If there is anyone would like to throw anything up to their fellow owners for a vote, this is the place to post it. Yes, I know that I have yet to add the rule for the franchise players that we added last year but I will get that done in the next couple of weeks and I will post the rule(s) in their entirety on the board. Thank you.

Perhaps some clarity for the whole Thursday player crap that hit the fan this year. Either a vote on a few ways to handle the rule, or just a re-wording so everyone is clear on the expectations and there are no loopholes. I'd hate to have another Chad Jackson incident...

How about in the future owners voting, if we have more than 1 person interested in a vacant team, to see who we would want to take the spot

Doesn't look like too much to deal with this year as far as rules go. As far as future owners go, I don't really see the sense in a vote. Most of the time, the person(s) interested aren't people that the other owners know anyway. I have yet to see a vote in any league that I have played in for new owners. The commish just finds somebody to take over the new team and it is done. Dujmo, I'll put it in writing right now though, the next opening in this league is your guy's team, if he still wants it when that time comes.

I will throw my 2 cents in on the lineup rule and then see what everyone has to say before we call it to a vote. I would suggest to do it the same way I did it last year and just tidy up the wording of the rule. If there is an early game (Thursday or Saturday), it is the owner's responsibility to either place a player from that game in his lineup if he didn't play him the week before or remove a guy from the lineup that played the previous week but is not wanted to start in the present week.

Throw out your ideas. Thanks.

Since this has been up for almost 2 weeks and no one has commented, I am assuming that there is no objection to my last message. If no other ideas are thrown out in the next couple of weeks, I'll set up the rule as noted in my 2/1 message.

How about the ability to play a TE in a WR spot. With having to play 3 receivers a week it is at times difficult to find that third receiver because of Bye's, injuries or whatever. I think allowing a TE to play in WR spot is a very good idea, most teams have a decent backup TE, that could be a good filler for a week? What do you guys think?????

Hop

Are looking to change this rule because it benefits the league, or because it would benefit your team?

cmon now Joe, I feel it would benefit the league. I wouldn't start an extra tight end end over any of my top three WR going into the season

I have a question regarding Aaron Kampman. He will be playing LB for the Packers this year but he is still listed as a defensive lineman. Will the MFL site update this? Just wondering.

To answer your questions, I can certainly put the 2 TE issue up to a vote. Since teams use a 2 TE set in the NFL, it would make sense. I used to allow it in another league that I ran where you could start 3 WR and 1TE or 2 and 2. I don't want to start a vote during RFA but, you have anything else to want to vote on, let me know.

Joe, as for Kampman, MFL will update Kampman if he stays a LB but it probably won't happen until around the time training camps open. I remember being surprised a few years ago as when I went to bed, Chike Okeafor was a 130-140 point stud DL and, when I woke up, he was a crappy 130-140 point LB.

Yeah this happens with guys every year. Changes usually occur around training camp, stay patience Joe. I know it's tough sitting around all day, I would be going crazy!!!!!!

Screw you Morales - leave my players alone. Kampman will be a DE this year....

Grrrr...spent all that cash last year for the douchebag to get moved to LB, where he'll likely be crappy...

*sigh*

Are you sure the MFL site will correct this? Terrell Suggs is listed as a DL on the MFL site but he is listed as an outside LB on the Baltimore Ravens website and on footballguys.

Here's a thought, and maybe a stretch, but could be interesting.

How about, in an attempt to keep more cash in play and liven things up, we make it so that if you lose a player in RFA, you get 25% (rounded down) of whatever the winning bid is, and you would get 75% (rounded down) of the bid if it were a franchise player. THis would keep more doubloons in circulation, thus driving owners to act more since they'll have the cash to do so. Also, this would encourage more RFA's actually moving since you'd get a little bit in return. I don't think it would be enough to really swing things too far in someone's favor, but it could help the owner whose team is getting totally raped (like Joe last year) to maybe hang onto 1 more player near the end, or pick up 1 other piece that can help minimize the damage.

Thoughts? This would be a 2010 plan, obviously.

Don't feel too sad. Kampman is rated as the 55th best LB according to Footballguys.

Yes, I expect that, once MFL makes their changes, Suggs will likely be listed as a LB as well. They just don't do the update until much later in the off season. I don't know if everyone gets an e-mail or not but I do know that the commish gets one listing where to find the changes once they happen. Most of the changes are S to CB or DT to DE (for those leagues that differentiate) but there are always a few major changes.

I just realized that in our league we have to start 3 DL, 3 LB, and 2 DB. I was wondering why we aren't able to start 3, 3, and 2 where we get to pick which spot gets the 2...meaning whether we get to start 2 DL, LB, or DB. I just don't know why we're forced to start 2 DBs. I think it should be kind of a FLEX in where we only start two. And this is not just because I spent 2 draft picks in a row on rookie safeties.

That is an awful idea. Not one person would play 3 DL's. Not one person. It would be stupid. So you might as well say it should be 3 LB's, 3 DB's & 2 DL. But there really is no difference there. It's exactly right the way it is.

With my LB situation, I would love to play four LBs instead of the crap on my DL. Hopper is right though. I don't think many teams would play three DL anymore. It would make the teams already strong at LB and/or DB even better IMO. Just wondering, but do the Dynasty Wars leagues that you play in have a flex position on defense? If so, has it worked? I think this is something that would have to be talked about and voted on after this season. Just my two cents.

I am sure Hopper wouldn't be happy after wasting three draft picks on the DL.

Maybe we should startt 11 on d. could pick what u want to run, 4-3 dime, nickel, cover 2. just kiddin, leave it be. if anything be like nfl, not another league. ice, get on dynasty wars waiting list if thats what u want. just bustin your sack ice.

I already played in dynasty wars. My cousin is always trying to get me to go back. I like playing with guys I know (although I don't know some of you and I wish I didn't know the ones I do know). I brought up dynasty wars because I remember playing with 3 DL, 3 LB and 2 DB. If they changed it, I want to know how it worked out. Thats all. Stop busting my balls Brooklyn. You are just upset because you sent me Urlacher for some garbage.

Wasted? Orakpo is playing LB and Ayers is already a starting DE in Denver. Connor Barwin is a freak athlete, who in his first season of every playing DE last year in college had 11 sacks and 15.5 tackles for a loss:

Overview
It was fair for fans and media to wonder why the Bearcats would switch their top tight end (31-399-2 in '07) to the defensive line. It didn't take long for an answer as to what coaches saw in practice and on special teams -- that he has tight end speed and defender's mentality. The first-team All-Big East end jumped up draft boards early in the season and finished with 15.5 tackles for loss, 11 sacks and seven pass breakups. Barwin is a Mike Vrabel clone, a probable end-linebacker-goal line tight end who will impact games in multiple ways.

My team didn't really need much else besides a franchise QB and I got that in the first round with Sanchez. Then I got a huge steal in the 5th round with 6'5'' Patrick Turner(WR) from USC who will probably start for Miami and will be a huge red-zone threat.

Why is it "exactly right" the way it is? That makes no sense. And how is it "like the NFL"? If we want it to be like the NFL, it should be 1 mandatory DT. NFL teams start 11 defenders, and their DL/LB/DB splits are varied. Sometimes it's 4/3/4, or 3/4/4, or 4/4/3, or 3/5/3, or 3/3/5, or...you get it! I think it's stupid the way it is, and would make much more sense and be more realistic if it was the way I suggested. So if it's exactly right as it is, tell me how often an NFL team has more DLs than DBs on the field? Almost never? If anything, I think it would be much more accurate if it were like Hop mentioned; 2 DL, 3 LB, and 3 DB.

I think this makes perfect sense and it's probably the reason that DW2 and DW3 do it this way. I don't know how anyone could dispute it unless they think they have 3 awesome DLs and want to force everyone else to start 3. One thing I'll admit is that maybe DLs need to have their scoring adjusted a little bit, they get outscored badly by LBs and DBs.

I have no problem with a change, especially since the strength of my defense is with my LBs. I think it might be unfair to some teams to start it this year. However, I think that question should be answered by Don. I do agree that there is a significant discrepancy between LBs and DBs, and the DL.

I've got to say Shane, you may be opening a Pandora's box. It would be interesting to try something different when it come to the defense but we would really have to see if we could figure out how to make DL score more and that may take a little while to figure out. I am going to be placing a couple of rules questions on here in the next week or two but I can't see starting something like this without a lot more conversation (maybe to start in 2010 if people approve). We already use all of the scoring sets for defense that My Fantasy League offers except for # of defensive TD's and length of defensive TD's, which wouldn't help DL at all. Maybe we could make a decision that one DT must be started on the DL and one CB for the DB's? Add a player to both offense and defense so we start 3,3 and 3 on defense? I'm open to discussion on this topic but it needs a LOT of discussion first.

What about the two TE set, would this be implemented this year or next if gets the vote?

We've got time to talke about the defense issues here before 2010, which is the soonest that we would put any of this into effect, but I wanted to throw out the options of either going to 2 DL, 3 LB and 3 DB, making one of the starting 3 DL required to be a DT or just staying the way we have it now...or another option. These seemed to be the ones on the table (since I can't go to 11 defensive players without a major overhaul). I am putting a rules vote up though for the 2 starting TE's. Thanks.

Why not 3, 3, and 2 on defense where we get to pick which of the 3 positions has only 2 starters? Sure, maybe the majority of the time we would be starting only 2 DEs. However, this way, we don't punish a team that has 3 awesome DEs, and it also gives us the ability to start 2 at whichever position is our weakest, whether it's due to bye weeks or just because we have a weak position. I know it is set up this way in Dynasty Wars 2 & 3, and it makes the most sense to me.

I am ok with this

I wouldn't have a problem with it either. I could put it up for a vote for 2010 or even this year if no one thinks it would be unfair to start now. I'll wait until the first vote is over first before doing anything with this issue. We still have well over a month before the season starts and it shouldn't effect anyone's roster as far as I can see.

I'll weigh in now as I am not comfortable with this starting this year. It definitely would have changed my RFA strategy, so I don't think it's fair to implement this in 2009.

I have to agree with the TOUCHDOWN MACHINE next year !!! if we would of known about it this year we probably would of drafted different also !!! just my opinion !!!

Understanding what owners are saying about the 3-3-2 and you pick the position for the 2 option, if it does pass, I will hold that rule change back until 2010. It isn't fiar to the guys that spent a lot of dbs on DL this year for this to be implemented in 2009. I hope to have all of the votes in by the weekend and I will update rules and cut players down to 52 at that time. Thanks.

I definitely believe that is fair, couldn't start that until next year. I drafted 4 DE's!!!!! But I still voted for the change, it will make the league higher scoring and more fun.