KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: 2021 League Business
Cutting backup QBs << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Go to page       >>  
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
Salem
Sun Mar 21 2021, 04:32p.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
- Impacted Rule: 13.4 -Any veteran player whose contract has not expired must be protected or cut with a salary cap penalty unless they have a DUR rating (durability) is no more than 3 (i.e. is 3 or less)as noted in Rule 14.14b.

- Proposed Change: I would like to add this statement: QB's who played 3 games or less but have a durability rating higher than 3 may also be cut.

- Explanation: The idea behind the original rule is a team can cut a player who barely played due to injury. The rule is setup so a team can release a player who barely played.

However, given the nature of the QB spot (the position does not rotate like other positions, oftentimes only one player plays all the snaps), several players each year play 3 games or less yet have a durability well above 3.

Here is the list:
2019:
McCarron - played 2 games, threw 3 passes, rated 9 durability
Rush - 1 game, 0 passes, rated 9
Rudolph - 2 games, 0 passes, rated 9
Cassel - 2 games, 17 passes, rated 9
Barkley - 1 game, 25 passes, rated 9

2020:
McCarron - 2 games, 37 passes, rated 10
Finley - 3 games, 87 passes, rated 10
Daniel - 3 games, 4 passes, rated 10
Glennon - 2 games, 10 passes, rated 10
Boyle - 2 games, 3 passes, rated 10
Barkley - 2 games, 51 passes, rated 10

Forcing teams to keep these players (not allowing a free cut like every other position) goes against the spirit of this law. As you can see, both McCarron and Barkley made the list back to back years. If I signed either to a multi year contract, they barely play and I cannot release them, that significantly impacts my ability to compete. Any other player playing a position besides QB in KRFL is allowed to cut players who barely played.
Back to top
MarkB
Sun Mar 21 2021, 07:53p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
The Durability rating in the game is based on how many games the player was on the team's game day active roster, regardless of whether he actually played in the game. So the NFL team's backup QB may be active 16 games, but actually appears in few games. If he were active all 16 games, he will be given a Durability rating of 10.

I disagree with the premise of the proposal. The rule IS meant for players who get injured and who play in very few games. It was not meant for players whose performance/skills decline and they became a backup. It is not meant, for example, for a QB who plays well for a year or two, is given a big contract, then his performance declines and he loses his starting job. He wasn't injured, he simply wasn't good enough to be a starter any longer, but he was good enough to be a backup and active for every game. That could happen to a player at any position not just QB (though I agree it is more likely to happen to a QB). And it will likely happen to Salem's QB Trubisky after the 2021 KRFL season now that he is a backup in NFL-Buffalo to Allen but is contracted in KRFL through the 2024. Hence why I think this proposal was made (Great thinking on Jeff's part however. I like that! Tampa Bay may be faced with the same problem with Jared Goff in the future).

Additionally, a true backup QB like those listed above, or a true back up at any position, would never received a high dollar - long term KRFL contract. So a team would never have to absorb a huge salary cap fine to cut them if their Durability rating was more than 3.

As such, I am against this proposal.

Back to top
Salem
Sun Mar 21 2021, 10:45p.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
I understand what you are saying. My only thought is, if the league is going force me to keep one of these QBs and I do not think I have a very good record, nothing is preventing me from starting them for many games and way overusing them. That would be an easy way for me to get one of the top 4 seeds for the draft.
Back to top
MarkB
Mon Mar 22 2021, 08:43a.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
Salem wrote ...

I understand what you are saying. My only thought is, if the league is going force me to keep one of these QBs and I do not think I have a very good record, nothing is preventing me from starting them for many games and way overusing them. That would be an easy way for me to get one of the top 4 seeds for the draft.


No doubt that could be done, though I find it very unlikely you or any of the other current coaches would do that. Again, I love the creative thinking on your part. But the rule is meant for injured players only.
Back to top
mark
Mon Mar 22 2021, 10:42a.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
I agree with Tampa Bay on this.
Back to top
Salem
Mon Mar 22 2021, 11:19a.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
I still disagree. The rule for many years was 3 games or less. I was the person who asked for the change because I noticed that some players were playing a few snaps in multiple games, so they had a very low durability but had played 4 or 5 games. The reason we changed was to prevent teams from having to keep guys with very low usage - people who were practically unusable. So we changed the rule, which impacted every position - except QB. Now teams can get stuck with a very low usage QB and not release them like they can for every other position.

Back to top
KRFL-BayCity
Mon Mar 22 2021, 02:03p.m.
Registered Member #12
Joined: Mon Sep 01 2008, 07:40p.m.

Posts: 798
Another factor with this is how do we know the player was actually injured? what if he was a healthy scratch or on the practice squad for those missed games.... that sort of works against the 'injured' section of the rule and adds some creedence to the argument of the backup QB by Salem
Back to top
MarkB
Mon Mar 22 2021, 04:36p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
KRFL-BayCity wrote ...

Another factor with this is how do we know the player was actually injured? what if he was a healthy scratch or on the practice squad for those missed games.... that sort of works against the 'injured' section of the rule and adds some creedence to the argument of the backup QB by Salem


If he was actually injured, he would not be on the active roster for a game. And if he is not on the active roster for a game, his Action PC Football Durability rating is reduced since that is how the rating is determined.
Back to top
mark
Mon Mar 22 2021, 04:43p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
Whatever you all want. But it seems to me that a risk was taken by trading for X quarter back, now that’s gone south. If there is no risk taken on a qb with salary that certainly would be advantages. Sometimes a person ends up making a bad move/trade. Which they have to deal with. I think the Jazz is dealing with that now as well.
Back to top
noodles
Fri Mar 26 2021, 02:46a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1268
I'm of two minds on this one. It's hard to be sympathetic to Salem when they acquired a QB (Trubisky) for an extended and pricey contract who will probably rarely play. A chance was taken as a GM and it went south. We've all been there so it's ok to say take your lumps. However, as Salem points out, QBs are treated differently in the durability ratings than all other players. Despite his obvious self-interest, he may have an argument here. I'll be interested to hear what other league members have to say.
Back to top
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System