! options!!). Options are not carved in stone. Would appreciate to read constructive and productive inputs for third, fourth or fifth options on how to handle UDFAs to support the game developers in case it comes to a positive decision. On the other hand ... now I see that my first post was a bit too complex and caused a lot misunderstandings. my fault, sorry. So, here my suggestion again in hopefully understandable simple words: Please expand the number of draftees to ... - provide a more balanced value of choice for every team. Sure, the more later the draft position the less the value of choice. That's the nature of rankings. But at the moment with exact 96 draftees the value of choice is zero (0) for late spotted teams. - to make it a season long task for every team to scout and sort out a draft list (excel tool users included) - to hopefully increase funny and friendly forum discussions after draft and to grade someone's draft picks (even its just fantasy). You cannot grade a team's picks if he hasn't had a real choice. If you (@all) find further benefits on expanding the draft pool please leave a short, smart and sophisticated comment 
Additionally, for those who have excel sheets. Cool! Would you share it with everybody? I don't think so. I wouldn't. You've put a lot of work into your excel tool and you would lose the advantage that you think you've gained with your cool excel. And this is exact the point when it comes to an expanded draft pool. It's on the same page with your excel. Lazy managers w/o decent excel tools will miss the raisin in the pot more often. Think about it, it would be for your advantage if once you've managed to get a late draft spot
To those managers who still want to beat dead horses in reflecting on bot leagues and tankers blablubb ... please ask why it is possible for a team with a late draft spot in a bot league to get a stud of the draft on his overall pick of #32, #64 and #96. But please please please take this question and open your own suggestion/discussion thread then. i don't want to take part in such discussions. And please don't tatter a good suggestion with bad discussion any further. Be smart, many thanks 
Edit: It wasn't the say that the actual situation (96 draftees) is bad. No, it's ok, im with you ... but could be better (imo) Last edited on 2017-09-03 11:48:52 by Mücke |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
smokerteer
|
posted: 2017-09-03 15:45:32 (ID: 100113464) Report Abuse |
|
I like this idea. Personally I'd like to see an advantage given more to the lower leagues, say 32 extra for 2.x teams, 16 extra for 1.x teams and 0 for elite, but that's a debate for another time.
Overall I say yes to extra players |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 13:46:37 (ID: 100113536) Report Abuse |
|
MonsterT95 wrote:
Rock777 wrote:
I think you missed the point entirely. It isn't about adding players. Its about giving people some choice of who to draft in the 3rd round. If you are afraid of adding a few extra players to the TM, just delete the undrafted guys. The only teams who lose out if UDFAs are deleted are young teams. If it isn't about adding players, I must have misundersood the name of this thread Not sure how you are misunderstanding that sentence. Please elaborate. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2017-09-04 14:10:46 (ID: 100113537) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
It's about adding more players (draftees) to the draft list. HTH
Last edited on 2017-09-04 15:29:02 by Mücke |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 14:15:30 (ID: 100113539) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I think one huge improvement would be that the last few teams would no longer be forced to pick kickers for their 3rd round. Sure these teams have done well in the league, and 3rd rounders are usually junk anyhow, but why force a team to take a kicker if they already have a 23 year old stud kicking for them. Just 16 more players would be enough to let people take positions they might actually have use for (even if the player doesn't end up making the cut 90% of the time). 32 would give even greater variety for all teams in the 3rd round.
Last edited on 2017-09-04 14:16:59 by Rock777 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-09-04 15:06:23 (ID: 100113544) Report Abuse | |
|
Ok, could it happen that there are less draftees than picks? Then it would be funny, since there would be a possible downside of an possible advantage...
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 15:23:55 (ID: 100113547) Report Abuse |
|
If we increased the number of draftees available, and everyone is still picking for three rounds, then no. There would never be less draftees than picks.
However as it is today, you could kind of say yes, since there are often less viable draftees available than picks (e.g. the kicker example I gave above). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Just expand number of draftees | |
