Roster / Free Agency Issues

[Radie420]

Just thought it it would be a good idea to write out my thoughts and questions I have about how to handle player movement and I figured, I might as well make it public so people can weigh in.

Take a look... Any help is appreciated.

UPDATE: A lot of this is a bit dated as I am now very heavily leaning towards a system where we would all cut a certain number of players over a certain Overall Rating. Then a fantasy draft would ensue, with the worst team picking first, however working in a serpetine manor opposed to the style of the regular Draft...

I have left the initial content up for now so people can still see it. And I will elaborate on the system mentioned above so people can weigh in on it.

1st Year Signing
There are tons of players on the Free Agent list that people will want to sign before the season gets underway. More will come and go with the game day roster release (Michael Vick anyone?). Currently I am leaning fairly heavy towards starting the Dynasty with rosters as close as possible to the real NFL. Trades would be allowed of course, becasue the way I see it, the Dynasty becomes "ours" when each team kicks off for the first time. Until then... I feel we should obey the real life NFL.

Another side effect of this is what to do with players that are not on teams at the start of the Dynasty, but sign to a team in real life thereafter. I am currently thinking that these players will be only allowed to be signed when they are signed by an NFL team... basically they are off limits until they have an NFL home.

Signing During The Season
Right now, I am really thinking about not allowing signing of FA, during the season. Its not the ideal way, but it might be the only fair way to do it without a ridiculous amount of work on my part. I am open to suggestions, but please take into account the amount of work that needs to be done.

Exceptions include when a player in real life signs (see above), and possibly to fill a need after an injury. The injury thing is iffy, becasue most teams have backups at every position. I dont want people to go out and sign a better player then who was injured. Again.. there is just all sorts of complicated issues here with balancing realism with a realistic approach to doing it.

Michael Vick
When is he available? Right away? Or when he suits up? I am thinking that we wait... this might serve an added benefit ofweeding out suitors who might have made a play for him, but then realize they dont need him. That scenerio could also play out in reverse.

Contracts
This one is a DOOZY! I dont even know where to start... just enforcing them is going to be god awful. And I am not even sure of what I am going to be enforcing yet. I will just quickly list what I am thinking about right now... this is VERY raw...
Let existing contracts play out.
All contracts after that are for 3 years.

I am really torn on contracts, so any advice is appreciated.

Free Agency
This is so fucked, I dont even have the energy to talk about it right now. But quickly... I am torn between a waiver system like in Fantasy Football or trying to build a credit system where people can bid. I have an idea for a system that is sort of a hybrid between the two.. with owners listing all the free agents that they want and in the order of importance, then making decisions based on that. I have no idea if this would work but I will tinker with it and see how it feels.

I will continue to update this so you guys can stay abreast of my thoughts.

[harmon]

I think we should use the point system that other leagues are using, which makes it pretty simple.

And no contracts. That just makes things wayyyy to confusing.

[Michael1807]

Online Franchise Q&A With Donny Moore[/SIZE]
Q&A With Madden Developer
http://insideblog.easports.com/archive/2009/06/09/online-franchise-in-madden-nfl-10-q-amp-a.aspx

This is an old (June 9th) posting on the EA Sports Blog. It answers some questions that people might have. Also of note... check out the ridiculous long comment bashing the game. That guy is nuts!

Madden Online Franchise Website
Operation Sports Photo Gallery
http://www.operationsports.com/mediaview.php?id=581




i really like what was posted in this about having to cut like 5 players above 70 then having a "free agency draft" where the worst team goes first like a normal draft but for free agents...makes things simple and fair in my opinion and the same can go for the start of the season by overall rating for free agents when we begin the franchise

[Radie420]

I think we should use the point system that other leagues are using, which makes it pretty simple.

And no contracts. That just makes things wayyyy to confusing.

A big problem with the Points/Credit system is that we have no idea how inflation will work. In theory, just like real life, Free Agency will increase the size of the credits spent on each player as the years progress. But with having no way to know how much or if at all. Setting the cap each year would be a tough task. Another issue is that a team like the Chiefs (lowest payroll in the NFL) would be able to sign tons of Free Agents right from the start and will probably become an elite team (based on the available free agents right now)

Another thing to consider is that to do a point system, we have to have a Spreadsheet of EVERY PLAYER and people are going to really have to dedicate some time and effort into making their rosters and info be in accordance with the rules. It's not impossible, but it is another thing that could potentially "break" the Dynasty.

As I said, A lot of these points systems seem like a good idea, but the more you dig into them, the more problems arise.

[Radie420]

i really like what was posted in this about having to cut like 5 players above 70 then having a "free agency draft" where the worst team goes first like a normal draft but for free agents...makes things simple and fair in my opinion and the same can go for the start of the season by overall rating for free agents when we begin the franchise

This is actually what seems to be the most logical. It could really work, actually. Players can ditch dead weight, and add depth to positions... We wouldnt have to worry about big players leaving teams and creating all sorts of havoc.

This could also work for the 1st year signing of players that enter the NFL... Worst teams get first crack.

Big players could obviously still be moved via trades.

[Michael1807]

i really like what was posted in this about having to cut like 5 players above 70 then having a "free agency draft" where the worst team goes first like a normal draft but for free agents...makes things simple and fair in my opinion and the same can go for the start of the season by overall rating for free agents when we begin the franchise

This is actually what seems to be the most logical. It could really work, actually. Players can ditch dead weight, and add depth to positions... We wouldnt have to worry about big players leaving teams and creating all sorts of havoc.

This could also work for the 1st year signing of players that enter the NFL... Worst teams get first crack.

Big players could obviously still be moved via trades.

i think its the best and most simple way to get all this done and ive got to believe if the creators of them game use this then its got to be a fair system so i dunno what everybody else thinks but i like this idea by far and away over all the others i have read and heard...

[Radie420]

i think its the best and most simple way to get all this done and ive got to believe if the creators of them game use this then its got to be a fair system so i dunno what everybody else thinks but i like this idea by far and away over all the others i have read and heard...

Yeah, I am just short of saying for sure that this is how we are going to do it. I am looking at the rosters right now for what the actual parameters are going to be.

As for the timeline.. I am thinking that after the SuperBowl the releases will take place... then the regular draft... then the fantasy draft for the Free Agents.

Hopefully this will keep a bigger focus on the draft as oppose to Free Agency.

[menglish20]

I like the draft idea too. We could even expand on it instead of 5 70+ players we could try like 3 70 and 2 80 or something like that. I'd need to think. But it does sound much simpler and would require less work from all the owners

[Radie420]

I like the draft idea too. We could even expand on it instead of 5 70+ players we could try like 3 70 and 2 80 or something like that. I'd need to think. But it does sound much simpler and would require less work from all the owners

I thought of this, but I think simple is the way to go. I looked at about 20 teams and didnt really see any issues with 70 players.

In case anyone didnt see it. I have updated the RULES Thread...

The layout for Offseason Player Movement have been posted. Please review them as soon as possible...

http://pastapadre.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4216

[Michael1807]

radie in the rules thread u said if players are trying to make and attepmt to get into the league they could be singed...well that means every free agent from the minute u put the games disk in should be vaild to sign cause they are all trying to find a team from vick to plax to pacman to edge all want to be on a roster so does that make them able to sign???

[harmon]

Well technically yes I would suppose, but I don't think we will be able to sign free agents in the beginning of the season and the only time during the season that we could sign free agents would be during the mid season free agent draft if we had one.

[Michael1807]

Well technically yes I would suppose, but I don't think we will be able to sign free agents in the beginning of the season and the only time during the season that we could sign free agents would be during the mid season free agent draft if we had one.

i kinda agree but wouldnt be against have a worst team to best team by overall sign 1 free agent just so they could play, i dont think it would drasticly change the teams that much but im good either way...i was just curious as to what radie put cause every player is looking for a team lol

[Radie420]

i kinda agree but wouldnt be against have a worst team to best team by overall sign 1 free agent just so they could play, i dont think it would drasticly change the teams that much but im good either way...i was just curious as to what radie put cause every player is looking for a team lol

I was worried that I wasnt fully clear on that. It is really meant so that I dont have to tell a guy he cant sign a back up lineman because the guy is really on a scout team somewhere and not officially on an NFL Roster. I am not 100% sure, but I think Amani Toomer is on the Free Agent list, he is an example of someone that wouldnt be available (same thing goes for Brett Favre if he is in the game).

Guys like Edge I am going to have to think about. I am leaning toward letting them play, but again it wouldnt be allowed until the possible Mid-Season Free Agency.

[jmo31]

I wouldn't worry about the big names, edge will probably be signed. Eventually they will take a contract somewhere just to get paid. But yea I think signing the fas isn't necessarily a bad thing bc it will allow the lower ranked teams to gain ground. I mean I like being authentic, but I also don't want someone with a 67 overall to feel like they got the shaft. Allowing fa signings will give them a little boost in an area of their choosing (using worst team goes first. Maybe all teams only get 1, or teams under 80 get 2 over get 1?) I don't want it to get too complicated tho. Regardless I'm ready to get this started!

[harmon]

Personally I'd rather have it where we start off without free agent signings until midseason where we can look at the records and have the mid season free agent draft based on that.

[Radie420]

Personally I'd rather have it where we start off without free agent signings until midseason where we can look at the records and have the mid season free agent draft based on that.

This is actually becoming more and more likely, instead of using the 2008 season standings.

The mid-season Free Agent period (which is still not 100%, but looking likely) is either going to be held on the 8th, 10th or 12th week.

I am leaning towards earlier so that you have to go down the stretch with whatever you have, instead of turning it all around because you were high on the waiver list. but at the same time too early might be a bad idea too. Thoughts.

[harmon]

I was thinking more along the lines of week 6 as that is also the week of the trading deadline. We could just make it the last week of movements other than emergency injury pickups.

[Michael1807]

I was thinking more along the lines of week 6 as that is also the week of the trading deadline. We could just make it the last week of movements other than emergency injury pickups.

i would def agree with right after week 6 is over...that way the trade deadline has passed and the worst team overall after 6 games could get vick or plax or harrison to help them out since they will def need it to make a playoff run...and its not like these guys are 99 overall they are all gonna be mid to low 70s which is a lil below the average starter rating...so after week 6 is over would be fine with me

[Radie420]

I was thinking more along the lines of week 6 as that is also the week of the trading deadline. We could just make it the last week of movements other than emergency injury pickups.


You know, I never thought of that. But it is a pretty good idea.

[Tactical777]

Good feedback.

[Radie420]

Good feedback.

Agreed

[JohnsThaKing]

I def like the week 6 ending player movement idea. makes sense to me

[Radie420]

I def like the week 6 ending player movement idea. makes sense to me

Me too actually. especially since I am leaning in favor of playing the full 2 week Pres-season schedule. For anyone that does not wish to partake in any or all of the Pre-Season... I will not hold it against you! With Pre-Season and 6 weeks of games... you have 10 (or 9 with an early bye) games to figure out your plan for the stretch run.

But you better be ready to go at the start of the Official Kick-Off...

FYI - It is looking like midnight between Saturday the 22nd and Sunday the 23 will be the start of Pre-Season. wit the offical season starting exactly 2 weeks later. This is not final but really how I would like it to go.. Enough complaints (if there are any) and I could change it.

I hope that if there are complaints, that they are directed more towards actually playing the pre-season and not about the seemingly delayed start...

As I have told each and everyone of you... this Dynasty is meant for the long haul. If that means delaying anything and everything to make sure that it is right, then so be it... In the middle of our 3rd year, you will hardly remember the early delay.

[AzureEffect]

The delayed start doesn't bother me at all because Donny Moore is updating the rosters for a Roster update...so some of these roster moves will be rectified by the time we start. Can't wait for this to start

[Michael1807]

i will be fine with starting 1 week after release...gets us a chance to get some team practice...ill def play 4 preseason games and test the roster to see if i wanna make any moves via trade before the reg season begins

[Dymera]

as you know im going to Vegas > L.A. > Puerto Vallarta starting from august 20th-august 30th...so the delay would be sweet for me.

[Tactical777]

Yeh, that could be a problem...

[floridagatorfan]

I have a question regarding the dropping and adding of players. If we go with the rule that you are forced to drop 5 70 overall or higher rated players, then most likely there will not be great value in the free agent pool, and all the teams that are really good (Patriots, Giants, etc) will probably not loose much value and teams at the bottom (Lions, Rams) will not add much value and will stay as the worse teams. I was thinking that maybe in addition to the 5 70+ ovr players, that the top teams or playoff teams/SB winner have to drop at least 1 80+ ovr player that way they lose a quality starter but it is not a stud player.

This could simulate real life where the better teams that have a good season usually have one or two players they are not able to resign due to not having room. Also, this allows the very low tier teams the chance to pick up a quality starter.

Just a thought.

[Michael1807]

I have a question regarding the dropping and adding of players. If we go with the rule that you are forced to drop 5 70 overall or higher rated players, then most likely there will not be great value in the free agent pool, and all the teams that are really good (Patriots, Giants, etc) will probably not loose much value and teams at the bottom (Lions, Rams) will not add much value and will stay as the worse teams. I was thinking that maybe in addition to the 5 70+ ovr players, that the top teams or playoff teams/SB winner have to drop at least 1 80+ ovr player that way they lose a quality starter but it is not a stud player.

This could simulate real life where the better teams that have a good season usually have one or two players they are not able to resign due to not having room. Also, this allows the very low tier teams the chance to pick up a quality starter.

Just a thought.

i like the idea but i dont at the same time cause its like a punishment for having a good team or making the playoffs...i think all teams should have to drop 4 70s and 1 80 that way the bad teams could impove at 1 position though FA but they will even get better through the DRAFT which is where bad teams get better in real life anyway...thats my lil twist on this idea is 4 (70s) and 1 (80)

[floridagatorfan]

i like the idea but i dont at the same time cause its like a punishment for having a good team or making the playoffs...i think all teams should have to drop 4 70s and 1 80 that way the bad teams could impove at 1 position though FA but they will even get better through the DRAFT which is where bad teams get better in real life anyway...thats my lil twist on this idea is 4 (70s) and 1 (80)

That would work also. I was mainly thinking that only having 70+ players would lead to mainly boring players being dropped and not much excitement in adding new players.

[Dymera]

the last few posts are my biggest concern with the (5) 70 rule, i think the idea is great. But the rich do stay rich and the poor do stay poor. The problem i see with the playoff idea is that, maybe a solid player has a great run with an "ok" team and gets knocked out in the first round, he shouldnt be punished. But, for instance next year the pats i think have to sign like 3 90s, it wont happen. I know Logan Menkins, Wilfork and Seymour are all free agents. One will go for sure, just like them letting go of Asante Samuel. I was thinking about this, what if we go off of team ratings, say if your a 90 rated team you have to release 1 90 and 4 70s, if ur an 80 rated team you have to release 1 80 and 4 70s. I know this seems like a lot but it happens in the NFL, look at albert haynesworth, teams HAVE to let go of top top players. Before you jump also, the patriots for instance have NINE 90+ rated players. So yah, it will be tough dropping one of those players but honestly they have 80s that will be 90s next year (Jerod Mayo). Even if their players didnt improve, it would be easily possible for them to drop to an 89 the following year, in which they'd only have to give up an 80.

Whether people think this is a good idea or not, i still am a firm believer that we need a way to help the bad teams get 80s or even 90s. This idea would also really make things interesting on the trade market, cuz there would be incentive in trading an 89 ranked player for say an 80 and an 82 so next year you can release the 80 (if you were an 80+ overall rated team). I know it would be hard parting with 90s if you have a 90 rated team, but just think of being a team like the browns or bengals where you have like 1 90 on ur team. Those top teams have a lot of talent, and i think its only fair for those people that inherited the crap teams to have something to look forward to.

[Michael1807]

the last few posts are my biggest concern with the (5) 70 rule, i think the idea is great. But the rich do stay rich and the poor do stay poor. The problem i see with the playoff idea is that, maybe a solid player has a great run with an "ok" team and gets knocked out in the first round, he shouldnt be punished. But, for instance next year the pats i think have to sign like 3 90s, it wont happen. I know Logan Menkins, Wilfork and Seymour are all free agents. One will go for sure, just like them letting go of Asante Samuel. I was thinking about this, what if we go off of team ratings, say if your a 90 rated team you have to release 1 90 and 4 70s, if ur an 80 rated team you have to release 1 80 and 4 70s. I know this seems like a lot but it happens in the NFL, look at albert haynesworth, teams HAVE to let go of top top players. Before you jump also, the patriots for instance have NINE 90+ rated players. So yah, it will be tough dropping one of those players but honestly they have 80s that will be 90s next year (Jerod Mayo). Even if their players didnt improve, it would be easily possible for them to drop to an 89 the following year, in which they'd only have to give up an 80.

Whether people think this is a good idea or not, i still am a firm believer that we need a way to help the bad teams get 80s or even 90s. This idea would also really make things interesting on the trade market, cuz there would be incentive in trading an 89 ranked player for say an 80 and an 82 so next year you can release the 80 (if you were an 80+ overall rated team). I know it would be hard parting with 90s if you have a 90 rated team, but just think of being a team like the browns or bengals where you have like 1 90 on ur team. Those top teams have a lot of talent, and i think its only fair for those people that inherited the crap teams to have something to look forward to.

i think this idea has some real promise...i like that we are trying to make a semi-level playing field for everybody...i just dont want good/great teams feel like they are getting punished, that said i do think this is a good idea

[dmcnabb5]

if u ask me....we really cant say anything now...we have to wait and see if the player prgogression is good this year...n not bullshit from EA.....cuz if player prgogression is good...then lets say the player who picks the lions wins the superbowl year 1.....his o linemen and all players should improve...like in madden on ps2...u win the superbowl...ur team got reaaallllly good..so lets just wait and see

[Dymera]

if u ask me....we really cant say anything now...we have to wait and see if the player prgogression is good this year...n not bullshit from EA.....cuz if player prgogression is good...then lets say the player who picks the lions wins the superbowl year 1.....his o linemen and all players should improve...like in madden on ps2...u win the superbowl...ur team got reaaallllly good..so lets just wait and see

I think its fair to say that whoever picks the Lions is probably NOT going to win the superbowl their first year. The issue i see is that their is nothign beyond the draft out there to really help the bad teams improve. As it is now, especially considering the serpent rule for free agency, they will get at best 1 79 (which in reality no one will really be dropping 79s) Further more, the bad teams actually need their 70s, a 70 on the bengals is a starter as opposed to a 70 on the pats. My team is the panthers, they went 12-4 last year, and have a competitive team, still, the question we all have to ask is, if we were the chiefs or bengals or browns, wouldnt we want a way to get a proven bigtime player? Would the people that play the one of the top ranked teams readily switch with a worse off team and feel ok about it? I just think that there needs to be some way for a bad team to get proven players i.e. Michael Turner to the Falcons etc. To make them more competitive in years to come.

[Dymera]

Oh, and this isnt something we need to decide on today or this week or this month. We have a long time before the end of the season, i just think that this is something we should discuss, and brainstorm now, for the future.

[floridagatorfan]

Also, another thing that I am curious as to what we do with is Mike Vick. I saw this talked about earlier, but I figured I'd bring it up in here.

I am sure most people in the franchise would like to sign Vick to their team, and I was wondering, if Vick is not signed by the beginning of the season what should we do with him.

To make it real easy we could just wait till he does sign, and the team he signs with in real life gets him in our franchise. This could be used for any of the free agents that are currently unsigned.

Or we could wait until a waiver period and then whoever is at the top of the waiver list will have first dibs and so on.

And if he happens to sign before the season then it will be reflected in the roster update and it would be settled for us.

I don't know about everyone else but I would love to have Vick on my team so I could use him in a Wildcat package at times for my team.

[dmcnabb5]

Also, another thing that I am curious as to what we do with is Mike Vick. I saw this talked about earlier, but I figured I'd bring it up in here.

I am sure most people in the franchise would like to sign Vick to their team, and I was wondering, if Vick is not signed by the beginning of the season what should we do with him.

To make it real easy we could just wait till he does sign, and the team he signs with in real life gets him in our franchise. This could be used for any of the free agents that are currently unsigned.

Or we could wait until a waiver period and then whoever is at the top of the waiver list will have first dibs and so on.

And if he happens to sign before the season then it will be reflected in the roster update and it would be settled for us.

I don't know about everyone else but I would love to have Vick on my team so I could use him in a Wildcat package at times for my team.


i say we cross that bridge when we get to it..i really think he will be signed in the next 2 weeks...n if he doesnt..he prolly wont b in league..theres another league i heard that will pay him good...more than the nfl....so lets just see.....first we need to figure out how we will handle free angency

[dmcnabb5]

I think its fair to say that whoever picks the Lions is probably NOT going to win the superbowl their first year. The issue i see is that their is nothign beyond the draft out there to really help the bad teams improve. As it is now, especially considering the serpent rule for free agency, they will get at best 1 79 (which in reality no one will really be dropping 79s) Further more, the bad teams actually need their 70s, a 70 on the bengals is a starter as opposed to a 70 on the pats. My team is the panthers, they went 12-4 last year, and have a competitive team, still, the question we all have to ask is, if we were the chiefs or bengals or browns, wouldnt we want a way to get a proven bigtime player? Would the people that play the one of the top ranked teams readily switch with a worse off team and feel ok about it? I just think that there needs to be some way for a bad team to get proven players i.e. Michael Turner to the Falcons etc. To make them more competitive in years to come.

like teams over 90 overall have to release a certain amonut players of 90 overalls....team between 84 and 89 have to release less 90 overalls...teams between 83-76 would have to drop like 1 90 overall....and teams 75 and lower dont have to release any 90s......just an example ppl.....this is goin to be really hard.....and if its going to be a good system..it will probably b very complicated

[Radie420]

I like the idea of playoff teams losing an 80 player.

If everyone loses an 80 player, then we would mostly just be swapping 80's players. But if the playoff teams have to drop an 80, the the 8 worst teams will have first shot at those 80's. I think that could work very well.

But I want every team to still release 5 players. So right now it is looking like it will be...

Playoff Teams - (1) 80+ Player, (4) 70+ Players
Non Playoff Teams - (5) 70+ Players


How do you guys feel about that?

[Radie420]

Also, another thing that I am curious as to what we do with is Mike Vick. I saw this talked about earlier, but I figured I'd bring it up in here.

I am sure most people in the franchise would like to sign Vick to their team, and I was wondering, if Vick is not signed by the beginning of the season what should we do with him.

To make it real easy we could just wait till he does sign, and the team he signs with in real life gets him in our franchise. This could be used for any of the free agents that are currently unsigned.

Or we could wait until a waiver period and then whoever is at the top of the waiver list will have first dibs and so on.

And if he happens to sign before the season then it will be reflected in the roster update and it would be settled for us.

I don't know about everyone else but I would love to have Vick on my team so I could use him in a Wildcat package at times for my team.

This is where I am at with Vick..

If Vick is on the Game Day Release Free Agent List (meaning he didnt sign with a team) and then he enters the NFL, he will stay a Free Agent until the next Free Agency Period (possible mid-season or regular post season).

I am thinking that I will let Edge and Harrison and the like be available at the first FA Period.. but this brings up another point...If you sign these players and they choose to retire because they cant find teams then you will lose that player. Something to think about. I really dont think this will be an issue though as our first FA Period will be after the start of the real NFL season, so we should know the deal with all those players by then.

[floridagatorfan]

I like the idea of playoff teams losing an 80 player.

If everyone loses an 80 player, then we would mostly just be swapping 80's players. But if the playoff teams have to drop an 80, the the 8 worst teams will have first shot at those 80's. I think that could work very well.

But I want every team to still release 5 players. So right now it is looking like it will be...

Playoff Teams - (1) 80+ Player, (4) 70+ Players
Non Playoff Teams - (5) 70+ Players


How do you guys feel about that?

That was my thought when suggesting that is it keeps from flooding the FA list with 80+ guys.

My one problem that I thought of with this though is say some crummier team like the Rams makes the playoffs because the user is good. If he had to give up an 80+ guy it would likely be a quality starter that he doesn't have many of. Though you could also say if the guy is good enough to win with the Rams then he probably could give up an 80+ guy to someone at the bottom of the league who is clearly not as good of a Madden player as him.

I think that would be fair though because we can't just decide that teams above 80 overall have to give certain players away, because it doesn't take into account the ability of the owner.

[Radie420]

My one problem that I thought of with this though is say some crummier team like the Rams makes the playoffs because the user is good. If he had to give up an 80+ guy it would likely be a quality starter that he doesn't have many of. Though you could also say if the guy is good enough to win with the Rams then he probably could give up an 80+ guy to someone at the bottom of the league who is clearly not as good of a Madden player as him.

I think that would be fair though because we can't just decide that teams above 80 overall have to give certain players away, because it doesn't take into account the ability of the owner.

Very true... and if something rare like that does happen... well simply put, we cant cover every base. We need to make sure that the ones we are covering are stable.

Adding tweaks to the system in the future is way simpler then removing them.

[Dymera]

Well, i dont think its really "flooding the market", currently there are 2 teams that are 90+ and 11 teams that are 80+, so thats 11 80s and 2 90s, so the 2 worst teams would get ONE 90 and the bottom 3rd of the league will get another 80.

To better get a grasp of teams ratings and real life free agency i did a little research about 2 of the worst teams and the best team (on paper).

In 2010 the Patriots will have to resign, and this is not including 70s, 3 90+ rated players adn 4 80+ rated players. No way they can afford to sign all of them. The patriots current roster has 9 90 overall starters, 9 80 overall starters, 3 70s and 1 60. To put that in perspective....

In 2010 the Browns have no 90s in free agency (they have 2 total on the roster) and 3 80s that are free agents. In the team total they have 6 80s starters and 13 70s that are starters.

In 2010 the Bengals have 0 90 free agents (they dont have 1 90 on the team) 1 80 overall free agent with 4 80 starters and 18 70 starters.

By the current free agent concept, both of these teams will be giving up over half of their starters to the free agent market. Now you say but they can improve their roster right? No, because of the serpentine fashion of the draft they will more than likely just be either swapping for the exact current talent, or even getting worse, especially if you consider the fact that the worst ranked team picks 64th for their second pick. The patriots have 3 70 starters, which they more than likely wont even have to release because they will be able to drop backups that they can replace in the draft.

If we make it based off of team rating 70 / 80 / 90, that means most teams will be releasing 70s still, but the top 3rd of the league will be releasing 1 80 (which come on, will probably be an 80 or maybe an 81) and the top 2 teams currently (the steelers and the patriots) will have to drop 1 90. I personally dont think that its a huge deal considering if you stay a 90 rated team that means your replacing the talent your losing through free agency, which is what happens irl anyways. I mean, it would take the patriots 9 years to lose all of their current 90s on the team. Even then that doesnt count improvement of drafted players and current players. To top all of this off, if the patriots DONT improve after giving up a 90 then their overall team rating will go DOWN to the 80s, meaning next year they will give up an 80. I think this seems fairly realistic too considering usually each year there is around 2ish BIG free agents and a handful of good free agents, which i think this would do a good job of mimicing.

[Radie420]

The problem with this whole scenario is that it relies on a few things...


All 3 teams not making any trades.
Players on all 3 teams not progressing.


I think taking an 80 from the 8 playoff teams and basically distributing them amongst the 8 worst teams (via the draft) is fine.

[Radie420]

I think that would be fair though because we can't just decide that teams above 80 overall have to give certain players away, because it doesn't take into account the ability of the owner.

Possibly the smartest comment I have read about all of this stuff.

[dmcnabb5]

That was my thought when suggesting that is it keeps from flooding the FA list with 80+ guys.

My one problem that I thought of with this though is say some crummier team like the Rams makes the playoffs because the user is good. If he had to give up an 80+ guy it would likely be a quality starter that he doesn't have many of. Though you could also say if the guy is good enough to win with the Rams then he probably could give up an 80+ guy to someone at the bottom of the league who is clearly not as good of a Madden player as him.

I think that would be fair though because we can't just decide that teams above 80 overall have to give certain players away, because it doesn't take into account the ability of the owner.

i dont think cuz ur good at madden it should punish u....if he has a bad team..n he takes them t playoffs..he should still be able to get his team better not worse...hows he suppose to win a superbowl..he gets to the playoffs..probably loses to a good team....and he gets 80+ player taken...not right

[Radie420]

Alright boys... I am off to bed... Been at this stuff for almost 5 hours now...

Will check back in when I wake up around 3pm EST.

Be good. Stay up.

[Dymera]

The problem with this whole scenario is that it relies on a few things...


All 3 teams not making any trades.
Players on all 3 teams not progressing.


I think taking an 80 from the 8 playoff teams and basically distributing them amongst the 8 worst teams (via the draft) is fine.

This still doesnt solve the issue, trades matter i agree but, if you make a trade as i stated before, its a lateral move, you GIVE something to GET something. Free agency is getting something because your team isnt as talented. Great teams can't afford all the great players. Great teams will have WAY more options to trade than bad teams. Also, who cares if they progress or dont progress, and to make it worse, progression from what i've read is based on how good your players do. So better teams will get even better. Also even if the teams do progress, it shouldnt matter, they still would have to give up 1 great/good player.

Also i did some research as to if we did it this way, how close it would be to this last years free agency.

There are 11 80+ rated teams and 2 90+ rated teams, so if we did attempt to do somethig like this for example, we'd have 11 80 rated and 2 90 rated players in the 2010 free agent pool, this among the other 70s of course. Now i looked up all of the top free agents for 2009 and then i looked at their ratings and this is what i came up with.

Darren Sharper Free Safety.. 87 Green Bay > New Orleans
Brian Dawkins Strong Safety.. 92 Eagles > Broncos
Bart Scott Middle Linebacker.. 90 Ravens > Jets
Mike Peterson Middle Linebacker.. 80 Jaguars > Atlanta
Matt Birk Center.. 88 Vikings > Ravens
Mike Goff Right Guard.. 80 Chargers > Chiefs
Marvel Smith Right Tackle.. 82 Steelers > 49ers
Jason Brown Center.. 90 Ravens > Rams
Matt Cassel Quarterback.. 83 Patriots > Chiefs
Derrick Ward Running Back.. 84 Giants > Buccaneers
T.J. Houshmandzadeh Wide Receiver.. 91 Bengals > Seahawks
Albert Haynesworth Defensive Tackle.. 99 Titans > Redskins
Jovan Haye Defensive Tackle.. 80 Bucs > Titans
Rocky Bernard Defensive Tackle.. 80 Seahawks > Giants

These are the top free agents of 2009, their current madden rating, what position they are, what team they were on, and what team they got picked up by. By this list there are 9 80s and 5 90s listed giving us 14 80/90 rated players that were in the free agent market in 2009. If we did the rating system we would have 13 players (11 80s and 2 90s). Fairly close to the real thing in my opinion.

[floridagatorfan]

i dont think cuz ur good at madden it should punish u....if he has a bad team..n he takes them t playoffs..he should still be able to get his team better not worse...hows he suppose to win a superbowl..he gets to the playoffs..probably loses to a good team....and he gets 80+ player taken...not right

Yes that is true, but you are also forgetting that there will be a draft and if you scout well you can draft players that are 80+ overall rated players.
http://nutweasel.blogspot.com/
If you check out this blog he posts results from the draft and there are some quality players that you can get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

My thought is basically that if we just do cuts based on overall team rating we are not accounting for the skills of the owner which I think should matter also. Not to mention, I do not foresee anyone taking the complete crap teams like the Lions to the playoffs, but I was just pondering what would happen if someone did.

[dmcnabb5]

its gonna be awesome watching michael1807 taking them lions to there first win lol....its gonna a long hard season for him...but i think hes definitly up for that challenge

[floridagatorfan]

its gonna be awesome watching michael1807 taking them lions to there first win lol....its gonna a long hard season for him...but i think hes definitly up for that challenge

I thought about taking them but I think it would just be too frustrating.

I'm looking forward to getting all 32 teams set so I can start looking around for some possible trades to add some weapons.

[jzal8]

I just read pasta's post on his Free Agent lottery for the start of the franchise. It is definitely a good idea, but I don't like things like the cardinals picking at #2 while the Lions have to sit at #9.

I think perhaps it might be worth doing the same lottery type of system for the bottom 10 teams in the league, and then above that it's in order of team rating.

[dmcnabb5]

naa...i think it should stay in order from worst team to best....i mean cmon..the lions need all the help they can get....actually...i guess a lottery for the worse 5 teams could b interesting

[jzal8]

naa...i think it should stay in order from worst team to best....i mean cmon..the lions need all the help they can get....actually...i guess a lottery for the worse 5 teams could b interesting

I can see that for sure. As long as we are giving the bottom of the barrel a chance to get a jump on their rebuilding, without guaranteeing the lions will have Vick starting at QB this season. Ya know what I mean?

[Dymera]

I can see that for sure. As long as we are giving the bottom of the barrel a chance to get a jump on their rebuilding, without guaranteeing the lions will have Vick starting at QB this season. Ya know what I mean?

yah i really like that too, it should be the worst teams, but not a guarantee, especially if we handle future free agencies the same way, dont want people throwing games to secure that first spot etc.

[floridagatorfan]

yah i really like that too, it should be the worst teams, but not a guarantee, especially if we handle future free agencies the same way, dont want people throwing games to secure that first spot etc.

I wouldn't think it would be worth it to throw a season away since were getting rid of 80+ players instead of 90+. Wouldn't seem like fun to waste a season which takes a while to complete.

[Dymera]

I wouldn't think it would be worth it to throw a season away since were getting rid of 80+ players instead of 90+. Wouldn't seem like fun to waste a season which takes a while to complete.

i wasnt implying a whole season, but say team A and team B are tied for last place on week 17, team A tries to win and upsets and mediocre team while team B is playing another team that is in the worst 5 of the league and purposefully loses to ensure they get the best pick in the free agent draft.

[floridagatorfan]

i wasnt implying a whole season, but say team A and team B are tied for last place on week 17, team A tries to win and upsets and mediocre team while team B is playing another team that is in the worst 5 of the league and purposefully loses to ensure they get the best pick in the free agent draft.

Even in that scenario I doubt the difference in the number 1 and 2 free agents slots will be pretty similar since 12 teams make the playoffs, so 12 teams will have to drop an 80+ ovr guy. I think the biggest area that it would be worth it to throw a game would be to get into that 12th spot, but even then you will have to hear the trash talk from people that beat you.

If it becomes a problem we could always implement a lottery, but in football one player isn't as important as say basketball where they have a lottery.

[Radie420]

I like that you guys are brainstorming but I think everyone needs to take a step back...

The scenarios that are being tossed out are getting so small and improbable... I dont think anyone here would value getting the #1 pick over the #2 pick instead of putting down a might higher team with a win and prviong they can handle the sticks.

A lot of these ideas being thrown out are just like a lot of the ones that are being put up on sites all over the web. Most of them have no idea how any of it work and have rules about stuff that doesnt even exist.

All of these systems are going to be put to some sort of trial and error and I want to be sure that ours cant stand up. I cant stress enough that we can always add stuff to help the lesser teams, but lets see if we really need to. I think the 2 Free Agent Periods will really help as will the draft.

Most of the ideas here really feel like "why not try this?"... and I just dont want to experiment too much from the onset. Lets work with a stable system, get some game time under us and we will have plenty of time (months) to figure out if it is working or not.

[Radie420]

I have updated the RULES thread with a bit of info on Career and Season Ending Injuries.

I am next going to work on updating the rest of the stuff with the current tweaks.

[Tactical777]

As far as doing the draft, are they live?

[floridagatorfan]

As far as doing the draft, are they live?

I believe so, and you can also do them from your computer, unless this was just for fantasy drafts to start a league. I would imagine it works the same for drafts during a franchise.

[Radie420]

As far as doing the draft, are they live?

I am not 100% sure yet. Ideally... yes. I have looked into several social collaboration sites and some look promising. People would need to sign up for those too. Otherwise, I could do it through IMs and Emails, but we would have to take a bit of time off.

Realistically I would say that you could anticipate a break in week 6 as we going through it for the first time. I will have the plan totally figured out well before that and hopefully we will learn something from that first time.

[Radie420]

I believe so, and you can also do them from your computer, unless this was just for fantasy drafts to start a league. I would imagine it works the same for drafts during a franchise.

As for the Rookie Draft, it is LIVE.. you can set your picks if you arent there. and I can pause and resume it at anytime to suit our convenience.

And for you iPhone guys.. pretty sure the app allows the draft to run on it too.

The Fantasy Draft is done solely by us so we have less structure, but more flexibility.

[Michael1807]

I can see that for sure. As long as we are giving the bottom of the barrel a chance to get a jump on their rebuilding, without guaranteeing the lions will have Vick starting at QB this season. Ya know what I mean?

ha i would never start vick lol id go after harrison or edge or brooks not vick

[jzal8]

ha i would never start vick lol id go after harrison or edge or brooks not vick

haha you're the man with the plan so I will of course defer to you. It will definitely be interesting to watch your moves this season.

Pretty funny though, how will detroit feel about the new GM coming in, getting first dibs on the free agent pool, and picking an aging WR :)

Funny thought but I won't doubt the logic.

[Radie420]

haha you're the man with the plan so I will of course defer to you. It will definitely be interesting to watch your moves this season.

Pretty funny though, how will detroit feel about the new GM coming in, getting first dibs on the free agent pool, and picking an aging WR :)

Funny thought but I won't doubt the logic.

Ha! I see the humor in that! Pretty fucking funny. The fans would kill him.

[dmcnabb5]

lol this should be interesting

[Michael1807]

Ha! I see the humor in that! Pretty fucking funny. The fans would kill him.

screw the fans lol they will jump on my bandwagon when im on my playoff run lol :)

[jzal8]

screw the fans lol they will jump on my bandwagon when im on my playoff run lol :)

That's the spirit! 8 days!!!!!

[Radie420]

screw the fans lol they will jump on my bandwagon when im on my playoff run lol :)

It would be nice if the people of Detroit can riot for a good reason for a change

...other then the Red Wings at least once a decade.

[harmon]

I hate the Red Wings. 1/17/09 is the best game I've ever been too. :)

Off-topic but oh well. I saw hockey talk.

[Radie420]

I hate the Red Wings. 1/17/09 is the best game I've ever been too. :)

Off-topic but oh well. I saw hockey talk.

I feel you man...

Hopefully Pasta will see my commitment to this Dynasty and let me help with his EASHL team this year... You getting NHL10? gonna play EASHL?

[dmcnabb5]

I feel you man...

Hopefully Pasta will see my commitment to this Dynasty and let me help with his EASHL team this year... You getting NHL10? gonna play EASHL?

lol man i have no clue how he selects ppl

[Dymera]

I agree that we have to wait and see how the progression goes..im just all for simulation type football, i want to feel like its real, and having a system where the free agent market is filled with 71 overalls just doesnt seem like its realistic. I also don't think we should punish teams that make it to the playoffs. Thats why i'd prefer some system where 80s or even 90s get released somehow in free agency. I mean it adds a crazy dynamic too. Think of this. Say you have an 87 rated team, so you'd have to give up 1 80+ overall, now you want to keep all your 80s cuz you want the depth, but you have an aging 91 on your team, so you decide to trade him for an 83 and an 87, now when free agency comes up you dump off the 83, so you slightly downgraded your team, which actually you could improve upon with your first draft pick.

I just don't believe giving up 70s is significant enough to even have a free agency. Its like, giving up backups to the top teams and giving up actual starters for the bottom teams. Doesnt anyone else agree with this? Why even have a free agency at all if it doesnt even matter. Yay i get to drop off a few backups and pickup a few backups. It would be so better if say i had to drop Stewart next year, and the Bengals picked him up in free agency. That gives them a solid proven running back starter. That just seems more like real life football to me, than oh, let me find a backup DL and maybe get a better fourth WR. It makes perfect logical sense too right. Great players cost money, great teams can't afford all the great players forever. It perfectly fits with progression too, cause as a team gets better talent they have to give up a better player and as teams get worse they give up less.

Even if this idea isnt what people want, i strongly feel that we need to do something more significant than 70 overalls. I also do realize we have plenty of time to figure this whole thing out, i just see this as a pretty significant issue, and i'ld prefer to keep even the game off the field painless, but as close to the real thing as possible.

[Dymera]

being that i dont sleep, i was kind of thinking, since we have a good week or so before the game even comes out, we could always try doing a few mock free agency drafts with some of these ideas. Whatcha guys think? Actually, we have awhile before we'd even have to worry about it, but it would let us test some of this stuff out. Or even a few of us could do it, just review the current rosters and do a few mocks.

[Radie420]

being that i dont sleep, i was kind of thinking, since we have a good week or so before the game even comes out, we could always try doing a few mock free agency drafts with some of these ideas. Whatcha guys think? Actually, we have awhile before we'd even have to worry about it, but it would let us test some of this stuff out. Or even a few of us could do it, just review the current rosters and do a few mocks.

I am down for this... By all means do what you can... I cant run it... I have too much stuff to do already... maybe this will shed some light on the actual amount of work it will take.

[Dymera]

ok...who would be willing to lend a hand in helping to do a few mock free agent drafts, i can figure out all the ground work, i'd just need a few people to take on some teams, like maybe assign a division or two to people...you can download the full teams roster off of the madden website. Ill rank all the teams tomorrow, then we can just use pasta's free agency lottery draft order if we decide to test that. But basically i'd need a few people that could sift through rosters and figure out who they would release. Then we can do a first round mock off of a few ideas. Lemme know if any of you are interested in testing this out. Even if we dont do a mock type draft we can at least look at what the pool would look like and the rankings of the teams to get an idea for what teams would get what.

On a side note, before people go one way or the other i'd really recommend downloading the patriots roster and then downloading the lions roster and fooling around with what 70s you would drop on those teams. I did it for the patriots and its pretty crazy, their 3rd String DT is a 70, their 3rd and 4th string HB's are 70s, 3rd MLB, 3rd string TE. You could literally drop your whole free agency based off of just 3rd string players, big whoop, free agency negatively effects those crazy good teams. They just can't support an amazing roster forever, they have to replace the current talent with new, cheaper blood. When i looked at the Lions they had only 5 starters that were 80 or over, meaning the other 17 starters were 70s or lower. So they will be losing at least 1 or 2 starters easily. Now if we do a serpentine free agency draft there is no way they improve on what they will lose by dropping players in free agency.

[jzal8]

I just don't believe giving up 70s is significant enough to even have a free agency. Its like, giving up backups to the top teams and giving up actual starters for the bottom teams. Doesnt anyone else agree with this?

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I will say this, with the stretched out ratings this year, there are a number of starting positions on most teams that are 70's. The backups at a number of positions are below 70. There is no guarantee that a GM will be able to drop 5 players over 70 without having to drop a starter or even 2. That seems about realistic to me.

[Dymera]

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I will say this, with the stretched out ratings this year, there are a number of starting positions on most teams that are 70's. The backups at a number of positions are below 70. There is no guarantee that a GM will be able to drop 5 players over 70 without having to drop a starter or even 2. That seems about realistic to me.

This actually is exactly what im saying, the problem is bad teams have a full team of 70 starters. Great teams like i said before, the patriots for instance, have 3rd stringers that are 70s and pack a whopping nine 90+ rated players. With this current free agency i see it hurting bad teams/average teams more than i see it helping them. The patriots wont blink twice when they release a few 70 3rd stringers but man i'd hate to have to release 5 starters as the browns and hope i get to replace them in the draft and free agency, which i'd much rather be spending on improving what i have than replacing what i had to give up.

[Dymera]

This system i was saying is exactly what Radie was proposing, the five 70s. The only catch is, if your team is rated a 90+ you have to release 1 90 rated player as your 5th drop. So you'd release 4 70s and 1 90. If your an 80 rated team you release 1 80 and 4 70s. I don't see this as a HUGE change at all. Its the same exact system, with a little added to help teams get a little more even. Having the bottom 3rd teams get a crack at a few 80s and 2 90s (there currently are only 2 90 overall rated teams) isn't a huge change from what were talking about doing now. No team can afford to keep that many superstars year in and year out, it only makes sense they'd have to release a good player.

Bad teams can still stay bad, if say they have a bust draft, or a bad injury. Just like current teams do (Carson Palmer for the bengals getting hurt, or the Lions drafting 490280253 shitty receivers). Good teams can still stay good via trades and good drafts. Under the current draft system its possible for teams that do a good job scouting to get 80+ overalls in the 2nd or even 3rd round as sleepers.

This is compeletly reflectant of real life, you think the Patriots would have kept Asante Samuel if they could have just released an average player instead? Of course, thats one thing that really hurt them last year is lack of corner, but no, they couldnt afford another top tier player, so they had to release him.

[jzal8]

This system i was saying is exactly what Radie was proposing, the five 70s. The only catch is, if your team is rated a 90+ you have to release 1 90 rated player as your 5th drop. So you'd release 4 70s and 1 90. If your an 80 rated team you release 1 80 and 4 70s. I don't see this as a HUGE change at all. Its the same exact system, with a little added to help teams get a little more even. Having the bottom 3rd teams get a crack at a few 80s and 2 90s (there currently are only 2 90 overall rated teams) isn't a huge change from what were talking about doing now. No team can afford to keep that many superstars year in and year out, it only makes sense they'd have to release a good player.

Bad teams can still stay bad, if say they have a bust draft, or a bad injury. Just like current teams do (Carson Palmer for the bengals getting hurt, or the Lions drafting 490280253 shitty receivers). Good teams can still stay good via trades and good drafts. Under the current draft system its possible for teams that do a good job scouting to get 80+ overalls in the 2nd or even 3rd round as sleepers.

This is compeletly reflectant of real life, you think the Patriots would have kept Asante Samuel if they could have just released an average player instead? Of course, thats one thing that really hurt them last year is lack of corner, but no, they couldnt afford another top tier player, so they had to release him.

That is pretty interesting, and you're reasoning makes sense to me.

[dmcnabb5]

yea ...its goin to hard to find a perfect system

[jzal8]

yea ...its goin to hard to find a perfect system

This is definitely true, but I do think he is onto something with teams in the 90's having to let someone go in the 90's. Every guy on a sick team wants to get paid, and normally that means someone else can't. Having it just be just one 90 rated player keeps it from being too extreme, but will still add two or three superstars to the free agent pool every year.

I know we are trying to keep it simple, but this is a system strongly worth considering and still pretty damn simple. Not to mention realistic.

[dmcnabb5]

we just cant expect it to b very realistic..becuz our system isnt realistic...wen u thin about it...good players just dont go to bad teams....they usually leave bad teams...and go to good teams lol...so we need to stop trying to find a system thts close to realism and just more fair for all the teams...this is ridiculously hard lol

[AzureEffect]

As long as there is parity in the League and teams can compete...that's all that really matters because the NFL is competitive. Any given sunday you can lose! But if we have monster teams that are just running through everybody because of "personnel" then it won't be much fun.

[Dymera]

we just cant expect it to b very realistic..becuz our system isnt realistic...wen u thin about it...good players just dont go to bad teams....they usually leave bad teams...and go to good teams lol...so we need to stop trying to find a system thts close to realism and just more fair for all the teams...this is ridiculously hard lol

Actually, lets take a look at some of past years free agents...

Brian Dawkins Eagles > Broncos
Mike Goff Chargers > Chiefs
Derrick Ward Giants > Bucs
Marvel Smith Steelers > 49ers
Michael Turner (2008) Chargers > Falcons *worst team in the NFL at the time*
Alan Faneca (2008) Steelers > Jets *following a 4-12 record year*

These were a few of the premier Free Agents past years. It does happen, but that aside, i was also thinking about what you were saying earlier, about a flaw in this system. But, there is another layer, first off, i do think doing a lottery of say every 8 teams or something to mix up the order is a good idea. Not too crazy as far as time consuming. But, i think it would be reasonable to say that if the Lions got say Richard Seymour in free agency, they know he wont have an impact on the team in the distant future. So they could choose to trade him to an 80 rated team for say a few up and coming 80 overalls. Or an 85 and a few high 70s. This would similarly replicate good talent going to average to above average or even great teams. If i was a low rated team, i'd definately be all about trading a 90 for a group of 70s/80s to better improve my overall team, rather than 1 player. If i was a high rated team that 1 90 can put you over the hump for playoff contention.

[Dymera]

As long as there is parity in the League and teams can compete...that's all that really matters because the NFL is competitive. Any given sunday you can lose! But if we have monster teams that are just running through everybody because of "personnel" then it won't be much fun.

This is my biggest concern, like i said before, i have the Panthers, my team does have a wealth of talent, with several 90+ players. I just think we should all ask ourselves, do we think the system is fair? Are we giving the lesser talented teams an option or a way to improve. Bad teams have a lot of cap room, cuz well they dont have to pay their players lol. Also once the Lions or whoever get a 90 player etc, they won't be the lowest rated team anymore, they could easily move up to a 69 or 70, etc. I want to give an option to those lesser teams because the last thing i want someone to feel is they don't have a chance because they can't get talent. With the bigger gap this year in terms of rating in the overall madden gameplay, i strongly feel we need to help lesser teams balance it out.

Bad teams with a couple of great moves can be come good teams. Look at the Falcons for instance, they picked up Turner and had a great draft pick with Matt Ryan, and bam, from worst team in the NFL to playoffs. I'd love to see this happen in our league.

[dmcnabb5]

This is my biggest concern, like i said before, i have the Panthers, my team does have a wealth of talent, with several 90+ players. I just think we should all ask ourselves, do we think the system is fair? Are we giving the lesser talented teams an option or a way to improve. Bad teams have a lot of cap room, cuz well they dont have to pay their players lol. Also once the Lions or whoever get a 90 player etc, they won't be the lowest rated team anymore, they could easily move up to a 69 or 70, etc. I want to give an option to those lesser teams because the last thing i want someone to feel is they don't have a chance because they can't get talent. With the bigger gap this year in terms of rating in the overall madden gameplay, i strongly feel we need to help lesser teams balance it out.

Bad teams with a couple of great moves can be come good teams. Look at the Falcons for instance, they picked up Turner and had a great draft pick with Matt Ryan, and bam, from worst team in the NFL to playoffs. I'd love to see this happen in our league.

but that would come down to just playing good as a human.....becuase think about it..wen they got turner...he was a backup and was prolly rated like an 85...and matt ryan...a rookie...rated like a 79...and roddy white kicked ass...and he suked..lol he was like a 79...now those 3 players r like 90+ ...so it will b up to u to get bad players good...not by just pickin up 3 90 overall players....know wat im sayin

[floridagatorfan]

This is my biggest concern, like i said before, i have the Panthers, my team does have a wealth of talent, with several 90+ players. I just think we should all ask ourselves, do we think the system is fair? Are we giving the lesser talented teams an option or a way to improve. Bad teams have a lot of cap room, cuz well they dont have to pay their players lol. Also once the Lions or whoever get a 90 player etc, they won't be the lowest rated team anymore, they could easily move up to a 69 or 70, etc. I want to give an option to those lesser teams because the last thing i want someone to feel is they don't have a chance because they can't get talent. With the bigger gap this year in terms of rating in the overall madden gameplay, i strongly feel we need to help lesser teams balance it out.

Bad teams with a couple of great moves can be come good teams. Look at the Falcons for instance, they picked up Turner and had a great draft pick with Matt Ryan, and bam, from worst team in the NFL to playoffs. I'd love to see this happen in our league.

I would say that the idea of 90+ overall rated teams having to give up a 90+ ovr player and 80+ teams an 80 player is definately something that should be considered. Good thing is we have a bit of time to figure all of this out.

Also, there are not a whole lot of 90+ teams so it shouldn't be too many big players.

[Dymera]

but that would come down to just playing good as a human.....becuase think about it..wen they got turner...he was a backup and was prolly rated like an 85...and matt ryan...a rookie...rated like a 79...and roddy white kicked ass...and he suked..lol he was like a 79...now those 3 players r like 90+ ...so it will b up to u to get bad players good...not by just pickin up 3 90 overall players....know wat im sayin

Well, i know what your sayin' but it kind of doesnt apply, because its not like in the real world last year Matt Ryan started as a 79 and became the player he is now. If they knew then what they do now Matt Ryan would have been rated much higher. There was just no way of knowing that he was in actuality going to be as good as he was. Ratings are generally going to be hindsite, they can easily be busts or be one of the greats.

Another thing i think would be kind of interesting is if we did the free agency thing before progression, i dont know how that would work, but i think if someone picked up say that 91 and he was aging it would be cooler if they didnt know whether he was going to go down in rating the following year. Vice versa for improved players, it would be cool if someone grabbed some 70 and for whatever reason he shot up to like a 78 after they picked him up in free agency. This actually could replicate the whole Michael Turner thing.

[Dymera]

we just cant expect it to b very realistic..becuz our system isnt realistic...wen u thin about it...good players just dont go to bad teams....they usually leave bad teams...and go to good teams lol...so we need to stop trying to find a system thts close to realism and just more fair for all the teams...this is ridiculously hard lol

Actually i think this system is more fair for all teams, especially given were not doing a Franchise Draft where we pool all the players (which i dont want to do either) and considering we didnt randomize which people got what teams. This system helps out those people that chose the crappy teams, because lets face it, given the choice of the Pats or the Lions, who would you choose?

[Radie420]

I am sorta liking the idea of making the Division winners cut a 90.

The main thing I have an issue with all of this is that in the real NFL when the When a player leaves a Super Bowl team, he rarely goes to the worst team. I just worry that we are doing too much to help the lower teams...

If something like this does take place it will be based on Standings and not a teams overall.

I really want to avoid doing things based SOLEY off of the ratings. especially when we dont know exactly how they will play out...

A perfect example is Ahmad Bradshaw on the Giants...

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmzQAazuIHxrcldUU0FJcV9TMzVfU3R2bnQ4c29QZ Gc&hl=en

(Wish I remembered where I downloaded that from)

He is a 73 OVR, but look at all of his stats for Being a RB... with the obvious exception of the power stats.. he is right up there with the best RBs in the league... The guys at Madden has consistently said that the way OVR is determined has many more and different factors.

I want to put it on each owner to utilize what they have.

Bradshaw is 73... and looking at just the OVR, SPD, & ACC of other running backs... I take Bradshaw over a GOOD NUMBER of 80's.

Because the demand is so high... I am considering making the Division Winners drop a 90, but I worry if a 90, an 80 and 3 70's is too much to take from a team? Maybe just a 90 and 4 70's.. Wildcard teams an 80 and 4 70's... 5 70's for everyone else.

Update: I highlighted the stats where he stands out in Orange.. where he lacks in Light Blue, with the exceptions of the Power RB stats, because we all know he is that type of back...

The point is, there hasnt been a player rated 73 in Madden that is still this useful in all of the years passed... And I am sure he is not the only one in Madden 10. Predicting the ratings and how they are used is NOTHING like years past.

[jzal8]

I am sorta liking the idea of making the Division winners cut a 90.

The main thing I have an issue with all of this is that in the real NFL when the When a player leaves a Super Bowl team, he rarely goes to the worst team. I just worry that we are doing too much to help the lower teams...

If something like this does take place it will be based on Standings and not a teams overall.

I really want to avoid doing things based SOLEY off of the ratings. especially when we dont know exactly how they will play out...

A perfect example is Ahmad Bradshaw on the Giants...

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmzQAazuIHxrcldUU0FJcV9TMzVfU3R2bnQ4c29QZ Gc&hl=en

(Wish I remembered where I downloaded that from)

He is a 73 OVR, but look at all of his stats for Being a RB... with the obvious exception of the power stats.. he is right up there with the best RBs in the league... The guys at Madden has consistently said that the way OVR is determined has many more and different factors.

I want to put it on each owner to utilize what they have.

Bradshaw is 73... and looking at just the OVR, SPD, & ACC of other running backs... I take Bradshaw over a GOOD NUMBER of 80's.

Because the demand is so high... I am considering making the Division Winners drop a 90, but I worry if a 90, an 80 and 3 70's is too much to take from a team? Maybe just a 90 and 4 70's.. Wildcard teams an 80 and 4 70's... 5 70's for everyone else.

I think you have a good point too because someone could be the browns, be great at madden, win their division and not have to give up a 90.

By the same token, the person that controls the Pats might not be that great, not make the playoffs and at the end of the season they have to get worse.

What if the two superbowl teams give up a 90 and 4 70's.

Playoff teams give up an 80 and 4 70's.

and all other teams give up 5 70's.

[Radie420]

I think you have a good point too because someone could be the browns, be great at madden, win their division and not have to give up a 90.

By the same token, the person that controls the Pats might not be that great, not make the playoffs and at the end of the season they have to get worse.

What if the two superbowl teams give up a 90 and 4 70's.

Playoff teams give up an 80 and 4 70's.

and all other teams give up 5 70's.


Yeah, that works too... because in theory... you could win the division with only a slightly better then .500 record.

[crisis182]

jzal8... it's funny you say the Super Bowl thing, because I was just about to suggest that. I just caught up with this forum and I agree pretty much with Dymera.

If progression plays out like it has in the past, people that are good at Madden will have more improvement and therefore increase. If they are forced to drop only 1 80 or 90, it won't even effect them that much. And for the teams that finish at the very bottom and get 1 90, they aren't going to get that much better because they obviously sucked in the first place to finish dead last.

I basically would say that this isn't enough. Radie420 seems concerned that this will cause too much change, but I think we should go farther.

Here are my suggestions:

1. All teams make drops based on ratings of their team overall like Dymera said. 90 Overall teams drop 1 90, 80 Overall drop 1 80, etc.
2. The 2 Super Bowl teams would also have to drop 1 90. (So if the Patriots are in the SB, they are now dropping 2 90s.
3. Then all remaining drops are players that are 70s. (Ex. Pats are in SB, they drop a 90 for being 90 overall, a 90 for being in the SB, and 3 70s)

Possibly we could do the drop an 80 if you make the playoffs rule too, because that would create more parity. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[dmcnabb5]

wow man...im excited...this season is going to be bad ass....i mean think about it...against computer...when u have a good team...easy to win the division....i think we r too worried about the bad teams....they will b fine....if the progression works as they say..then if they can make a playoff run..they will get better...wit humans...its truly ANY GIVEN SUNDAY.....i dont care what team you pick....any team can beat any team...dont b suprised to see someone win alot with a bad team

[Radie420]

As noted before... I dont want to put too much emphasis on Team Rating numbers.

For all the scenarios that could be posted with problems of it working out fairly, I think Team Overall Ratings invites the most opportunities to screw a team or to be wrong.

If you take a team to the playoffs that probably shouldnt be there... you get better, but by no means are you automatically a contender for the following season... it could still be a challenge.

[Dymera]

wow man...im excited...this season is going to be bad ass....i mean think about it...against computer...when u have a good team...easy to win the division....i think we r too worried about the bad teams....they will b fine....if the progression works as they say..then if they can make a playoff run..they will get better...wit humans...its truly ANY GIVEN SUNDAY.....i dont care what team you pick....any team can beat any team...dont b suprised to see someone win alot with a bad team

I don't think you can be so quick to say teams will be fine. Why are you so quick to assume the Lions can make a playoff run? If you truly believe all of this would you consider switching with the Browns or Bengals or Lions and give up your Patriots? I mean, try to look at it from the flip side, if you had ZERO 90s on your team, that will directly effect whether you win or lose, and if you truely dont believe it will, then why would it matter if you did trade the Patriots away to someone with a lesser rated team.

I actually really like the idea of the super bowl teams dropping a 90 and the playoffs dropping an 80. I think that takes an extra step to balance out a little bit of the skill aspect of the game also. I don't know if forcing a team to drop two 90s is reasonable, thats a ton of talent. I'd have to think on it for a bit. But then again they did just win the Super Bowl, and even if this isn't terribly realistic, it does kind help balance the actually franchise with ratings vs. player skill, which would be kind of cool and really give the weaker players/teams something to look forward to.

If your guys arguement is that ratings don't matter then i challenge you to give up your current team for one of the 60 overalls and then tell me ratings dont make a difference. Im not saying we need to give the bad teams the world, but 1 player isnt going to make a world of difference, like i said the Patriots have 9 NINE 90s. Losing 1 isnt going to make a huge impact. Also as i said after, the lower rnaked teams can take the 90 they got int he free agency and trade them to other teams for more depth and overall team improvement. If your the Lions two 80s and a 70 is worth more than ONE 90, so trade that 90 to a team thats in the high 80s for a few of their 80s/70s because for them, getting that one extra super star might put them over the edge for a super bowl run. Think about in 2 years the Patriots drop Randy Moss, the Lions pick him up and then trade him to the Giants who sorely need a WR, the Giants drop 2 80s where they have depth, maybe a backup and a starter that has an upcoming backup thats nearly as good. Its a win win for both teams, and the Giants greatly improve their offense with a bigtime weapon.

I think the 2 90s is too much, but actually what if we did an 80 for all playoff teams and if you go to the super bowl its 1 90. So the super bowl teams would release 1 90 1 80 and 3 70s. Thats fairly reasonable i'd think.

I also think its a good idea to do a Lottery for something like every 8 teams, so the worst 8 teams would lottery (based off of position) then teams 9-16, 17-24, and 25-32. So the 8th worst team might get the first pick in the draft, etc. This is a little random addition without going too complicated as this would take maybe 30 minutes to do.

[Michael1807]

wow man...im excited...this season is going to be bad ass....i mean think about it...against computer...when u have a good team...easy to win the division....i think we r too worried about the bad teams....they will b fine....if the progression works as they say..then if they can make a playoff run..they will get better...wit humans...its truly ANY GIVEN SUNDAY.....i dont care what team you pick....any team can beat any team...dont b suprised to see someone win alot with a bad team

damn right...i GUARANTEE playoffs for the starved city of Detriot, my people need some bright spots and insperation in these bad economic times!!!


VNFL Detriot Lions Record 0-0

[floridagatorfan]

I think you have a good point too because someone could be the browns, be great at madden, win their division and not have to give up a 90.

By the same token, the person that controls the Pats might not be that great, not make the playoffs and at the end of the season they have to get worse.

What if the two superbowl teams give up a 90 and 4 70's.

Playoff teams give up an 80 and 4 70's.

and all other teams give up 5 70's.

I think this sounds better that all division winners giving up a 90 because I think that many people forced to give up a 90 is a bit drastic. I just looked at the Redskins and I have 4 90s (couple of 89s) and my team is above average I would say.

If a team worse wins the division which I could definately see happening they might be forced to give up their only 90. At least if the team makes the superbowl the team is more likely to be a top team, or the owner is very good at Madden and will be able to deal with losing a strong player.

[dmcnabb5]

damn right...i GUARANTEE playoffs for the starved city of Detriot, my people need some bright spots and insperation in these bad economic times!!!


VNFL Detriot Lions Record 0-0

lmao.....im a die hard patriots fan...if they were the worse team in the game...i would still want them..

[Michael1807]

I don't think you can be so quick to say teams will be fine. Why are you so quick to assume the Lions can make a playoff run? If you truly believe all of this would you consider switching with the Browns or Bengals or Lions and give up your Patriots? I mean, try to look at it from the flip side, if you had ZERO 90s on your team, that will directly effect whether you win or lose, and if you truely dont believe it will, then why would it matter if you did trade the Patriots away to someone with a lesser rated team.

If your guys arguement is that ratings don't matter then i challenge you to give up your current team for one of the 60 overalls and then tell me ratings dont make a difference. Im not saying we need to give the bad teams the world, but 1 player isnt going to make a world of difference, like i said the Patriots have 9 NINE 90s. Losing 1 isnt going to make a huge impact. Also as i said after, the lower rnaked teams can take the 90 they got int he free agency and trade them to other teams for more depth and overall team improvement. If your the Lions two 80s and a 70 is worth more than ONE 90, so trade that 90 to a team thats in the high 80s for a few of their 80s/70s because for them, getting that one extra super star might put them over the edge for a super bowl run. Think about in 2 years the Patriots drop Randy Moss, the Lions pick him up and then trade him to the Giants who sorely need a WR, the Giants drop 2 80s where they have depth, maybe a backup and a starter that has an upcoming backup thats nearly as good. Its a win win for both teams, and the Giants greatly improve their offense with a bigtime weapon.

lol i did what u r saying i was the vikings and left to take the lions...and im not worried please dont try and speak for us "lesser" teams...if i wasnt confident that i could rebuild a team and make a playoff push i wouldnt have switched but thank u for ur concern

VNFL Detriot Lions Record 0-0

[floridagatorfan]

lol i did what u r saying i was the vikings and left to take the lions...and im not worried please dont try and speak for us "lesser" teams...if i wasnt confident that i could rebuild a team and make a playoff push i wouldnt have switched but thank u for ur concern

VNFL Detriot Lions Record 0-0

I thought about doing that, but the Lions is bit much lol. Plus I wanted to get a team that had a good RB since I prefer running the ball.

Would of taken the Jags who are lower ranked but someone else wanted them so I ended up switching to the Redskins who surprisingly no one wanted.

GL with rebuilding the Lions.

[Michael1807]

I thought about doing that, but the Lions is bit much lol. Plus I wanted to get a team that had a good RB since I prefer running the ball.

Would of taken the Jags who are lower ranked but someone else wanted them so I ended up switching to the Redskins who surprisingly no one wanted.

GL with rebuilding the Lions.

thanks...i think i will be fine, i looked at the team before i made the switch and i have many people already in place...if i can make 1 or 2 trades and get a FA help (maybe) then i should be pretty well set for a good season

VNFL Detriot Lions Record 0-0

[Radie420]

I think this sounds better that all division winners giving up a 90 because I think that many people forced to give up a 90 is a bit drastic. I just looked at the Redskins and I have 4 90s (couple of 89s) and my team is above average I would say.

If a team worse wins the division which I could definately see happening they might be forced to give up their only 90. At least if the team makes the superbowl the team is more likely to be a top team, or the owner is very good at Madden and will be able to deal with losing a strong player.

lol i did what u r saying i was the vikings and left to take the lions...and im not worried please dont try and speak for us "lesser" teams...if i wasnt confident that i could rebuild a team and make a playoff push i wouldnt have switched but thank u for ur concern



I agree with this stuff. I am really leaning towards that plan with just the SB teams giving up a 90... I really think the "lesser" teams will right themselves...

The good Madden players are going to bring their teams up, while lesser Madden players are going to squander chances.

[Dymera]

I was in no way shape or form trying to offend anyone, if thats how you take it, honestly i think its awesome that you took the Lions, especially in the manner it happened. I just wanted something slight in free agency to help teams that were lower in rating. I really like hte idea of the 2 super bowl teams dropping a 90 and the playoff teams dropping an 80. Thats 10 80s and 2 90s. I think thats perfect. That helps with my concern w/o being too over the top. Plus it would add a whole new challenge to the really good players that get to and win the super bowl.

Also i really like the added realism that adding some real talent to the free agency pool brings.

[floridagatorfan]

I was in no way shape or form trying to offend anyone, if thats how you take it, honestly i think its awesome that you took the Lions, especially in the manner it happened. I just wanted something slight in free agency to help teams that were lower in rating. I really like hte idea of the 2 super bowl teams dropping a 90 and the playoff teams dropping an 80. Thats 10 80s and 2 90s. I think thats perfect. That helps with my concern w/o being too over the top. Plus it would add a whole new challenge to the really good players that get to and win the super bowl.

Also i really like the added realism that adding some real talent to the free agency pool brings.

I am pretty sure that you weren't offending anyone. Everyone that posts on here seems reasonable and you didn't write anything that would offend anyone. I think Michael1807 was just pointing out that he is up to the challenge to take the Lions to the playoffs.

[floridagatorfan]

I agree with this stuff. I am really leaning towards that plan with just the SB teams giving up a 90... I really think the "lesser" teams will right themselves...

The good Madden players are going to bring their teams up, while lesser Madden players are going to squander chances.

This sounds good and if it doesn't work out we can change it for the second season.

[Radie420]

Just thought of something...

Dante Stallworth.

With all our other issues about players being ineligible, the players were not still on a team. I dont want to enforce player suspensions.. unless they are for the full year... hmmm?

[Dymera]

As far as Donte Stallworth is concerned i have no idea, i think thats just a Commish call unless people are really worried about it. How are we handling the release day rosters. Derrick Burgess just got traded to the Patriots, and several players are placed on IR. If those aren't reflected on the release day patch how are we going to handle it?

[Dymera]

Also i know that future trades made for 2010 draft picks aren't implimented either. Do teams just lose out on those or are we going to try to figure out a way to make those happen? Kind of tough either way, but i know that these changes didnt make the release version.

[dmcnabb5]

well we cant wait on all roster updates u know..but...it sounds like radie is gonna wait 2 weeks to start this thing..so there should b an update by then

[JohnsThaKing]

well we cant wait on all roster updates u know..but...it sounds like radie is gonna wait 2 weeks to start this thing..so there should b an update by then

Yea theres gonna be a release day roster update....after that no clue

[JohnsThaKing]

Dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about the Michael Crabtree situation?

[Dymera]

its probably best to just wait until release and see where we're at. The Crabtree situation isn't crazy by any means. His cousin is the one that made the 'threat', not him nor his agent, and i believe there is still 8 rookies not signed by their team yet. All of them will sign im sure. I think before thinking too much we should just see what happens august 14th.

[harmon]

Dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about the Michael Crabtree situation?

He's a NINER! :p

[jnesses]

i really think we should reduce the drop limit to 3 players, 70's are not that abundant on good teams, and they are abundant on weaker teams; if we do something like 5 players each, it defeats the purpose on trading these players

[dmcnabb5]

we got to see this game first..hard to decide

[dmcnabb5]

anyone got the game yet

[floridagatorfan]

i really think we should reduce the drop limit to 3 players, 70's are not that abundant on good teams, and they are abundant on weaker teams; if we do something like 5 players each, it defeats the purpose on trading these players

I think that this is kind of a good thing. Some of the better teams might be forced to make the decision of which 80 player to drop if they don't have any other 70s where as it allows other teams to improve. Also, I would think that you would have a decent option to be able to replace this player with a slightly worse one from the free agency.

Plus, as was stated, we don't have the game yet and are no where near the offseason so if it looks like a problem I'm sure it would be easy to make an adjustment.

[Dymera]

i really think we should reduce the drop limit to 3 players, 70's are not that abundant on good teams, and they are abundant on weaker teams; if we do something like 5 players each, it defeats the purpose on trading these players

I know it seems crazy but remember your going to be picking up 70s also. I mean ur releasing 5 players put your picking up 5 also. So in a given draft there will be what, 160 free agents that are 70s? From that pool im sure you can round out your team. Remember you also will be picking up players in the draft. So even if you feel like your dropping a starter that your unable to fill the void through trades or free agency, you could easily fill that position with a draft pick, especially considering this is a fairly common occurance IRL where a team has to let someone go but drafts for that immediate need.

Also does anyone think that we should be releasing 60s too? Just to round things out, or 70s are enough?

[Radie420]

As Dymera pointed out...

You will be replacing the 70's... with 70's... I am pretty sure that the lesser teams (and possibly all teams) will get slightly better players then they drop... not always, but I think it will be very common.

[Radie420]

I would really like to hear what people think about going to a 3 player limit though...

It would shorten the FA draft, and could quite possible make it A LOT easier. Follow me here...

Currently I worry about the ability to drop players for the FA Draft due to roster limitations. I worry that dropping 5 players is even possible. I am sure in most cases it is... but I think there is a lot of room for instances where it isnt. 3 players cuts the chances down a lot I think...

Another thing to consider is that with the Midseason FA Draft (currently leaning towards only 1 player) and a 7 Rd (right?) rookie draft... a 3 player FA Draft would probably still be able to allow teams to complete their offseason plan... it would also put more emphasize on the draft.. which I kind of like.

Thoughts on this?

[Michael1807]

I would really like to hear what people think about going to a 3 player limit though...

It would shorten the FA draft, and could quite possible make it A LOT easier. Follow me here...

Currently I worry about the ability to drop players for the FA Draft due to roster limitations. I worry that dropping 5 players is even possible. I am sure in most cases it is... but I think there is a lot of room for instances where it isnt. 3 players cuts the chances down a lot I think...

Another thing to consider is that with the Midseason FA Draft (currently leaning towards only 1 player) and a 7 Rd (right?) rookie draft... a 3 player FA Draft would probably still be able to allow teams to complete their offseason plan... it would also put more emphasize on the draft.. which I kind of like.

Thoughts on this?

what would the player rating cut system be??? like who would super bowl teams/playoff teams/all other teams cut??? i like the idea of 3 players as long as there is some talent in the FA pool for all teams...

[Dymera]

what if we did this, 5 players released total.

Super Bowl teams: (1) 90 (1) 80s (1) 70 (2) 60s *this could be (1) 90 and (2) 70s depending*

Playoff teams: (1) 80 (2) 70s (2) 60s

Other teams: (3) 70s (2)60s

Then just do a 3 round draft for free agents, and then do something like a 1 player a week free agent pickup, up to 2 or 3 players max.

[Radie420]

what would the player rating cut system be??? like who would super bowl teams/playoff teams/all other teams cut??? i like the idea of 3 players as long as there is some talent in the FA pool for all teams...

No it would still be a tiered system like we have been discussing... just take 2 70's away from the plan for each team.

[Michael1807]

No it would still be a tiered system like we have been discussing... just take 2 70's away from the plan for each team.

im good with 3 then...

[Dymera]

adding 60s i think is a good idea because it will help teams round out rosters w/o adding time consumption. Its not a huge deal i guess tho, so either way im fine with it. Teams would only really add 60s if they truely needed the depth.

[Radie420]

Also.. keep in mind that you will be able to release a player at any time..

Not sure if this was clear.

Site is almost ready.. I got it mostly set up.. now just adding the Trade Blocks.. some guys have even set theirs up.

If you IM me, I will do yours instantly so you can work on it ASAP.

[jnesses]

what if we did this, 5 players released total.

Super Bowl teams: (1) 90 (1) 80s (1) 70 (2) 60s *this could be (1) 90 and (2) 70s depending*

Playoff teams: (1) 80 (2) 70s (2) 60s

Other teams: (3) 70s (2)60s

Then just do a 3 round draft for free agents, and then do something like a 1 player a week free agent pickup, up to 2 or 3 players max.

agree 100%, but ill make this change

super bowl teams: Have to drop 3 70's and cannot draft FA

playoff teams: Have to drop 2 70's and 1 65+ and can draft FA

other teams: 1 70

[jnesses]

also, trading draft picks should be allowed only in the off-season before the draft.

It will work as a trade for two or one player, and the person trading the draft pick will pick the draft pick of the receiving teams choice

[jnesses]

this might be an issue with some people, i explained this to hbk/tactical777
(10:57:48 PM) HbK619XxX: have to drop 3 70's? how do you replace those 70's?
(10:58:16 PM) jnessesary: you are a super bowl team, it will even everything out
(10:58:40 PM) jnessesary: if you are a super bowl team, its not like you would make it the next year
(10:58:46 PM) jnessesary: and your team ratings will be bloated enough
(10:59:02 PM) jnessesary: after winning, since player ratings go up, it really wont make a difference

[Tactical777]

this might be an issue with some people, i explained this to hbk/tactical777
(10:57:48 PM) HbK619XxX: have to drop 3 70's? how do you replace those 70's?
(10:58:16 PM) jnessesary: you are a super bowl team, it will even everything out
(10:58:40 PM) jnessesary: if you are a super bowl team, its not like you would make it the next year
(10:58:46 PM) jnessesary: and your team ratings will be bloated enough
(10:59:02 PM) jnessesary: after winning, since player ratings go up, it really wont make a difference

Kansas City Kitties?

[jnesses]

meow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpA2tMrQ4RU

[Dymera]

agree 100%, but ill make this change

super bowl teams: Have to drop 3 70's and cannot draft FA

playoff teams: Have to drop 2 70's and 1 65+ and can draft FA

other teams: 1 70

Not sure if i understand...do you mean this in addition to what we've been talking about or instead of? I think dropping the 60s is just so the free agency pool is constant, it might not even be needed being that people will have to make room for draft picks. But still its kinda cool to have some player movement even if its in the 60s, and its not like we'll have to do a 5 round draft.

I htink forcing a team not to draft free agents is very unrealistic. I mean, if a team is trying to replace say an aging player or hell, a player that retires, your saying he can't pick up a free agent? Just doesnt make sense.

[floridagatorfan]

agree 100%, but ill make this change

super bowl teams: Have to drop 3 70's and cannot draft FA

playoff teams: Have to drop 2 70's and 1 65+ and can draft FA

other teams: 1 70

I think not being able to draft FAs wouldn't work because then the super bowl teams are short players, unless you expect to fill this just with draft picks.

I would say SB teams have to drop better players but also get to draft FA just they are at the end of the order.

[Dymera]

I think not being able to draft FAs wouldn't work because then the super bowl teams are short players, unless you expect to fill this just with draft picks.

I would say SB teams have to drop better players but also get to draft FA just they are at the end of the order.

Agreed

[Radie420]

I think not being able to draft FAs wouldn't work because then the super bowl teams are short players, unless you expect to fill this just with draft picks.

I would say SB teams have to drop better players but also get to draft FA just they are at the end of the order.

Agreed

Also agree...

Will post a POLL about all of this on the Sosius site in the next day or so.

[jnesses]

I think i got this wrong, i am thinking that there is going to be a fa draft on the players in the pool, and one for players already there.... lemme change a couple things on my original thought

[jnesses]

super bowl teams: Have to drop 3 70's and can draft FA's, but with a limit of a 75 rating (the better a team is, the more it effects the team, and it may help with progression of those players)

playoff teams: Have to drop 2 70's and 1 65+ and can draft FA

other teams: Have to drop 1 70 and can draft FA


superbowl teams also are also limited to when they can pick (they have last choice out of anybody)

[Dymera]

super bowl teams: Have to drop 3 70's and can draft FA's, but with a limit of a 75 rating (the better a team is, the more it effects the team, and it may help with progression of those players)

playoff teams: Have to drop 2 70's and 1 65+ and can draft FA

other teams: Have to drop 1 70 and can draft FA


superbowl teams also are also limited to when they can pick (they have last choice out of anybody)

We've already discussed this at length. Originally we were going to do (5) 70s, and now we're discussing a tiered system to try to get better talent in the free agency pool. I don't really believe that having a disparity between super bowl, playoff, non-playoff teams is needed if were releasing only 70 overalls. Its just too insignificant, imo. Not sure if you've read this whole thread but there is a LOT of discussion on this topic already people really should make sure they read as im sure Radie will be doing a poll based on all of this coming up.

[jnesses]

We've already discussed this at length. Originally we were going to do (5) 70s, and now we're discussing a tiered system to try to get better talent in the free agency pool. I don't really believe that having a disparity between super bowl, playoff, non-playoff teams is needed if were releasing only 70 overalls. Its just too insignificant, imo. Not sure if you've read this whole thread but there is a LOT of discussion on this topic already people really should make sure they read as im sure Radie will be doing a poll based on all of this coming up.

There is not a "one size fits all" for every team

you cant make superbowl teams and teams that go 0-16 the same

AND, 70's are average players, you cant just release 5 of them when your whole team is made up with them (chiefs)

[Speed914]

There is not a "one size fits all" for every team

you cant make superbowl teams and teams that go 0-16 the same

AND, 70's are average players, you cant just release 5 of them when your whole team is made up with them (chiefs)

I agree to this.

[Dymera]

There is not a "one size fits all" for every team

you cant make superbowl teams and teams that go 0-16 the same

AND, 70's are average players, you cant just release 5 of them when your whole team is made up with them (chiefs)

I'm still not sure if you've read the whole thread. This has been discussed and we all already agreed to this pretty much. What we were talking about was a tiered system of the super bowl teams releasing 1 90 overall and 2 70s, playoff teams releasing 1 80 and 2 70s and every other team releasing 3 70s. There has been a few additions to this we're discussing. But after this release there is a free agency draft where the order goes from the worst team to the best, we've also discussed adding a small lottery to this to vary the order and make it slightly random.

So im not sure why your making it a point that there needs to be a discrepency to an 0-16 team and a super bowl team because this has already been agreed upon for the most part.

The system we were saying to implement woudl require the top teams to release MORE valuable players. What i was saying in my earlier post was that 70s was fairly insignificant, and it just wouldnt even be worth doing a draft. With teams releasing 80s and 90s then that would make a big difference. I agree there needs to be a difference, but releasing 3 70s is too little of a change imo.

[jnesses]

I'm still not sure if you've read the whole thread. This has been discussed and we all already agreed to this pretty much. What we were talking about was a tiered system of the super bowl teams releasing 1 90 overall and 2 70s, playoff teams releasing 1 80 and 2 70s and every other team releasing 3 70s. There has been a few additions to this we're discussing. But after this release there is a free agency draft where the order goes from the worst team to the best, we've also discussed adding a small lottery to this to vary the order and make it slightly random.

So im not sure why your making it a point that there needs to be a discrepency to an 0-16 team and a super bowl team because this has already been agreed upon for the most part.

why would i want to release a star player? THIS IS NOT THE SAME; can't you understand!?!?
http://espn.go.com/videogames/features/madden/madden10?teamId=2

if i were the bengals, how can i release a 90?, who says my players would gain a rating, what happens if i dont have a 90?

I have read every single post here; don't say i haven't read anything.

70's are more than enough, even if you wanted to, put an 80 in there.

NOTHING IS FINAL (nice edit btw)

[Dymera]

why would i want to release a star player? THIS IS NOT THE SAME; can't you understand!?!?
http://espn.go.com/videogames/features/madden/madden10?teamId=2

if i were the bengals, how can i release a 90?, who says my players would gain a rating, what happens if i dont have a 90?

I have read every single post here; don't say i haven't read anything.

70's are more than enough, even if you wanted to, put an 80 in there.

NOTHING IS FINAL (nice edit btw)

Not sure if i offended you in any way shape or form, or where the animosity is coming from (unless im perceiving this post the wrong way). So, your saying IF you won the super bowl you dont think its fair that you released a 90? Well, quite honestly if you won the super bowl this year as the bengals, imo, i don't mind you releasing a 90 because quite honestly you'd be a freakin amazing madden player. Plus your whole team would improve ratings wise tremendously. The fact is, star players do move, even on the bengals i.e. TJ Housh, Haynesworth, etc etc. I think what we were trying to do is replicate real life as much as we can (not that its too easy w/o a cap). But I also kind of like a system that helps balance skill level as well to keep the league as competitive as possible. These are just my opinions to feed the discussion and come up with something we all can somewhat agree upon.

Oh and if i edit a post, its not to be deceiving, its either i read it and realize i didnt say something conveying my point as well as i could have or a typo (being that i type 100 wpm they happen). So sorry for editing my post? I guess.

[jnesses]

Not sure if i offended you in any way shape or form, or where the animosity is coming from (unless im perceiving this post the wrong way). So, your saying IF you won the super bowl you dont think its fair that you released a 90? Well, quite honestly if you won the super bowl this year as the bengals, imo, i don't mind you releasing a 90 because quite honestly you'd be a freakin amazing madden player. Plus your whole team would improve ratings wise tremendously. The fact is, star players do move, even on the bengals i.e. TJ Housh, Haynesworth, etc etc. I think what we were trying to do is replicate real life as much as we can (not that its too easy w/o a cap). But I also kind of like a system that helps balance skill level as well to keep the league as competitive as possible. These are just my opinions to feed the discussion and come up with something we all can somewhat agree upon.

Oh and if i edit a post, its not to be deceiving, its either i read it and realize i didnt say something conveying my point as well as i could have or a typo (being that i type 100 wpm they happen). So sorry for editing my post? I guess.

If we were trying to replicate real life, then why would we be releasing players in the first place?

What if that 90+ player is the only reason you have won?

edit:I called you out on editing the post because after I completed my thought, you changed your post, which also changed your view.

[jnesses]

hell, i dont even know why other people are not giving their views on what they like so we can get this issue out of the way

[Michael1807]

hell, i dont even know why other people are not giving their views on what they like so we can get this issue out of the way

u have to release more than just 70s or an 80 or 2 cause theres more talent than that in a normal FA class each year...so there r only 2 ways to make a tier system...1 is the way which is being discussed...sb teams a 90 and 2 70s, playoff teams and 80 and 2 70s and all else 3 70s...the only other way that is a tier system would be by overall team ratings with 90 teams dropping a 90 and 2 70s, then 80 teams with the 80 and so on down the time...now as for my opinion i dont like punishing people for winning but it is fair cause most super bowl winning teams lose talent after they win so i am behind the first system for now unless something better comes along...

[jnesses]

u have to release more than just 70s or an 80 or 2 cause theres more talent than that in a normal FA class each year...so there r only 2 ways to make a tier system...1 is the way which is being discussed...sb teams a 90 and 2 70s, playoff teams and 80 and 2 70s and all else 3 70s...the only other way that is a tier system would be by overall team ratings with 90 teams dropping a 90 and 2 70s, then 80 teams with the 80 and so on down the time...now as for my opinion i dont like punishing people for winning but it is fair cause most super bowl winning teams lose talent after they win so i am behind the first system for now unless something better comes along...

.........

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RELEASE A 90; a 90 is way way to high.

What if I released someone like moss or tom brady if i were the patriots? Thats not going to happen!

[Michael1807]

.........

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RELEASE A 90; a 90 is way way to high.

What if I released someone like moss or tom brady if i were the patriots? Thats not going to happen!

the pats have like 9 90s im pretty sure they could pick one that is not brady or moss...and moss might be realsed in like 2 years for getting old...a 90 is not that high...if u win the super bowl ur guys will progress jezze i know ur the chiefs and u dont have many 90s but if u win a super bowl im sure u will go from the 1 ur at to like 3 or 4 and if u win the super bowl with 1...then im sure u can do it with 2 or 3...so where is u big beef??? we are prob not gonna win the super bowl and if any "great" teams do they will have a 90 to give up no prob

[jnesses]

the pats have like 9 90s im pretty sure they could pick one that is not brady or moss...and moss might be realsed in like 2 years for getting old...a 90 is not that high...if u win the super bowl ur guys will progress jezze i know ur the chiefs and u dont have many 90s but if u win a super bowl im sure u will go from the 1 ur at to like 3 or 4 and if u win the super bowl with 1...then im sure u can do it with 2 or 3...so where is u big beef??? we are prob not gonna win the super bowl and if any "great" teams do they will have a 90 to give up no prob

why would i release a play if he is old in madden?
it does affect the gameplay of that player

90's would be rare for half of the league, and you think if we do good for one season, then we get to lose one!?!?

no

[Michael1807]

why would i release a play if he is old in madden?
it does affect the gameplay of that player

90's would be rare for half of the league, and you think if we do good for one season, then we get to lose one!?!?

no

im just saying...u have to release 90s sometime cause no team keeps everyone of there 90s forever so we need some in FA...if u have a better idea on how to get them there im all ears...but if we just have 8 80s and the rest 70s that is shit for FA and the bottom teams will never improve...this is supposed to be virtual nfl that means top talent goes into FA ala hanesworth last year...and that also means bottom teams can become good in 1 year ala falcons and dolphins...u have a way to make that happen, im happy to hear it

[jnesses]

im just saying...u have to release 90s sometime cause no team keeps everyone of there 90s forever so we need some in FA..

A 90 in the Free agents should be really rare. You have never played madden 10 franchise, and you dont know how the NFL works. Do the colts still have manning? Do the patriots still have brady?

The only reason star players are released is that they are offer top $$$$ by teams and they are greedy greedy bastards.

[jnesses]

Bottom teams will always improve, hopefully they fixed progression this year, and they will progress on how well a player does, and not how well their team does

[Dymera]

If we were trying to replicate real life, then why would we be releasing players in the first place?

What if that 90+ player is the only reason you have won?

edit:I called you out on editing the post because after I completed my thought, you changed your post, which also changed your view.

No, my view didnt change at all actually. I tried to better explain my view, hence why i said i didnt explain my point as well in the pre-edit post. I proposed the overall rating change to make a difference between the better teams and the worse teams to balance out the rosters and replicate the concept of salary caps because good teams can't afford all the good players. I however, do not agree with ONLY releasing 70s, i think that is too insignificant. So my view is this, if we release 3 70s its stupid (in my opinion, not attempting to belittle anyone elses), but i strongly believe in a tier system in which the free agent pool will have higher talent, in which a free agent draft is good.

[jnesses]

But, you and michael are arguing for 90's; I would settle for 1 80, BUT, to have a 90 in FA every year would be stupid

[jmo31]

Well I think cutting 80s is fair. If we were doing a mdden chise that actually had a salary cap, what are the chances anyone would let a 90 just go into fa, in all my years in madden it certainly has never happened on my account, not saying its the most realistic but that's the way it would go down, you don't need to cut 90s to fit a salary cap... But then again I've only ever done rebuilding projects before. I'm cool with whatever is decided because honestly in the end we are all doing the same thing held accountable to the same rules. The discussion has been good tho

[Michael1807]

But, you and michael are arguing for 90's; I would settle for 1 80, BUT, to have a 90 in FA every year would be stupid

im asking for 2 90s...super bowl teams both release one and ah if u look back through the years im sure an avgerage of 2 90s in madden ratings have changed teams each season...last year was hanesworth, scott, housh, t.o...just off the top of my head thats 4 so 2 isnt bad...and progression is "supposed" to be fixed this year to go off the player stats not the teams at least thats what the game designers have said over the last few months but we will see in 5 days...

[jnesses]

Well I think cutting 80s is fair. If we were doing a mdden chise that actually had a salary cap, what are the chances anyone would let a 90 just go into fa, in all my years in madden it certainly has never happened on my account, not saying its the most realistic but that's the way it would go down, you don't need to cut 90s to fit a salary cap... But then again I've only ever done rebuilding projects before. I'm cool with whatever is decided because honestly in the end we are all doing the same thing held accountable to the same rules. The discussion has been good tho

I agree with what he said^

[Michael1807]

Well I think cutting 80s is fair. If we were doing a mdden chise that actually had a salary cap, what are the chances anyone would let a 90 just go into fa, in all my years in madden it certainly has never happened on my account, not saying its the most realistic but that's the way it would go down, you don't need to cut 90s to fit a salary cap... But then again I've only ever done rebuilding projects before. I'm cool with whatever is decided because honestly in the end we are all doing the same thing held accountable to the same rules. The discussion has been good tho

this is supposed to be the virtual nfl not the gay way madden does contracts and in the nfl top talent leaves teams...the ravens had 3 90s to resign last year and kept 2 lost 1 thats what happens in the nfl maybe not in madden but this league is supposed to be as "real" as possible so why would we change just FA to be like madden...90s need to come off teams otherwise all we will have after 5 years is over teams full of them at every fucking position...i dont get u people and ur 80s cause everyteam has at least like 8 of them and if they dont they will by the time a season is over...so a 90 is what needs to be let go by 2 teams then 6 80s and the rest 70s...if u dont like it dont go to the superbowl

[dmcnabb5]

this is supposed to be the virtual nfl not the gay way madden does contracts and in the nfl top talent leaves teams...the ravens had 3 90s to resign last year and kept 2 lost 1 thats what happens in the nfl maybe not in madden but this league is supposed to be as "real" as possible so why would we change just FA to be like madden...90s need to come off teams otherwise all we will have after 5 years is over teams full of them at every fucking position...i dont get u people and ur 80s cause everyteam has at least like 8 of them and if they dont they will by the time a season is over...so a 90 is what needs to be let go by 2 teams then 6 80s and the rest 70s...if u dont like it dont go to the superbowl

loook.....this can only be so realistic..i want it to be fun and fair more than realistic....because if theres one thing i know for a fact....it takes in relaity...about 4 years to turn a bad team around....usually..dont give me those falcons...cuz those r rare cases...i mean..look at hte real lions..theve sucked for years...cardinals before last year sucked forever lol...the browns...all these bad teams...it takes time to rebuild...and we only have 10 years...so i want a system where in those ten years....there r big changes every year...yall know what im saying

[Michael1807]

loook.....this can only be so realistic..i want it to be fun and fair more than realistic....because if theres one thing i know for a fact....it takes in relaity...about 4 years to turn a bad team around....usually..dont give me those falcons...cuz those r rare cases...i mean..look at hte real lions..theve sucked for years...cardinals before last year sucked forever lol...the browns...all these bad teams...it takes time to rebuild...and we only have 10 years...so i want a system where in those ten years....there r big changes every year...yall know what im saying

thats what im saying the odds r against me, the chiefs owner, browns and bengals and rams...so if a great team with an ok user makes the super bowl i think 1 90 from those 2 teams isnt gonna kill there franchise ya know

[Radie420]

Oh man! This is so much letters to read. Brain wont handle it!

I am so dog tired... I cant read this tonight... Will get to it in the morning. There are a TON of posts (which is fucking great!) and I genuinely love it when there is this much activity... but I got a lot to stuff to do in the next few days until the game releases...

If anyone would want to really help out... they could right up a post with the exact parameters of all ideas currently on the table. I will still read everything on here, but it would help me catch up a lot quicker, since I will be finishing the Sosius site (and not using it for POLLS anymore... cant figure that out of all things????)

Well... time to watch "War Dogs of the Pacific"... a good documentary about 2 of my favorite things... dogs and WW2... until I pass out...

Until the morning, gentlemen...g'day!

[dmcnabb5]

this is awesome...i mean ...im shocked...that this thread is getting more activity than pasta online franchise

[Radie420]

this is awesome...i mean ...im shocked...that this thread is getting more activity than pasta online franchise

Honestly... I can say from personal experience... Pasta is a stand up guy.

Plus he is good at what he does... and that always deserve rewards.

I am genuinely happy that a nice bonus of this league is that it all of you guys have to come here to his forums (and hopefully you visit his site too!). I dont know if all these extra pageviews are doing anything for him, but it cant hurt.

But with all that said... Yeah it is pretty cool that we are really the biggest forum on here that isnt a general forum... pretty cool...

...and yes.. I'm still lurking...

[Dymera]

thats what im saying the odds r against me, the chiefs owner, browns and bengals and rams...so if a great team with an ok user makes the super bowl i think 1 90 from those 2 teams isnt gonna kill there franchise ya know

Not to mention th efact that if you make it to the super bowl, your whole team is going to improve leaps and bounds because of how well you did progression wise. So 1 90 isnt going to kill your team. There is a ton of things that madden did awfully in past maddens, so why were talking about this idea not being similar to past maddens i dont know. This if anything is more realistic than maddens past free agencies because teams do lose great players. As far as it taking 4 years to turn a team around, i disagree completely, it often takes less, the reasons those teams suck so bad is the front office and coaching. If you look at teams that have an overhaul in the front office and coaching, and its a vast improvement, the team as a whole improves, generally very fast. Bill Parcells has done it with virtually every team and hes done it a lot faster than 4 years. Bill Walsh with the 49ers from 79-81, Marv Levy with the Bills from 86-88.

Lets look at the last few years. 2008 Giants let go of Gibril Wilson and Patriots dropped Asante Samuel, both great players at their respective positions. There is always great talent in free agency, and i feel this is the fairest coupled with the easiest way to do it.

[dmcnabb5]

Not to mention th efact that if you make it to the super bowl, your whole team is going to improve leaps and bounds because of how well you did progression wise. So 1 90 isnt going to kill your team. There is a ton of things that madden did awfully in past maddens, so why were talking about this idea not being similar to past maddens i dont know. This if anything is more realistic than maddens past free agencies because teams do lose great players. As far as it taking 4 years to turn a team around, i disagree completely, it often takes less, the reasons those teams suck so bad is the front office and coaching. If you look at teams that have an overhaul in the front office and coaching, and its a vast improvement, the team as a whole improves, generally very fast. Bill Parcells has done it with virtually every team and hes done it a lot faster than 4 years. Bill Walsh with the 49ers from 79-81, Marv Levy with the Bills from 86-88.

Lets look at the last few years. 2008 Giants let go of Gibril Wilson and Patriots dropped Asante Samuel, both great players at their respective positions. There is always great talent in free agency, and i feel this is the fairest coupled with the easiest way to do it.

lol man...ur right ..teams do give up big players...but never franchise players...just ppl they believe can b replaced...asante samuel...i cant like...awesome...but to me hes alil overrated...n i know the patriots though so too...not worth money he got..hes good..not great

[Dymera]

Albert Haynseworth? U consider him overrated? Hes probably the best defensive player in the league, at least argueably. Not all 90s are franchise players either. T.J. Housh was released, Terrell Owens was released by multiple teams, Randy Moss, Tony Gonzalez, John Lynch, these are just a few free agents that were released off the top of my head. Oh, Drew Brees i believe. TKO spikes when he left the Bengals, he was in his prime, Jeremiah Trotter, etc etc etc etc.

[Dymera]

U also have the option of who you release, it can be an aging veteran that might not have been worth the money, or a player you happen to feel is "overrated", not to mention people are talking about how they would or wouldnt drop a "franchise" player in free agency but go look at the trade thread. There is multiple offers of people trading "franchise" players, so how is free agency any different? Also, if you win the super bowl, im sure your players will improve to where you will have several high 80s or 90s to choose from. Remember this is only the super bowl teams thats only 2 out of 32 have to give up a 90. Not sure why its such a huge deal.

[jnesses]

U also have the option of who you release, it can be an aging veteran that might not have been worth the money, or a player you happen to feel is "overrated", not to mention people are talking about how they would or wouldnt drop a "franchise" player in free agency but go look at the trade thread. There is multiple offers of people trading "franchise" players, so how is free agency any different? Also, if you win the super bowl, im sure your players will improve to where you will have several high 80s or 90s to choose from. Remember this is only the super bowl teams thats only 2 out of 32 have to give up a 90. Not sure why its such a huge deal.

There is not going to be a salary cap. Anyway, to the guy that talked about moss and TO; they were released because of their attitude and they wanted more money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46924-2005Feb23.html
5th paragraph

[Dymera]

There is not going to be a salary cap. Anyway, to the guy that talked about moss and TO; they were released because of their attitude and they wanted more money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46924-2005Feb23.html
5th paragraph

I never said we were adding a salary cap, and it doesnt matter how or why they were released, the point is, we're trying to mimic real life by adding better talent into free agency, and I believe that this is the fairest and most simple option. Teams only releasing average players to the free agency pool A. Is not realistic and B. doesn't help to balance out teams and give something to the weaker teams.

[jnesses]

I never said we were adding a salary cap, and it doesnt matter how or why they were released, the point is, we're trying to mimic real life by adding better talent into free agency, and I believe that this is the fairest and most simple option. Teams only releasing average players to the free agency pool A. Is not realistic and B. doesn't help to balance out teams and give something to the weaker teams.

REAL LIFE!?!?!?

you have to be fucking kidding me

this league stopped mimicking real life when people started offering to trade their star player aka AP and LT.

Trading star players is closer to real life then finding star players in the FA

you also gave an example of releasing a player if you dont want to pay that much for him, thats not going to happen

[Michael1807]

REAL LIFE!?!?!?

you have to be fucking kidding me

this league stopped mimicking real life when people started offering to trade their star player aka AP and LT.

Trading star players is closer to real life then finding star players in the FA

you also gave an example of releasing a player if you dont want to pay that much for him, thats not going to happen

dude u need to settle down...4+ FA last year were 90+ ratings in madden...there needs to be 90s in FA jesus...who cares what people trade that is not the discussion...and more people seem to agree with the 2 90s and 4 80s then against so i dunno why u keep fighting it man

[jnesses]

LOL, you have got to be kidding me.

You and Dymera are the only ones that have agreed that; last year is not this year, and the ratings this year are more stretched.

[Tactical777]

LOL, you have got to be kidding me.

You and Dymera are the only ones that have agreed that; last year is not this year, and the ratings this year are more stretched.

Yea, anyone agree with Mike?

[mmorgan184]

People think that being forced to release to 90+ ovr players is a good idea? What? No, that's not a good idea at all sorry. I just don't like the idea of being forced to get rid of players. I should have the option of having a bunch of elite guys then a bunch of high 60 to low 70 guys, or a good mix of high 80 and high 70 guys for depth. I shouldn't be forced to cut players that fall in a rating criteria every year.

[Dymera]

The idea that was proposed was this, only TWO teams release 90s. The two teams that were in the super bowl. After the super bowl they release 2 90s. Then every team that made it to the playoffs would release 1 80. Then every other team would release the standard 70s. So that would mean out of the 32 teams there would be only 2 90s released and 10 80s. Looking at last year the free agency pool was something that of 4 90s and 9 80s. Then there would be a free agency draft with the losing record teams getting first picks etc. With this system the teams with the better rosters would more than likely lose some talent, especially if you factor in the fact that the teams that go far in the playoffs/super bowl will have a huge progression in talent that year, so losing 1 90 isnt going to be insanely detrimental. Were not talking about all 32 teams losing a 90. ITS JUST THE TWO TOP TEAMS OF THE YEAR. This was talked as the fairest way to help even the playing field of players and rosters. If you have another alternative or anyone does, lets discuss it. There is no reason to be so hot headed honestly, im not sure why your so upset, this is an easy, simple, well needed discussion about the future of the league. Also keep in mind we have awhile to even come to a descision, so lets keep it constructive and positive plz.

[mmorgan184]

Ok, if only the 2 Super Bowl teams have to release 90+ plus and Playoff teams have to release 80+ guys then I like that. It helps create parity and that's what the NFL is all about. Sorry that I misunderstood, I like this concept.

[Dymera]

REAL LIFE!?!?!?

you have to be fucking kidding me

this league stopped mimicking real life when people started offering to trade their star player aka AP and LT.

Trading star players is closer to real life then finding star players in the FA

you also gave an example of releasing a player if you dont want to pay that much for him, thats not going to happen

You also wouldnt be forced to drop AP or LT, the vikings currently roster 6 90s and the Chargers roster 5 90s (they also have another 5 89 overalls that would easily be 90+ if they won the super bowl). So could you see the vikings winning the super bowl then letting Pat Williams 36 y/o ass go if he was in a contract year? I certainly could.

If the Chargers won the super bowl and didnt give up a solid player they'd easily be walking around with 11 90s on the roster. Now you look at teams like the Bengals that don't have a single 90 rostered, and thats fair?

I can understand if the Bengals this year won our VNFL super bowl and had to give up a top player considering they have so little, but quite honestly, if that player is good enough to win the super bowl with a crappy team, the next year the whole team is going to improve significantly through player progression which as a whole would make their entire team better than the year before even with losing a top notch player, giving them a solid shot again for the super bowl. How do you propose we help, over time, even out the rosters so the person that say, got the Patriots doesn't guarantee a team with 9 90s for the length of the franchise, because i personally don't think thats fair at all.

[mmorgan184]

the next year the whole team is going to improve significantly through player progression which as a whole would make their entire team better than the year before even with losing a top notch player, giving them a solid shot again for the super bowl.

Progression isn't based on performance anymore, finally.

[Tactical777]

Progression isn't based on performance anymore, finally.

performance as in winning games?

[jnesses]

performance as in winning games?

if thats the case, then we are not releasing 90's

[Dymera]

Progression isn't based on performance anymore, finally.

I thought it was based on the individual's statistics and not the overall teams win/loss ratio and how successful they were in the playoffs.

My point is, if a team wins the super bowl, that means they pretty much have to have players improving, i mean, i don't see someone winning the super bowl and not have players doing well in multiple areas.

At any rate, lets hear more ideas if this isnt something that everyone agrees on.

The original idea Radie420 said was every team releases (5) 70s.

The second idea was it would be based on team rating, 90 rated teams would release 1 90 and 4 70s, 80s would release 1 80 and 4 70s, 70s woudl be 5 70s, 60s would be 1 60 and 4 70s.

The last idea was based off the season, with the 2 super bowl teams releasing 1 90 and 2 70s, the other 10 playoff teams releasing 1 80 and 2 70s and the rest of the league releasing 3 70s.

[Dymera]

if thats the case, then we are not releasing 90's

you think its that big of a deal for 2 teams (the best 2 teams in the league) to release (1) 90 from their roster?

[mmorgan184]

performance as in winning games?

No, progression is based upon the player's potential and age.

[jnesses]

I thought it was based on the individual's statistics and not the overall teams win/loss ratio and how successful they were in the playoffs.

My point is, if a team wins the super bowl, that means they pretty much have to have players improving, i mean, i don't see someone winning the super bowl and not have players doing well in multiple areas.

At any rate, lets hear more ideas if this isnt something that everyone agrees on.

The original idea Radie420 said was every team releases (5) 70s.

The second idea was it would be based on team rating, 90 rated teams would release 1 90 and 4 70s, 80s would release 1 80 and 4 70s, 70s woudl be 5 70s, 60s would be 1 60 and 4 70s.

The last idea was based off the season, with the 2 super bowl teams releasing 1 90 and 2 70s, the other 10 playoff teams releasing 1 80 and 2 70s and the rest of the league releasing 3 70s.

hmmm, you must of forgot my idea..... thanks

here it is

Superbowl Teams:Release 1 80+ Player and 2 75+ Player
Playoff Teams: Release 2 75+ Players
Other Teams: Release 2 70+ Players

This is how Free Agents will go:
If you sign a Free Agent, you have to release a Free Agent + or - 5 ratings!

So, if I added an 80 to my team, I have to release someone that is rated 75-85 on my team.

[jnesses]

you think its that big of a deal for 2 teams (the best 2 teams in the league) to release (1) 90 from their roster?

Any team that makes the playoffs can win the superbowl

[Dymera]

hmmm, you must of forgot my idea..... thanks

here it is

Superbowl Teams:Release 1 80+ Player and 2 75+ Player
Playoff Teams: Release 2 75+ Players
Other Teams: Release 2 70+ Players

This is how Free Agents will go:
If you sign a Free Agent, you have to release a Free Agent + or - 5 ratings!

So, if I added an 80 to my team, I have to release someone that is rated 75-85 on my team.

First off, im trying to be as diplomatic as possible, im sorry i forgot your idea, but i'd really appreciate the losing the snide comments, im trying to be constructive in helping the league. Were all damn adults here i'd hope and having a constructive and positive conversation about this shouldnt be overshadowed by jabs and negativity.

So you agree with the tiered system, you just dont agree that it should be 90s?

[jnesses]

90's are rare; I do not want them to be available in the FA.

[Dymera]

Ok, if only the 2 Super Bowl teams have to release 90+ plus and Playoff teams have to release 80+ guys then I like that. It helps create parity and that's what the NFL is all about. Sorry that I misunderstood, I like this concept.

The thing i really like about this concept is that say, i win the super bowl and have to release a 90, i could actually trade say, Julius Peppers (who actually might not be a Panther next year), for a low ranked 90 and maybe a low ranked 80. Then release that 90, and actually get an 80 out of it. Stuff like this creates movement in the league where the average/good/great teams can fill holes with top talent by making some moves and not just the bad teams getting these 90s. Another thing to look at, sure the Lions might get Pat Williams but in the grand scheme of things, hes going to retire in a year or 2, so they might even pass on him and move to get a different free agent that will provide more of a long term contribution.

[jnesses]

trading 90's is totally fine with me; BUT, releasing 90's to be added by the worst team in the league would just screw it up. At most an 80 should be on their team, and will gain ratings, or lose ratings, and be at the mercy of how well they play.

[Dymera]

90's are rare; I do not want them to be available in the FA.

the Patriots have (9) 90s, that makes up almost half of their starters, being that their are 22 starters on a team. Rare is dependant on the team.

[jnesses]

the Patriots have (9) 90s, that makes up almost half of their starters, being that their are 22 starters on a team. Rare is dependant on the team.

I do not want weak teams to be "handed" 90's. They picked a weak team, and they have to earn it; by trading, or by progressing rookies, etc.

This is not going to be a one season league.

[Dymera]

trading 90's is totally fine with me; BUT, releasing 90's to be added by the worst team in the league would just screw it up. At most an 80 should be on their team, and will gain ratings, or lose ratings, and be at the mercy of how well they play.

I doubt teams would release their top 90, more than likely it will be an older player that will probably be declining. This is also fairly inconsequential as the team that would release the 90s would be the super bowl winner, i mean, they just won the super bowl, lol, they are the best in the VNFL. So if they lose a 90 their whole team falls apart? Why not add a new challenge as that player and try to fill the void that that player left. All in all the Patriots are a dynasty not because of 1 player (except maybe Tom Brady which you'd obviously never release to FA), its because they constantly fill their voids with upcoming talent. Thats something this would replicate, you lose 1 90, then replace him with Jerod Mayo that year in the draft and your good to go.

[jnesses]

After thinking about it, I will only accept this IF we do it by season record. Playoff games can go either way, and if we did it by season record, it will help.

AND, by season record, i mean, if you dont get above 13 wins and you have the best record, then you dont get to release a 90, and if you do get above 13 wins you have to release a 90 when the season ends.

[Dymera]

I do not want weak teams to be "handed" 90's. They picked a weak team, and they have to earn it; by trading, or by progressing rookies, etc.

This is not going to be a one season league.

Actually, this is the first thing you've said i totally disagree with. I THANK all those players that took bad teams, only 1 person i know of did it by choice and thats Michael1807. Most of the people that was their only option, and they help make this the experience it is by filling out a full 32 man roster with real people. I feel that they should be given a 'small' option in free agency to improve their team. I mean, the bad teams do have a ton of cap room so it semi makes sense. Also its at the mercy of the Super Bowl team, obviously your not going to release a player in his prime, your going to release an aging veteran, or a position you can readily fill with an upcoming prospect.

All in all, i think its unfair to tell the teams that inherited a bad team that they should sink or swim. No one wants to lose because of an unfair advantage, and these people are automatically working uphill. As the Super Bowl winner you can plan for who your going to drop, and as my aforementioned example, if i was the worst team in the VNFL i wouldn't pick up Pat Williams at all, his career is on the downturn. If the top 2 teams are wise about who they add and drop it wont be as great of a player as i think you expect.

[jnesses]

Reply to my latest; you might like it

[Dymera]

After thinking about it, I will only accept this IF we do it by season record. Playoff games can go either way, and if we did it by season record, it will help.

AND, by season record, i mean, if you dont get above 13 wins and you have the best record, then you dont get to release a 90, and if you do get above 13 wins you have to release a 90 when the season ends.

I actually see your idea here, and it is something i do agree with. If say, an average team squeeked into the playoffs, had a great run and some luck and played beyond their skill and player talent, then they shouldnt release a 90. Hmmm.

Well, i do think 13 wins is a little steep. What about this, see what you think.

The 4 teams with a first round bye in the playoffs release an 85-89, the other 8 teams release an 80-84, if you made it to the super bowl your bumped up to the next bracket, so the top 4 teams would bump up to a 90+ the lower 8 teams would bump up to an 85-89. Or we could also just say if you had a 1st week bi and made it to the Super Bowl you get bumped up to a 90+.

So only the top 4 teams in the playoffs could lose a 90 if they made it to the super bowl.

[jnesses]

well, we are both at mercy of radie; although i agree with you somewhat, i think the ratings are still a bit high, the highest player released should be 85-90 rating

[Dymera]

The only problem i do see with this btw, is if a team doesnt have a player in that bracket, and it does lose some flexibility when releasing a player. We could say all playoff teams lose an 80, but if your a first round bye team AND make it to the Super Bowl you lose a 90. I actually think i like this idea the best.

[Dymera]

I just like simulation play as best as we can, and top players do exist in the draft, this was the only idea i could think of to replicate that whlie still staying fair, but not being too time consuming or complicating.

[jnesses]

but top players are not there every single year

[jmo31]

Dymera I like your idea a lot. Jness of course getting props for the original idea as well. If we were to vote I'd pick this one. It is fair to everyone involved as far as I can see. Probably the best idea I have read thusfar and giving flexibility. It would be easy to manage and everybody wins

[Michael1807]

we cant make it too complicated it needs to be simple, i dont like "rating ranges" if a bad team makes a run an does have a ton of 90s then make it 2 80s and a 70 if they win the super bowl and yes on average every year there at at least 2 90s by madden ratings that switch teams in FA, i looked back for the past 8 years and the lowest was 1 back in 2004...i also would like to point out that jnesses did also do what i did and went from the packers to the chiefs so he downgraded like i did...

[Dymera]

but top players are not there every single year


2006 - Notable Free Agents

Drew Brees - San Diege Chargers > New Orleans Saints: Almost broke Marinos single season Passing Yards record (which was originally believe to be unbreakable).

Edgerrin James - Colts > Cardinals: Had one of the best years of his career with the Colts rushing for over 1500+ yards(5th in the league) and 13 rushing TDs (4th in the league) with 100 YPG average (4th in the league)

Nate Clements - Bills > 49ers: Was/Is one of the most dominant and physical corners in the NFL.

Charles Woodson - Raiders > Green bay: Also one of the most dominant corners in the game, especially in 2006.

Julian Peterson - 49ers > Seahawks: a top rated OLB of this year

John Abraham, Steven Hutchinson are a few more

2007 notable free agents -

Adalius Thomas, London Fletcher, Patrick Kerney, Cato June

2008 notable free agents -

Asante Samuel, Jared Allen, Alan Faneca, Michael Turner, Bernard Berrian, Justin Smith

2009 notable free agents -

Haynesworth, Housh, Brian Dawkins, Bart Scott, Jason Brown

This is a list of current 90s or players that were at the top of their positions in their free agent year, I put this list together in only about 10 minutes after some minor searching, im sure i could find more.

[Dymera]

So if we were to put a poll together (assuming Radie wants to poll how free agency works), the posters most active in here would agree to post this...

Playoff teams release (1) 80+ player and (2) 70+ players

Teams that are both 1st round bye teams and in the Super Bowl release (1) 90 and (2) 70s.

Every other team releases (3) 70s.

If you do not have a player to fit the current rating 2 players of the lower rating qualifty, i.e. if you have no 90s then you must release (2) 80+.


The Free agency draft would start from the worst team to the best (I agree whole heartedly that we can do some sort of lottery like Pasta Padre did, this will help with the randomness, even if we choose to do something like every 8 places theres a lottery, like picks 1-8 lotter 9-16 lotter, etc.

Another thing to consider is after the draft putting a limit on free agents we can pick up each week, so say 1 free agent per week for 3 weeks, preseason, week 1, week 2.

Whatcha guys think?

[Radie420]

So if we were to put a poll together (assuming Radie wants to poll how free agency works), the posters most active in here would agree to post this...

Playoff teams release (1) 80+ player and (2) 70+ players

Teams that are both 1st round bye teams and in the Super Bowl release (1) 90 and (2) 70s.

Every other team releases (3) 70s.

If you do not have a player to fit the current rating 2 players of the lower rating qualifty, i.e. if you have no 90s then you must release (2) 80+.


The Free agency draft would start from the worst team to the best (I agree whole heartedly that we can do some sort of lottery like Pasta Padre did, this will help with the randomness, even if we choose to do something like every 8 places theres a lottery, like picks 1-8 lotter 9-16 lotter, etc.

Another thing to consider is after the draft putting a limit on free agents we can pick up each week, so say 1 free agent per week for 3 weeks, preseason, week 1, week 2.

Whatcha guys think?


I am really liking this plan actually.

[JohnsThaKing]

I got kinda lost on this thread, so Im just gonna wait until Radie makes the decision official lol.

[jnesses]

So if we were to put a poll together (assuming Radie wants to poll how free agency works), the posters most active in here would agree to post this...

Playoff teams release (1) 80+ player and (2) 70+ players

Teams that are both 1st round bye teams and in the Super Bowl release (1) 90 and (2) 70s.

Every other team releases (3) 70s.

If you do not have a player to fit the current rating 2 players of the lower rating qualifty, i.e. if you have no 90s then you must release (2) 80+.


The Free agency draft would start from the worst team to the best (I agree whole heartedly that we can do some sort of lottery like Pasta Padre did, this will help with the randomness, even if we choose to do something like every 8 places theres a lottery, like picks 1-8 lotter 9-16 lotter, etc.

Another thing to consider is after the draft putting a limit on free agents we can pick up each week, so say 1 free agent per week for 3 weeks, preseason, week 1, week 2.

Whatcha guys think?


Instead of the limit on Free Agents; lets say that if you add a Free Agent then you have to release a Free Agent + or - 5 levels.

You can bypass this rule only if you gain radie's approval

[jnesses]

2006 - Notable Free Agents

Drew Brees - San Diege Chargers > New Orleans Saints: Almost broke Marinos single season Passing Yards record (which was originally believe to be unbreakable).

Edgerrin James - Colts > Cardinals: Had one of the best years of his career with the Colts rushing for over 1500+ yards(5th in the league) and 13 rushing TDs (4th in the league) with 100 YPG average (4th in the league)

Nate Clements - Bills > 49ers: Was/Is one of the most dominant and physical corners in the NFL.

Charles Woodson - Raiders > Green bay: Also one of the most dominant corners in the game, especially in 2006.

Julian Peterson - 49ers > Seahawks: a top rated OLB of this year

John Abraham, Steven Hutchinson are a few more

2007 notable free agents -

Adalius Thomas, London Fletcher, Patrick Kerney, Cato June

2008 notable free agents -

Asante Samuel, Jared Allen, Alan Faneca, Michael Turner, Bernard Berrian, Justin Smith

2009 notable free agents -

Haynesworth, Housh, Brian Dawkins, Bart Scott, Jason Brown

This is a list of current 90s or players that were at the top of their positions in their free agent year, I put this list together in only about 10 minutes after some minor searching, im sure i could find more.

and btw; most of those players didn't like their current contracts/or they were too old (something you dont have to deal with in madden)
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/chargers/2006-02-20-brees-future_x.htm

[jzal8]

So if we were to put a poll together (assuming Radie wants to poll how free agency works), the posters most active in here would agree to post this...

Playoff teams release (1) 80+ player and (2) 70+ players

Teams that are both 1st round bye teams and in the Super Bowl release (1) 90 and (2) 70s.

Every other team releases (3) 70s.

If you do not have a player to fit the current rating 2 players of the lower rating qualifty, i.e. if you have no 90s then you must release (2) 80+.


The Free agency draft would start from the worst team to the best (I agree whole heartedly that we can do some sort of lottery like Pasta Padre did, this will help with the randomness, even if we choose to do something like every 8 places theres a lottery, like picks 1-8 lotter 9-16 lotter, etc

This is on par with what i would like to see us do.

[nawcor]

I've read bit's and pieces of this thread since reading it from the start its confusing to keep up with, but heres my thoughts :

1. Punishing a team for winning the Super Bowl by making them release a (90) OVR is crazy. If I was to take my mediocre squad (the Bills) all the way to the SB, I would be forced to release one of my best players (I have 2 90+, T.Owens and M.Shroud) Why would a SB team release 1 of their 2 best players after an appearance? This may work for a higher rated team, but for a mediocre team (which there are more than a FEW in the league) it makes zero sense.

2. Releasing 70+ players can also be a problem. The way my current roster stands I have 13 Total rated 70-80, 9 of which are starters(10 if you include a 2nd HB if you run a 2 HB offense, 11 if u count 3rd WR) Which means if it was 5 players, I'd be dipping straight into my starting lineup, even with 3 I'd be making tough decisions on my starting lineup. This is probably even MORE likely throughout the league with mediocre teams.

I think without a thought out plan, you are going to get a HUGE flood of top rating teams flooding the FA with their garbage, and mediocre teams obviously forced to release the worst of the worst of their team, because the skill is just not there to release freely. (Poor stay poor, rich stay rich theory)

ALSO, you are totally ignoring player skill. As mentioned before this system will end up punishing any player with skill in the league for winning games. What if the any bad ranked team ( Lions, Rams, Browns, Bengals, etc ) are good players? They get punished and send off their players that got them there.

ALSOx2, this plan doesnt also include players contracts that are going to be running out at the end of a season either, right?

[jnesses]

I've read bit's and pieces of this thread since reading it from the start its confusing to keep up with, but heres my thoughts :

1. Punishing a team for winning the Super Bowl by making them release a (90) OVR is crazy. If I was to take my mediocre squad (the Bills) all the way to the SB, I would be forced to release one of my best players (I have 2 90+, T.Owens and M.Shroud) Why would a SB team release 1 of their 2 best players after an appearance? This may work for a higher rated team, but for a mediocre team (which there are more than a FEW in the league) it makes zero sense.

2. Releasing 70+ players can also be a problem. The way my current roster stands I have 13 Total rated 70-80, 9 of which are starters(10 if you include a 2nd HB if you run a 2 HB offense, 11 if u count 3rd WR) Which means if it was 5 players, I'd be dipping straight into my starting lineup, even with 3 I'd be making tough decisions on my starting lineup. This is probably even MORE likely throughout the league with mediocre teams.

I think without a thought out plan, you are going to get a HUGE flood of top rating teams flooding the FA with their garbage, and mediocre teams obviously forced to release the worst of the worst of their team, because the skill is just not there to release freely. (Poor stay poor, rich stay rich theory)

ALSO, you are totally ignoring player skill. As mentioned before this system will end up punishing any player with skill in the league for winning games. What if the any bad ranked team ( Lions, Rams, Browns, Bengals, etc ) are good players? They get punished and send off their players that got them there.

ALSOx2, this plan doesnt also include players contracts that are going to be running out at the end of a season either, right?

Well, if we do not get input like yours from the other 28 teams that haven't said anything, then we are going to have to choose one.

[Dymera]

I've read bit's and pieces of this thread since reading it from the start its confusing to keep up with, but heres my thoughts :

1. Punishing a team for winning the Super Bowl by making them release a (90) OVR is crazy. If I was to take my mediocre squad (the Bills) all the way to the SB, I would be forced to release one of my best players (I have 2 90+, T.Owens and M.Shroud) Why would a SB team release 1 of their 2 best players after an appearance? This may work for a higher rated team, but for a mediocre team (which there are more than a FEW in the league) it makes zero sense.

2. Releasing 70+ players can also be a problem. The way my current roster stands I have 13 Total rated 70-80, 9 of which are starters(10 if you include a 2nd HB if you run a 2 HB offense, 11 if u count 3rd WR) Which means if it was 5 players, I'd be dipping straight into my starting lineup, even with 3 I'd be making tough decisions on my starting lineup. This is probably even MORE likely throughout the league with mediocre teams.

I think without a thought out plan, you are going to get a HUGE flood of top rating teams flooding the FA with their garbage, and mediocre teams obviously forced to release the worst of the worst of their team, because the skill is just not there to release freely. (Poor stay poor, rich stay rich theory)

ALSO, you are totally ignoring player skill. As mentioned before this system will end up punishing any player with skill in the league for winning games. What if the any bad ranked team ( Lions, Rams, Browns, Bengals, etc ) are good players? They get punished and send off their players that got them there.

ALSOx2, this plan doesnt also include players contracts that are going to be running out at the end of a season either, right?

Initially, when i was trying to think of a way to handle free agency i thought about this also and wanted to do a rated system. But as far as the game is concerned this is my opinion. If you are a good enough player to win the VNFL Super Bowl with a mediocre team, losing a big player will better level the playing field and give that person an extra challenge in A. Returning to the Super Bowl and B. Developing young talent to replace existing talent, if people want to just walk through and win every year whats the point? Wouldn't it be that much more enjoyable to have the challenge if infact your an elite madden player? My point is, if your a mediocre player with a bad team this helps level the playing field, if your an amazing player with a bad team and win the super bowl, your an amazing player and you will have a shot at the Super Bowl no matter what your roster looks like, also dont forget you'll lose a big player but your team will undoubtedly go up in progression.

The point of this free agency is to add some change for teams, im sorry if you have to lose starters, but real NFL teams lose starters year in and year out, thats the added fun. Its not like 2009 madden where you just resign everyone thats good. Now you have to make some tough decisions about personnel.

I think people are overthinking how much 1 player means, if you win the super bowl with the freaking bengals ONE PLAYER ISNT GOING TO KILL YOUR TEAM.

[dmcnabb5]

lol man....its hard...i been looking...iive had sum ideas...but then sumone has a good response on y it wouldnt work.....so im just reading yall ideas....maybe we should make it like more specific....like a 90 overall superbowl team has to give up a 90....and if u win it wit a 65 or 70 overall team...then u dont have to give up any 90 s

[Dymera]

but top players are not there every single year

That was what my response was to, you implying top free agents aren't available each year.

and btw; most of those players didn't like their current contracts/or they were too old (something you dont have to deal with in madden)
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/chargers/2006-02-20-brees-future_x.htm

Why else do teams let players go into the free agency pool? Why shouldn't you have to deal with that in madden, and also in 2010 players don't always resign from what I understand, if they are unhappy based off of several reasons they won't sign, and if they do it will typically cost more money than they are worth (which reflects free agency irl to a certain degree). Madden in previous years was ridiculous in franchise free agency, you could sign anyone and everybody, thats something they actually tried to fix this year because it was ridiculously unrealistic.

[Dymera]

lol man....its hard...i been looking...iive had sum ideas...but then sumone has a good response on y it wouldnt work.....so im just reading yall ideas....maybe we should make it like more specific....like a 90 overall superbowl team has to give up a 90....and if u win it wit a 65 or 70 overall team...then u dont have to give up any 90 s

The problem with this is, i want to see high ranked players in the free agency pool, because it happens, this is only "punishing" the team that just went to the super bowl for pete sake lol. Under this idea it gives the bad teams something to look forward to while rebuilding. I mean, in a human league everyone wants to win, and theres 31 losers. If your the person that won the super bowl doing something like this to help even the playing field keeps those players coming back.

Edit: I kind of worded this poorly, my point is, the only team that loses an 90 in this scenario is the team that just went to the Super Bowl, they just "beat the game", so stop thinking that they don't have a shot at returning based off 1 player.

[jnesses]

That was what my response was to, you implying top free agents aren't available each year.



Why else do teams let players go into the free agency pool? Why shouldn't you have to deal with that in madden, and also in 2010 players don't always resign from what I understand, if they are unhappy based off of several reasons they won't sign, and if they do it will typically cost more money than they are worth (which reflects free agency irl to a certain degree). Madden in previous years was ridiculous in franchise free agency, you could sign anyone and everybody, thats something they actually tried to fix this year because it was ridiculously unrealistic.

i heard that free agents wont have morale, and wont deny your offer, but i still dont have confirmation about it

[Radie420]

To address some concerns...



I really do like the plan but I am still having LOTS of reservations about player progression. After reading a lot of impressions, I really do not believe that SB teams will have players shoot up much if at all. I really believe it is based on potential and age alone. This is a good thing in my opinion as it plays more realistically. I have seen numerous posts about guys being in week 10 and later and having ZERO progression. Pasta is making his way through his first season now... he should have definitive word for us on this soon.
Releasing 70's shouldnt be much of an issue. In fact for the lesser teams, this is a place where you can improve. In theory, every team could improve a little... for every 70 that we take off our teams, we are putting another one back. I think some teams will go up slightly, some will stay pretty much the same (as far as overall). This is really a system where you will basically be choosing your depth... (cut your 4th String 74 CB for a back up 73 OLB)
I am thinking that the FA Draft will now not be in a serpentine fashion, but will consist of 3 sectional lottery drafts. Each round will have its own lottery. This is to help lesser teams AND keep some form of "player choice" to the system.
TRADING DRAFT PICKS... See upcoming poll.
Currently I do no believe we will have an open FA period.. Meaning you cant just sign someone whenever you want. YOU CAN ONLY SIGN FA AT THE 2 FA DRAFTS AND IN THE CASE OF LONG TERM INJURY.

[nawcor]

Initially, when i was trying to think of a way to handle free agency i thought about this also and wanted to do a rated system. But as far as the game is concerned this is my opinion. If you are a good enough player to win the VNFL Super Bowl with a mediocre team, losing a big player will better level the playing field and give that person an extra challenge in A. Returning to the Super Bowl and B. Developing young talent to replace existing talent, if people want to just walk through and win every year whats the point? Wouldn't it be that much more enjoyable to have the challenge if infact your an elite madden player? My point is, if your a mediocre player with a bad team this helps level the playing field, if your an amazing player with a bad team and win the super bowl, your an amazing player and you will have a shot at the Super Bowl no matter what your roster looks like, also dont forget you'll lose a big player but your team will undoubtedly go up in progression.

The point of this free agency is to add some change for teams, im sorry if you have to lose starters, but real NFL teams lose starters year in and year out, thats the added fun. Its not like 2009 madden where you just resign everyone thats good. Now you have to make some tough decisions about personnel.

I think people are overthinking how much 1 player means, if you win the super bowl with the freaking bengals ONE PLAYER ISNT GOING TO KILL YOUR TEAM.

Some good points, some bad points.

Youre sorta ignoring the fact that just because someone wins the SB with a mediocre team, the deserve to lose their best player so the next guy can have him? In JUST my teams case I could be losing 3 starters because I won. Teams dont LOSE starters year in and out because they win the SB, they lose them to CONTRACTS or TRADE. They dont just say "hey, todays your birthday, youre CUT" , they also have a chance to retain certain players if they choose to do do, youre leaving ZERO options to a winner. You are still punishing players who may have mediocre teams who make it to the playoffs, this system idea doesnt benefit the league, it just hurts winners and rewards losers. I'm all for trying to get the league moving with players, but this isnt the way.

I think the best way so far is the point system, with setting a league salary "cap" with the points. As the year progresses you can up the cap as the commish sees fit.

This will give teams over the cap having to release to make it under cap, and giving teams way under a chance to pick up players. It also gives a chance for teams to retain players when contracts run out, by letting them hit FA and players bid for them. It would work either way, some lower teams may be able to get a steal by bidding below the players actual point rating, or paying more than the players point rating just to acquire him.

[Dymera]

Some good points, some bad points.

Youre sorta ignoring the fact that just because someone wins the SB with a mediocre team, the deserve to lose their best player so the next guy can have him? In JUST my teams case I could be losing 3 starters because I won. Teams dont LOSE starters year in and out because they win the SB, they lose them to CONTRACTS or TRADE. They dont just say "hey, todays your birthday, youre CUT" , they also have a chance to retain certain players if they choose to do do, youre leaving ZERO options to a winner. You are still punishing players who may have mediocre teams who make it to the playoffs, this system idea doesnt benefit the league, it just hurts winners and rewards losers. I'm all for trying to get the league moving with players, but this isnt the way.

I think the best way so far is the point system, with setting a league salary "cap" with the points. As the year progresses you can up the cap as the commish sees fit.

This will give teams over the cap having to release to make it under cap, and giving teams way under a chance to pick up players. It also gives a chance for teams to retain players when contracts run out, by letting them hit FA and players bid for them. It would work either way, some lower teams may be able to get a steal by bidding below the players actual point rating, or paying more than the players point rating just to acquire him.

I know, and somewhat agree with this but, Radie already said he doesnt want a point system, hes researched it over a long time and hasnt been able to find a system that works due to inflation. So thats why i've tried to come up with an alternative method. I'd like a system that will apply a free agent pool thats higher than a group of 70s because i don't feel its the same for the Patriots to drop a few 70s as the Bengals, thats why my original idea was based off of Overall Team Rating.

[jnesses]

well, the only way we can do this to better teams is doing it by season record

[nawcor]

Let me add this also, using my team as an example, winning the SB and having to release a 90, I wont be able to replace that 90 with a 70 rated player, I end up losing 20 points in OVR, thats a HUGE difference for a player at a position.

The problem I have is the fact that you are FORCED to get rid of your good players without a chance to retain them. Maybe someone can think of a way to introduce a bidding system for FA with season record idea. There needs to be a way for a team to atleast attempt to retain a star player. Otherwise even with releasing players into FA, whats the plan to say who gets who?

What if I want to franchise tag my star player and hes my only 90? Do I have to release him? Theres too many stipulations in the setup for it to work properly I think.

[Michael1807]

To address some concerns...


[LIST=1]
I have seen numerous posts about guys being in week 10 and later and having ZERO progression. Pasta is making his way through his first season now... he should have definitive word for us on this soon.]

radie fyi u only progress after the season is finished...it was in a producer blog on easports thats why nobody is seeing anything after week 10 and progression is based on age, potential, and player ind stats for that season...

[mmorgan184]

I'm pretty far into my franchise and progression seems to be based purely on age and potential. Performance doesn't seem to have much effect at all. Also a points system seems like it could work very well. So far I only have 1 99 ovr player and only 179 players are 90 ovr or higher. Progression/Regression is done very well.

[floridagatorfan]

Some good points, some bad points.

Youre sorta ignoring the fact that just because someone wins the SB with a mediocre team, the deserve to lose their best player so the next guy can have him? In JUST my teams case I could be losing 3 starters because I won. Teams dont LOSE starters year in and out because they win the SB, they lose them to CONTRACTS or TRADE. They dont just say "hey, todays your birthday, youre CUT" , they also have a chance to retain certain players if they choose to do do, youre leaving ZERO options to a winner. You are still punishing players who may have mediocre teams who make it to the playoffs, this system idea doesnt benefit the league, it just hurts winners and rewards losers. I'm all for trying to get the league moving with players, but this isnt the way.

I think the best way so far is the point system, with setting a league salary "cap" with the points. As the year progresses you can up the cap as the commish sees fit.

This will give teams over the cap having to release to make it under cap, and giving teams way under a chance to pick up players. It also gives a chance for teams to retain players when contracts run out, by letting them hit FA and players bid for them. It would work either way, some lower teams may be able to get a steal by bidding below the players actual point rating, or paying more than the players point rating just to acquire him.

The problem with this is that you dont take into the skills of the owner. If someone is a mediocre team and dominates the league and wins the superbowl they are clearly a better madden player than others. While it might not be fair that that owner gets penalized we want others that are less skilled to be somewhat competitive also. If they do not lose that 90 and only lose 70s or maybe an 80 then there is a good chance that they can dominate the league again and that would not be very enjoyable for other owners.

By dropping a top player it helps to even the playing field somewhat.

This might not be realistic in terms of how teams lose players in the NFL but I do not think we should be looking to be realistic with the NFL but do what will work best for the franchise.

Also, if it turns out that this system completely flops, we can always change or alter it, but right now we are throwing out hypotheticals that may not ever happen.

Edit: Also, not sure if this has been decided but I would be in favor of having a FA period before the season where everyone can pick up one player from the FA list in an order of the worst teams to the best teams.

[dmcnabb5]

The problem with this is that you dont take into the skills of the owner. If someone is a mediocre team and dominates the league and wins the superbowl they are clearly a better madden player than others. While it might not be fair that that owner gets penalized we want others that are less skilled to be somewhat competitive also. If they do not lose that 90 and only lose 70s or maybe an 80 then there is a good chance that they can dominate the league again and that would not be very enjoyable for other owners.

By dropping a top player it helps to even the playing field somewhat.

This might not be realistic in terms of how teams lose players in the NFL but I do not think we should be looking to be realistic with the NFL but do what will work best for the franchise.

Also, if it turns out that this system completely flops, we can always change or alter it, but right now we are throwing out hypotheticals that may not ever happen.

Edit: Also, not sure if this has been decided but I would be in favor of having a FA period before the season where everyone can pick up one player from the FA list in an order of the worst teams to the best teams.

good point....i know this is called the virtual nfl...as in yall want it to look and feel like the real nfl......but this is the only part we goin to have to get over....its not going to b realistic....not even close...so we going to have to come up with a system that is fair...and we goin to have to forget about actually being a good madden player...idc bout that...if someone is good enough to dominate this franchise with out doing glitches and playng good..then he deserves to be on top....till sumone knocks him out...so i say we do things by the overall and playoffs and superbowl...hard to explain....but like if a 90 or higher team wins superbowl....than take sum 90s.....if a team like the lions wins it...wit a 65 overall...idk if hes a good player...he shouldnt have to get rid of a 90...his team deserves to improve...so so team like 75 n lower shouldnt have to lose any 90s....aand we do this every season...cuz the overalls will change...lions goin into second season lets say r now a 79....than guess wat,,,,if he repeats,,,rules r different...

[mmorgan184]

You don't need three periods at the end of a sentence. One will suffice.

[dmcnabb5]

You don't need three periods at the end of a sentence. One will suffice.

ur an idiot....really who fukin cares........................................

[Tactical777]

ur an idiot....really who fukin cares........................................

Not to be an ass or anything, but it is difficult to read what you say.

[Dymera]

Not to be an ass or anything, but it is difficult to read what you say.

You do add great points Mcnabb but yah, longer posts can be hard to read, again, not meant to be disrespectful.

[dmcnabb5]

Not to be an ass or anything, but it is difficult to read what you say.

oh...sorry for gettin pissed , i just like to add dots so there is no confusion actually.....sumetimes people dont see the one period n just continue reading as if it was all one sentence...idk..i guess its easy for me lol

[jnesses]

oh...sorry for gettin pissed , i just like to add dots so there is no confusion actually.....sumetimes people dont see the one period n just continue reading as if it was all one sentence...idk..i guess its easy for me lol

... - --- .--. / -... . .. -. --. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... / - .... . -. .-.-.-

[nawcor]

The problem with this is that you dont take into the skills of the owner. If someone is a mediocre team and dominates the league and wins the superbowl they are clearly a better madden player than others. While it might not be fair that that owner gets penalized we want others that are less skilled to be somewhat competitive also. If they do not lose that 90 and only lose 70s or maybe an 80 then there is a good chance that they can dominate the league again and that would not be very enjoyable for other owners.

By dropping a top player it helps to even the playing field somewhat.

This might not be realistic in terms of how teams lose players in the NFL but I do not think we should be looking to be realistic with the NFL but do what will work best for the franchise.

Also, if it turns out that this system completely flops, we can always change or alter it, but right now we are throwing out hypotheticals that may not ever happen.

Edit: Also, not sure if this has been decided but I would be in favor of having a FA period before the season where everyone can pick up one player from the FA list in an order of the worst teams to the best teams.

How am I not taking in the skills of the owner? Thats the whole argument. You shouldnt PUNISH teams that win games, much less mediocre teams who have good owners. People want to mention this as "virtual" NFL, you dont see the Patriots dropping starters so the Lions can catch up, now do you?

Not ONLY do you punish people for winning the SB, you punish every single player that makes the playoffs, half the teams in the league will be subject to being forced to remove players, and the other half gets a pick me up because they didnt, youre also forgetting that you can have multiple teams miss the playoffs that may have the same record but miss the playoffs because of division games. Which will lead to decent teams missing the playoffs because of 1 game and getting a nice pick me up because of it.

The WHOLE point of franchise is to be able to take any team, make trades, pick up league FA's and make a run with them. Visit the trade thread, there is enough people already trading big named players for their needs, that should be enough without FORCING someone to drop players.

Even if the process stays the same, there needs to be a way that the owner releasing players has a CHANCE to retain the players they are being forced to remove. The point and bidding system is the best way I've seen of doing this, set a salary cap and if you cant afford the player, you cant afford it, enough said.

[jzal8]

How am I not taking in the skills of the owner? Thats the whole argument. You shouldnt PUNISH teams that win games, much less mediocre teams who have good owners. People want to mention this as "virtual" NFL, you dont see the Patriots dropping starters so the Lions can catch up, now do you?

Not ONLY do you punish people for winning the SB, you punish every single player that makes the playoffs, half the teams in the league will be subject to being forced to remove players, and the other half gets a pick me up because they didnt, youre also forgetting that you can have multiple teams miss the playoffs that may have the same record but miss the playoffs because of division games. Which will lead to decent teams missing the playoffs because of 1 game and getting a nice pick me up because of it.

The WHOLE point of franchise is to be able to take any team, make trades, pick up league FA's and make a run with them. Visit the trade thread, there is enough people already trading big named players for their needs, that should be enough without FORCING someone to drop players.

Even if the process stays the same, there needs to be a way that the owner releasing players has a CHANCE to retain the players they are being forced to remove. The point and bidding system is the best way I've seen of doing this, set a salary cap and if you cant afford the player, you cant afford it, enough said.

It sounds like you are pretty passionate about this argument so I will try not to get too engaged, but I did have a comment about what you said the whole point of a franchise is. I

"pick up league FA's", releasing a 90 because you are a superbowl team just ensures that there isn't garbage only in the free agent pool. And if you are the colts and you're in the superbowl, it doesnt mean you are releasing manning, but one of your lesser known 90's might have to go because you have had to "resign" Manning or another one of your superstars.

It ain't perfect, but its a reasonable attempt. you see?

[Dymera]

It sounds like you are pretty passionate about this argument so I will try not to get too engaged, but I did have a comment about what you said the whole point of a franchise is. I

"pick up league FA's", releasing a 90 because you are a superbowl team just ensures that there isn't garbage only in the free agent pool. And if you are the colts and you're in the superbowl, it doesnt mean you are releasing manning, but one of your lesser known 90's might have to go because you have had to "resign" Manning or another one of your superstars.

It ain't perfect, but its a reasonable attempt. you see?

Pretty much agree with this. Its not a perfect solution but i think its the best possible w/o getting too complicated. Its really not that big of a deal imo, (1) 90 or (1) 80 isnt insanely significant, especially considering you can decide who it is. We could do something where if you have 2 or less 90s maybe release 2 80s or something. But that just seems like its too many if ands, or buts to me. One player of your choosing isnt going to make your team fall apart. I think if you can "block" 2 players from this thats fine, i do agree that if your only 90 is your star QB or RB then that doesnt make sense. So maybe implement the ability to protect 2 or 3 "franchise" players from your free agency drop. This would mean if you had to drop a 90 and u had only (2) you would release 2 80s. Or we could just make it where (1) 90 = 2 80s. So a team could choose to drop (2) 80s and (4) 70s, so an extra player altogether.

One thing to realize also is, a league like this lasts 10 seasons if its competitive, its not as fun and exciting for teams if they just lose every year. So yes, giving the teams that are losing something to be more competitive is wise if you want this to last 10 seasons. Otherwise, and not saying this WILL happen, but players will lose interest if they are only losing.

[nawcor]

The league will last for multiple seasons I'm sure of that, problem being, I'm sure the owners wont be the same for multiple seasons. Thats going to cause a major change from year to year in owner skill. Thats going to cause a major problem down the road, EX:

Owner with a good team doesnt do so well, goes 3-12
Owner stays for a second season, upgrades his team through FA
Owner still doesnt do so well, gets high pick again
Owner quits, new owner comes in, is a good player in general has all starters 90+

Youre going to end up with this situation every season, you cant judge whose going to do well every year, youll end up with good owners having horrible players, bad owners have all the good players.

I understand the challenge of taking mediocre team and turning them into something, but losing all my players because I did well seems way too one sided, and I've yet to hear anyone justify as to why an owner should lose his players other than being "fair" to the people who lost.

DYMERA you also mentioned that "One player isnt going to kill your team" but I'm sure that would mean that One player wont MAKE your team either, right? So why does my cutting of my best players make sense if it wont make a difference?

As for the "it doesnt mean youre releasing manning" for maybe the Colts it doesnt, as for the Bills, it means I'm releasing my best WR or DT, the only 2 90+ I have, I'm SURE this goes for MANY other mediocre teams in the league that just dont have those players. I'm sorry, but for people quitting because they dont win, youll have people who will end up quitting because they have no players. What's going to happen when an owner quits and their team is so butchered no one wants it?

I've yet to see an answer as to which way anyone's argument goes as to why a team shouldn't be able to have a CHANCE of retaining some of these players they are being forced to drop, other than" lets be fair " response. This is "VIRTUAL NFL", NFL teams dont "play fair" when acquiring players.

[nawcor]

I'd like to add my system I have for my league

http://ffsl360.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fa

You can see the salary setup and bidding system there. I dont see how that system wouldnt be fair in any type of way.

[Tactical777]

I'd like to add my system I have for my league

http://ffsl360.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fa

You can see the salary setup and bidding system there. I dont see how that system wouldnt be fair in any type of way.

Have to have an account on that site to view your page.

[floridagatorfan]

I'd like to add my system I have for my league

http://ffsl360.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fa

You can see the salary setup and bidding system there. I dont see how that system wouldnt be fair in any type of way.

I agree with you that a salary system would probably be the best, but it would take a lot more effort from everyone to ensure it works correctly, where as the current system would be much easier.

Also, I think that people that make the playoffs and superbowl need to be penalized by dropping players more than non playoff teams. Most teams have more than one 90 ovr so if you do make the superbowl you don't necessarily have to lose your best/favorite player.

The whole point of punishing the players in the playoffs and the super bowl is to make the lower teams have a quicker chance to get better and make the overall league more competitive rather than one person being able to dominate year in and year out which would not be fun for many people.

[Radie420]

I'd like to add my system I have for my league

http://ffsl360.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fa

You can see the salary setup and bidding system there. I dont see how that system wouldnt be fair in any type of way.


Actually we cant... Password protected...

Copy/paste it. I am curious.

[dmcnabb5]

yea..cant see it

[Radie420]

Update: Stallworth suspended for a full year.

He will be released from the club and put back on in year 2.

He is not allowed to be picked up via FA (unless the owner designates him for release at the end of the season).

Thoughts on allowing him to be traded?

[Michael1807]

Update: Stallworth suspended for a full year.

He will be released from the club and put back on in year 2.

He is not allowed to be picked up via FA (unless the owner designates him for release at the end of the season).

Thoughts on allowing him to be traded?

if somebody wants to give up something to have stallworth in year 2 im all for it...

[bajagordon7]

Don't allow him to be traded. Make it like if someone was injured. If they are injured they cannot be traded until they have recovered. If someone wants to trade them once his suspension is over, then that is fine.

BTW what will we do if someone wins the Super Bowl, has to give up a 90 overall in the FA, then they have someone else who is rated in the 90's retires?

[bajagordon7]

Eagles just signed Vick.

[Michael1807]

Don't allow him to be traded. Make it like if someone was injured. If they are injured they cannot be traded until they have recovered. If someone wants to trade them once his suspension is over, then that is fine.

BTW what will we do if someone wins the Super Bowl, has to give up a 90 overall in the FA, then they have someone else who is rated in the 90's retires?

no u cant make it like they were injured cause we have had this happen before...example PACMAN JONES, he was still suspended when he was traded and the cowboys took a chance for the future also TANK JOHNSON who went to the cowboys when he was still suspended...in mmorgan wants to deal him and somebody wants his rights for year 2 if should be allowed

[Dymera]

The reason i said that say if you had only 2 90s or 3 90s and you made it tot he super bowl you could do (2) 80s. But you'd still have to release (4) 70s, so 6 players total instead of 5, that lets you "protect" a player.

Also, i explained why i liked releasing 1 player. Your response of the flip side, in that their isn't a big difference in 1 player so why should we do it doesn't really make sense. I think its a good idea because it isn't significant, a team adding (1) 90 isnt going to transform them into some huge team, but it is a way to have a better free agency pool to mimic RL. Typically better rosters will do better im assuming, and i'd like give players that inherited bad teams a chance to improve their rosters considering its only a 10 season franchise, which to me isnt a ton of time.

I can't read your link btw. Very intersted tho, so post it if you can. Im interested in a not too complicated system that would make free agency "interesting", and not a sign every player type thing.