LogFAQs > #889276219

I mean if people really hate the idea of it (I personally don't care either way because in my eyes anyone is free to offer a 7-year deal right now, so it's not like anyone has an unfair advantage), then I'm fine with there being a set-in-stone rule for certain ages or something.

The only potential issue I'd see with only allowing age 35+ skill position guys 2 years maximum or whatever is if the AI will offer them longer deals.

It's not the same thing since Drew Brees was 33 last year, but I know I lost him to the AI Jets because he agreed to a 4-year deal there when I only offered him 2 years (he was asking for 2 years just ftr). That would be an issue if the same thing happened at age 35+ for skill position players.

It's hard for me to give a better suggestion though since I don't know how the AI works in any given scenario.

I will, however, heavily disagree with Shattered's contention that offering a 34-year old a 7-year deal is like offering a monster 1-year deal. There's a pretty big difference here.

The Bills still have $20+ million in cap space for the current season. The contract is back-loaded. It would be pretty beneficial for the Bills to structure the contract so a large amount of it came this year (which obviously isn't possible in the game), instead of having to pay big money 4-5 years down the line.

Whereas a big one year-deal would make it so the Bills would be able to procure anyone they wanted's services and then re-sign them to a reasonable deal the following off-season after they'd stolen them from everyone else in free agency.