I don't fully understand the response. Are they basically saying that regardless of a QB being active at all, the game feels like they need to rate additional QBs to give teams options?
I don't fully understand the response. Are they basically saying that regardless of a QB being active at all, the game feels like they need to rate additional QBs to give teams options?
---------------------------- Yes, but only from a "season replays" perspective. I strongly encouraged them to look at it from a simulation league standpoint (like KRFL) and keep it the same as it has been in the past. I guess we will find out in eight days what their decision was and then deal with it it they do actually change it and give a player like Rosen a Durability rating.
a definite problem, as I believe one of Koch's faults is his ratings are geared too much for season replays and not draft leagues.... ever notice with QB sacks; a QB with a good pressure rating and few real life sacks easily survives with a weaker draft OL against good defenses, while one who got nailed in real life struggles even behind a good OL....
The durability rating remains seriously flawed and inequitable. For example, Malik Hooker played 2 games before going on season-ending IR and has a 4- dur. rating. Damon Harrison played or was active for 7 games yet has the same rating. Courtland Sutton, one game played and also 4- rating Should a 3 dur. rating not equate to a minimum 3-4 games played or at least active? I'm sure there are many examples on other rosters.
I'll be honest, the reason in 2018 I proposed, we voted on, and it passed, to move from "3 games or less" to "Durability of 3 or less" was to reduce the administrative burden on me verifying whether or not a player was eligible to be released without penalty. It is pretty easy to see a player's Durability rating as it is displayed on the team roster page. To find the number of games he player requires opening the individual player's stats/rating page. So it is an "extra step". And the Durability ratings were consistent.
I agree that there are players (Dee Ford is another) this year with Durability ratings of 4 who should be rated as 1. I've asked DKSports what changed and was told "nothing major". I call "B.S." on that. Clearly someone doing the ratings isn't paying attention. Or maybe it has something to do with the enormous number of players used last season because of COVID.
As a result, for the 2021 Season ONLY, Rule 13.4 will be amended to say: 13.4 - Any veteran player whose contract has not expired must be protected or cut with a salary cap penalty unless they have played in 3 games or less (based on the number of games played as listed on the player's stats/rating page in the game).
As a result, for the 2021 Season ONLY, Rule 13.4 will be amended to say: 13.4 - Any veteran player whose contract has not expired must be protected or cut with a salary cap penalty unless they have played in 3 games or less (based on the number of games played as listed on the player's stats/rating page in the game). Mark Blume
As a result, for the 2021 Season ONLY, Rule 13.4 will be amended to say: 13.4 - Any veteran player whose contract has not expired must be protected or cut with a salary cap penalty unless they have played in 3 games or less (based on the number of games played as listed on the player's stats/rating page in the game). Mark Blume
This is now a rule, not a proposal , correct ??
Re: This is now a rule, not a proposal , correct ?? >>>>Correct, but it applies to the 2021 KRFL season only. For the 2022 season, we revert back to the prior rule (using Durability rating of 3 or less).<<<<
