$1

I don't see an active nomination for Washington, which I guess makes his bid illegal. If that's the case, I bid $4. If I am wrong, my bad!

$2

$1

$2

$1

$1

1

8

6

$4

13

7

4

2

$1

$4

$3

$1

4.11 Salvon Ahmed, RB, 49ers

3.15 Jacob Eason, QB, Colts

TRADE

2020/1.9
2021/3 (Cards)

for

2021/1 (Bucs)
2021/2 (Cowboys)
2022/2

1.2 - BRAZIL CARDINALS PICKS JONATHAN TAYLOR RB COLTS

I am always for deeper rosters, raises the value of finding those cheap pieces that can contribute. Therefore I voted yes at first. Probably biased as well since my team is quite deep right now. But even though I do not think adding a flex would alter player values in an unbalanced way as much as ch...

This is a tough one. I actually don't know. But we do have to decide ASAP how this is going to work if it comes to it.

About the superflex argument. Today I would only enter a new league if it was SF. I find it much better. But changing a 1 QB league to SF creates such scarcity (even more in our 16 team league) that it gives a huge boost to QB values out of thin air. It would be very unfair to those who, for strateg...

I'm with Jets on this one.

The goal is to help the commissioner, yet he is against it. Then there is no point. Voted yes before, will change it.

Voted no. Will again.

Agreed.

If the argument is ˜we have to penalize incompletions because we award completions˜, I find it better then to just get rid of those points for completions.
But yes... It does make more sense to have either none of these options or both.

About Lions topic, CBA says under 'reasons to consider vetoing a trade': "A recently injured player is involved, and the trade occurred right after the injury. This is to protect an owner who leaves an offer on the table, that is snatched up by an unscrupulous trading partner right after an injury i...

We do need some kind of solution for this. The final 4 teams in the consolation playoffs for NFC did not own their 1st rounders. I believe I owned the first rounder of a team that didn't have any of their 2020 original picks left. Why the hell would he put in any effort on setting a decent lineup (I...

Just read again what Lions said.

If makes it easier for the commish, sure.

No.

Yes.

Yes, but after the NFL draft.

Whatever.

Yes please.

Agree.

Yes, if we increase TD pass to 5 or 6. Otherwise no.

(Completely unrelated, Jameis on the block.)

Partially agree. But if we award 4 for a TD pass and 6 for a TD reception, we can't award 2 for both pass and reception in a 2-pt conv. We should keep some proportion there. Maybe 1 or 1.5 for the pass. Or we change it to 6 for a TD pass and -3 for INT and then we can have 2 for both pass and recept...

Not against it. Would rather get rid of D and K.

Negative.

Disagree.

No.

Nope.

Sure. Very small part of the pot though.

No.

Agreed.

I kind of like Lions' idea however (even though I own Jameis... ugh).

I don't agree with it. If we should subtract points for incompletions because we award points for completions, then we should also subtract points for drops since we award points for receptions. And I am saying it for the sake of the argument, I don't like any of these ideas.

No.

Don't care. Would rather get rid of kickers.

I'd be OK with it. But don't really love the idea of adding an extra playoff team yet. I do like the "picking your opponent" part though.

Do not care either way. Would rather just get rid of kickers. And defenses.

I think I would be OK with it. But I have a question about the retirement issue mentioned by Bengals. I believe we can cut players who have officially retired and get the salary relief during the current season (am I wrong?). Would that be different if the player was signed in free agency?

4.8 Josh Oliver, TE - JAC

Since Eagles decided to be a bastard and take the guy I was going for...

With pick 3.01, the Arizona Cardinals select Jace Sternberger, TE - Green Bay Packers.

6

4

$1

2

2

$1

6

$3

$1

$1

16

16

12

14

10

8

6

11

4

4

12

22

20

18

16

14

9

12

$7

$ 5

$ 5

$3

$ 1

$1

There aren't enough starting QBs for everyone to have 3 of those. Some will have a backup anyways. I would find it still safer to have the backup to your own guy. I'll stick with NO.

I 100% agree with Lions. The way this works right now, in 5 years max, this will basically be a regular dynasty league, with no salaries and cap, for it will be completely irrelevant. I also do not see a solution that would be fair for everyone. But those who vote NO because they feel this would har...

Oh... It is a NO NO NO for me then. Let's use a hypothetical 2018 example. I had both Winston and Fitzpatrick. If I was only allowed 1 more QB, let's say my third QB gets injured in the same week the Bucs are on bye. I would be forced to trade for another QB because I wasn't allowed to have the othe...

No one willing to change their votes after the arguments from Bills and Rams? Come on, people!

Yes. 5-1 scale.

Would not have any issues with implementing it now (although I traded my early 2019 picks, consider me biased).

Packers really has a point there. However, this topic has been discussed forever, even before the initial draft I believe. I think it was Lions who had a strong opinion about it and I actually agreed with him back then. Way too unbalanced the way it is right now. This change would be unfortunate for...