bungle613 wrote:flotsamnjetsam wrote:thriftyrocker wrote:Either way adding the DT/CB was wasted effort. The fact that you wasted 2 spots is minor compared to the effort in improving IDP depth which some teams (cough) have tried to do. I have 11 LB now because I thought I'd be starting 4 and they'd become more valuable.
This is exactly why I think scrapping the whole thing shouldn't be an option. That would hurt a lot more owners. The other way only hurts those that planned ahead by grabbing a DT and CB last year. I'm one of those that planned ahead, and if for some reason flea doesn't separate those positions, my cuts will just be a little easier because I'll definitely cut the DT that I grabbed last year. I'll probably keep my CB only because he's most likely startable either way.
I guess and thrifty, the argument is the same. It can be mediocre lb's getting deemed useless or top end dt and CB...regardless, some players are getting screwed. My fault for not paying more attention, never thought it would be considered to make players essentially useless by grouping them in with a superior position.
Yeah, believe me, I wish we had a better contingency plan (that didn't hurt any owner) if flea doesn't separate the DL's and DB's. But I think the following (that I posted on page 1) is the best/easiest idea that hurts the least amount of owners:
flotsamnjetsam wrote:Assuming everyone is OK with the 1st question (changing our 2 DL/LB/DB's to 2 LB's because flea doesn't allow more than 5 flex positions), and then let's say we decide to scrap the CB/DT thing until flea separates those positions, our starting IDP requirements would be:
2 DL, DL/LB, 2 LB, LB/DB, 2DB
And if flea does separate those positions, our IDP starting requirements would be:
DL, DT, DL/LB, 2 LB, LB/DB, CB, DB