alienufo

excuse me?

I'm interested to see how Luke Cobb looks. Still have yet to see anything from him since he tore his ACL in camp.

running for his life skills is more like it.

I'm glad the Chargers have stuck with Swift so long.

Emmett Spears was really starting to find a rhythm for me when he tore his ACL. Never really looked very good since then.

things that will be looked at: did they start last year (for any team) for the majority of the season? is there a significantly higher rated player at this position? were they inactive for other pre-season games where backups played? when week 1 rolls around, are they starting? Obviously some of these have some amount of leeway and are not totally clear cut. But it will be pretty obvious if people are attempting to game this system when you take these into account. Also, players that are currently injured (even minor injuries) will not count for your 5 inactives.

if theres a true roster battle like this, you can play either one.

Can't quantify what a large amount is, that would be up to Soluna. I don't know how it works internally to know how much is a proper amount. The "likely loss of practices" is basically an additional punishment for people who completely disregard this rule (playing no starters) versus appearing to try to comply but fucking up (like they sat 7 or 8 vets instead of 5).

Positive incentives for this would not be strong enough to overcome people's fear of injuries, unless they were so strong as to be somewhat game breaking. It also would kind of defeats the purpose of having teams a more equal game, because few teams would take advantage. If one team wants to play starters another doesn't, both teams get screwed out of being able to evaluate players against similarly skilled opponents. That's why I allowed the sitting of 5 vets, so you can make a choice about who your most important players are and protect them. I think having everyone on the same standard is essential for this to work. Tweaks to the system will probably happen next year but I want to see how this plays out, then gather feedback.

No they won't have any penalties

not this year.

Trying this for 2022. In the pre-season, each team must play their team's projected starters against the other team's projected starters in week 3. You may exempt five veteran starters with at least five years of experience in the league (5 in the player line) from this game if you wish. These players must be indicated in the inactive list on your depth chart for that game. You may also substitute one of those 5 players with your starting QB if they are not yet a 5 year veteran. You may do whatever you want in the other 3 pre-season games, but we'd like to see less starters Vs. backups games because they are pretty pointless for evaluation. If you are planning on playing starters in another game, try to coordinate with the other team's coach so they can do the same. A team that does not comply with this rule will have their entire team lose a large amount of starting fitness, and likely lose practices as well.

3rd bullet point: http://cfbhc.com/index.php?/topic/13331-conditional-draft-pick-rules/ You would get their 1st rounder instead.

The Browns organization had a multitude of errors with their re-signings, progressions, and player line problems. This has caused a lot of problems, and a lot of time to track down to fix everything. Due to this, I'm docking the browns a 2nd round pick in 2023 and fining them $5 million on the salary cap for 2023 as well.