Board 8 > Board 8 National Football League League (B8NFLL) Season 8: The Offseason

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah, I gotta say I'm with Jukkie on this one.


CB Darrell Cruz (75) 23 years old, 2 years left on contract, Bonus $240k, Cap Hits $1.91 mil $2.23 mil
Pick #63


CB Leodis McKelvin (81) 24 years old, 1 year left on contract, Bonus $350k, Cap Hit $3.61 mil
Pick #82


The players are similar but if you had to choose you would take McKelvin. And the picks are barely over half a round in difference. That might play a role if it was in the first round, but in the third (pick 63 is barely in the second round)?

This isn't remotely one-sided in my opinion.
---

And I think the only way to really feel like I should veto a trade is if it is egregiously out of balance. So to say that instead of trading pick 82 he should have traded pick 94 feels nit-picky. Draft picks are a roll of the dice and the players aren't that incredibly different.

Plus Leodis McKelvin is his 4th string CB, so he gets a new 4th string CB for 2 cheaper years instead of 1.

In my opinion both teams are doing well with this trade.


Added bonus, I got to use the word egregiously. Sweet.
---

Thanks yazzy, definitely laid it out better than I could on moblie.

I think both teams win in the trade, I'm not sure why all the hub-bub. Basically it comes down to

Patriots get 6 point overall upgrade at CB.

Ravens get a little cap relief, move up in the draft, and replace their 4th string with another 4th string.

I mean both teams in a trade are supposed to get what they need right? Not just one. I need a CB, Wiki needs cap relief, and can get that by trading his 4th string CB. I guess I'm biased but I don't offer unfair deals.
---

I think it would make more sense if Wiki was doing it for a pick straight up (either that pick or like a 3rd or something). A similar CB to the one he's receiving in return is likely available in free agency and it would also give him better flexibility as he could grab a lesser CB for cap space or draft one.

Buuuut the other thing to consider is that Jukkie doesn't desperately need an 81 CB (His CB's right now are 82/80/75/73). So it's not like he's going to give up the world for an 81 CB. I think it's slightly in Jukkie's favor but not massively.

I don't think you can put 1st round grades on 81 CB's. They're 2nd to 3rd on most people depths charts, more 3rd than 2nd. If 81 CBs are worth 1st rounders, I'll happily trade away any of my 3 81's. Like maybe 2nd rounders. I think KCF said in the past that the lack of good CBs isn't due to them not coming out of the draft, it's because we're a pass heavy league so they don't develop due to constantly getting torched and the way Madden handles rating increases.

I confirm it, and I also am fine with it.* All I'm doing for my team is getting a cheaper fourth-string cornerback and a higher pick, which is completely fine with me.

If McKelvin was my first or second-string, then of course I'd be against it; however, because he's a fourth AND I'm upgrading in the draft, I'm ok.

*My only want would be to move up further in the second round rather than have that low 2nd-rounder, so if KCF and others still think so (and I'm kinda leaning towards that too), I'm sure Jukkie and I can figure something out.
---

In other news...

KCF, if you can't get the Draft Prospects up tomorrow would you be able to update the Top 15 with the player's position? Think that would give people some idea of what to expect.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

A similar CB to the one he's receiving in return is likely available in free agency and it would also give him better flexibility as he could grab a lesser CB for cap space or draft one.

However to get a 23 year old CB who is a 75 overall will likely cost him more than the 2 years at about $2 million per year that he gets this CB for. Or it is a draft pick that he doesn't need to devote to a CB because he has a young, decent CB at 4th string for the next two years.
---

yazzy14 posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

A similar CB to the one he's receiving in return is likely available in free agency and it would also give him better flexibility as he could grab a lesser CB for cap space or draft one.

However to get a 23 year old CB who is a 75 overall will likely cost him more than the 2 years at about $2 million per year that he gets this CB for. Or it is a draft pick that he doesn't need to devote to a CB because he has a young, decent CB at 4th string for the next two years.

I doubt it would to be honest.

I have a 25 year old 73 CB on last year of contract (i.e. the expensive year) for 1.74m. He was signed at 73 rating.
I have a 26 year old 81 CB on second year of contract on 2.74m this year. He signed the contract at 80 rating.

So he'd be looking at the 1.5-2m range on open market I think. KCF can probably confirm better than I can but the CB he's getting in return isn't really worth anything imo. That CB being included in the deal is better for Jukkie than Wiki imo.

I'm not opposed to the trade and definitely not vetoing, I just think Wiki could have got a better deal.

imthestuntman posted...

I also vote veto on the ravens patrios deal for the same reasons. Make it a trade for a straight 1st rounder and i Have no issue.. Cb is the most difficult position to get good in b8nfl.

I wouldn't call 81 good for cb, more like average.

I see no issue with this trade, personally
---

Before I go into a full-blown dissection of the Ravens/Patriots trade:

1. Chiefs/Browns trade is official and the spreadsheet reflects it.

2. The free agent sheet is fully updated with one caveat. There was a miscommunication with me and another user of their plans when signing their free agents. I have agreed to let him have exclusive user negotiations (can't do anything about AI teams) with those players when free agency begins. I will however ask him which free agents he will specifically want to sign, and any that he doesn't wish to pursue, I will add to the free agent sheet should they place among the Top 9/10 or is the lowest-rated player at their position.

3. I also stayed up until almost 3 in the morning frantically doing the draft prospects sheet. I will guarantee it to be at least 85% correct. I know that I got the Top 5 correct. I am 95% sure that I got all the names and orders of those names in correctly, but I probably only got 80% of the projected draft slots correct. I already spotted and corrected to mistakes with the Top 10. I'm sure that a ton will follow. It was a rush job, don't judge me. I will fix it next week.
---

I see that there were a dozen new posts since I last posted. I haven't read them, and I might not read them for awhile. I had already typed this up last night, so I'm going to post it.

My observations of the trade:

1. Darrell Cruz is a 75 and under 25. There are two other FA CBs that fit the description. There are 15+ rated at least 75, and there are over a dozen FA CBs that are 73+ overall rating and 27 or under. Cruz is the definition of a non-factor.

2. There are 0 FA CBs at 80+ and 25 or under. There are two FA CBs with a higher rating.

3. This is not the NFL. This is B8NFLL. A project based on a video game decided by numbers, RNG, and luck. Giving away young, quality players for small increments in the draft (ala Maxwell/Alonso for 5 spot difference or Ealy for 8 spot difference) is not something that makes sense on its own.

4. Ravens have $11.0 mil and no 1st round pick, which means that unless they draft all QBs/WRs/MLBs/DTs, shaving less than $2 mil off their cap will make a negligble impact. They could shave almost as much just by releasing their backup FB.

5. McKelvin is an elite returner (90). The next best on the Ravens is CB Asante Samuel at 76. Not than anyone was expected to know this, but that is what I'm here for.

6. McKelvin is 2 years removed from being selected as the 41st overall pick (by Wiki). While this should never be the sole or main factor in determining the fairness of a trade due to draft picks losing their value once they become a player, it can be used as a supplemental factor. To increase his rating all the way to 81 and somehow turn into a pick that is 22 spots lower than he was selected AND a 3rd rounder is given along with him only leaves me puzzled.
---

Any precedence to this trade?

1. Two seasons ago, the Redskins and Titans made a trade. The Redskins gave up the 32nd and 64th pick for the 9th, 76th pick and an 83, 27 year old CB.

2. Four or five seasons ago, a trade was unanimously vetoed within a few hours by peers that involved the Bucs giving up an 85, 26-ish CB to the Titans for an 82, 25-ish CB plus a 2nd round pick. Stan can provide more details on this if he so desires.
---

What Do I Think Makes Sense?

Patriots receive:
Pumpkins 3rd round pick (via Ravens)
CB Terrence Newman

Ravens receive:
Dolphins 2nd round pick (via Patriots)
CB Darrell Cruz


OR

Patriots receive:
Ravens' 5th round pick
CB Leodis McKelvin

Ravens receive:
CB Darrell Cruz
Packers or Patriots 2nd round pick

In the first scenario, the Patriots, coming off a 9-7 season and losing Deltha O'Neal to retirement, drop down 19 spots from the late-2nd to mid-3rd to acquire a great rental CB to make a playoff push. That's good value. The Ravens shed roughly $2.5 mil in salary while simultaneously giving the slot CB job to their young, rising player. And because they lose their CB depth and a talented player overall, they move up 19 picks from the mid-3rd to late-2nd. That's good value. This to me is the perfect trade.

In the second scenario, the Patriots make use of their draft ammunition to make a bold move to acquire what could be a fixture in their defense for the next decade. They also receive a mid-round pick so they make the trade without any net loss of picks. The Ravens lose their returner and future slot corner that they spent an early 2nd rounder on. In return, they receive a 2nd rounder not far off from where they drafted him and can use it on whatever they please. By also including a pick, the addition of another 2nd rounder will likely not break the bank. Not as perfect in my eyes, but I can see why it would be made.
---

Now the only thing missing is context from Wiki's point of view. It is obvious why Jukkie would make this trade, but Wiki's input is needed. I haven't read it if he's done so. I might not read it until Monday as I'm leaving within a few hours and will be gone until Sunday night (I will still have my phone to bump topics if need be).

The peer review period I believe has passed and unless most of those unread 12 posts were also vetoes, that means it passes the peer review period. I have reserved the right to use my commish powers (please do not turn me into Goodell) on a trade that has passed peer review, but I have never, ever considered it until now. Like I said, I haven't read any posts since, so maybe they clear things up.
---

Wiki said basically if it was his 1st or 2nd stringer it'd be different but since its his 4th he's fine with it.
---

Having a position of depth doesn't mean you should get essentially no value for it.
---

I am almost done at this point alone, so nit picky I don't even know what to say.

KCF0107 posted...

2. There are 0 FA CBs at 80+ and 25 or under

Player that fit this description by position

1 QB, 0 HB, 3 FB, 0 WR, 0 TE, 0 OT, 0 G, 0 C, 0 DE, 0 DT, 0 OLB, 0 MLB, 0 CB, 0 FS, 0 SS, 1 K, 0 P

5 players on the entire FA board fit this. And hey look 3 of them are FB so why would Wiki need to trade a 1st rounder for a FB when he could just get a FA one? Wouldn't that be better value on his pick?


I honestly don't even care anymore, this is so crazy to me.
---

KCF0107 posted...

What I look for in a trade
1. Does it make sense for both sides?
2. Is it fair for both sides? (aka not egregiously slanted)

You guys know that I love you all and absolutely hate drama. I will make sure to read all the posts over the weekend.
---

My stance is this. You have to take into account the position the teams are in. If wiki is strong enough at cb to have an 81 be a 4th stringer, he's obviously worth less to him. Now, do I think wiki could get more? Sure. While an 81 is, imo, just average, the age leaves room for growth. That's worth something. But I think this trade is way less of a deal than the fb trade honestly. This is by no means highway robbery. He's a young player, but 81 isn't necessarily starter caliber, its just that cb is so thin that 81s are forced to start. Does that make them worth more, sure, but not to the point you have to treat a cb with those specs like he's a stud.

And those examples you provided, I think 1 is a travesty, this is nowhere near that level. 2 I think the titans would get the better deal but I wouldn't call that vetoable. Just to give an idea of my thinking.
---

KCF0107 posted...

Any precedence to this trade?

1. Two seasons ago, the Redskins and Titans made a trade. The Redskins gave up the 32nd and 64th pick for the 9th, 76th pick and an 83, 27 year old CB.

2. Four or five seasons ago, a trade was unanimously vetoed within a few hours by peers that involved the Bucs giving up an 85, 26-ish CB to the Titans for an 82, 25-ish CB plus a 2nd round pick. Stan can provide more details on this if he so desires.

Hey, we were talking about that Jukkie trade earlier in the topic! I forgot about getting a CB out of the deal.

On that second point, I thiiiink it was a 79-81 CB, a 2nd round pick, and a 79-82 SS. The two players weren't in my future plans so I didn't really care about them. Ya'll still shot it down. =(
---

Look at it this way, 6 teams in our league do not have a FB rated at 90+

6 out of 32, and 2 of those teams have one at 89 and one at 88. So call it 4. 4 out of 32 teams.

Literally FB is the least valuable position in the league due to their being so many quality ones, and we get a 1st round pick in trade for one. But I'm getting crap for an 81 overall CB. I just don't get it.

I actually need help figuring it out.
---

Alright, I'm tired of posting about this one trade. Jukkie, how about we just not trade for now?
---

Yeah that's fine Wiki, sorry for casing a literal s***storm.

Guess I won't ever ask for a CB again, since they are basically unicorns apparently.
---

I mean, why not just leave it on the table? There were only like 2 vetoes, it seems like the majority is in favor.
---

I support Jukkie's argument in this. Though I agree with KCF, that to me, giving McKelvin up for improving a 3rd for a late-2nd is a bad deal for the Ravens, it's not really that much, if at all, worse than the trade they made for KCF's FB imo.

Actually, just looked at the free agents list and see there's a 90 ovr fb there, so definitely not worse than the FB deal.

You don't have to shelve it. I have caught up reading and am going through stuff in the game. Nobody mentioned anything about Terrence Newman, and I really, really hope that you consider it or a revision. If not, I am leaning toward allowing this as a one-time exception.

Everything tells me, which includes hundreds, possibly thousands, of hours of experience with the game and B8NFLL that this is a terrible deal.

It appears that there are a lot of misconceptions about stuff that has recently transpired and need to give everyone a crash course on Madden 06 and B8NFLL. Once I have the opportunity on Monday or Tuesday.

I am not and have never been angry with anyone about B8NFLL, so believe me that I was not personally attacking anyone.
---

Oh, I know you weren't KCF -- but I see both sides of this trade on whether it's good or bad, so I kinda just wanna shelve it
---

Draft less than a week away. Any bets on who's gonna take who!?

(bump)
---

Travel bump
---

Looking to trade up for the best possible draft pick.

What i am offering:

1st round pick (24th overall)
2nd round pick (44th overall)
Hb rudi johnson (88 overall, but on a one year deal and in his early 30s)
3rd round pick (88th overall)

I will give all 4 of these things for a higher draft pick in the first round. If you dont want rudi johson than i wont make you take him though.
---

Do we do draft then free agency? For some reason I thought it was the other way around which makes no sense but isn't that how the NFL does it in real life?

Not that I'm complaining, would far rather do the draft first

Draft is first yesh
---

KCF, I'll send my draft conditionals in the coming days (I'm on vacation, so I doubt I'll be able to be at the draft)
---

Trade to annouce

Brown receives
Packers 1st (Pick 16) via Steelers

Steelers receive
Brown 1st (Pick 24)
Chiefs 2nd (Pick 44) via Browns

If anyone with a late first round pick wants to move back and get my second round pick please contact me.
---

I wish I could get in on this activity but sadly, having no 1st rd hampers that, and I don't think I have any tradeable assets that I could give up ;_;
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Trade to annouce

Brown receives
Packers 1st (Pick 16) via Steelers

Steelers receive
Brown 1st (Pick 24)
Chiefs 2nd (Pick 44) via Browns

Confirm
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Trade to annouce

Brown receives
Packers 1st (Pick 16) via Steelers

Steelers receive
Brown 1st (Pick 24)
Chiefs 2nd (Pick 44) via Browns

I will be very interested to see what KCF has to say about this trade.
---

It's an overpay by the Browns but clearly there's someone he wants higher up and I wouldn't take just the 3rd rounder for the trade up and have no interest in the HB (literally just released a similar HB)

And as I have 3x 1st rounders but no obvious first team needs (I'm drafting for backups / future), I don't have any real need to trade.

ShatteredElysium posted...

It's an overpay by the Browns but clearly there's someone he wants higher up and I wouldn't take just the 3rd rounder for the trade up and have no interest in the HB (literally just released a similar HB)

And as I have 3x 1st rounders but no obvious first team needs (I'm drafting for backups / future), I don't have any real need to trade.

In short ive been shopping for a top 15 pick and came up with a deal for 16th. Look at my roster, its buttoned up pretty tight. Just one or two players are needed, and being in the top 16 in what looks to be a pretty thin draft is a big deal for getting an impact type guy.

Unless a better deal were to emerge, i dont see any reason why i would not be making this deal in real life. Im paying a premium for draft position.
---

I doubt there will be any interest, but OT Damion McIntosh (83, 35 y/o) and CB Lenny Walls (81, 32 y/o) are available, preferably for picks. Also could use a DE.
---

Emeraldegg posted...

I doubt there will be any interest, but OT Damion McIntosh (83, 35 y/o) and CB Lenny Walls (81, 32 y/o) are available, preferably for picks. Also could use a DE.

What is the total cap hit this year from them?
---

Cap hits after subtracting the bonus:
McIntosh: 3.31 mil
Walls: 4.09 mil
---

I am 14 posts behind and have a lot of ground to cover. I hope to get through everything today.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Do we do draft then free agency? For some reason I thought it was the other way around which makes no sense but isn't that how the NFL does it in real life?

Someone else asked me this question, but back when the game came out (2005), the draft was before free agency. In what I assume was a new collective bargaining agreement since, free agency came before the draft.
---

stuntman, you mentioned what seems like a long time ago (was likely less than a week), about giving me a preview of some new sheet that would help people who do not have the time and/or desire to be intimately familiar with their team have information conveniently centralized. You can go ahead and give me that preview at your earliest convenience, but I do want to point out that several sheets undergo lots of column changes in case that affects formulas.
---

Time for a crash course on B8NFLL!

B8NFLL uses Madden 06, which I hope everyone has known by now since I plaster it in the signup topics that you all joined via! I do not play the games using AI opponents, but I sim the results. When they sim games, they use an algorithm to determine the winner of each game. While that algorithm is proprietary information of EA and Tiburon, it is not unreasonable to expect that the input that is given the most weight is the difference in quality of the teams (aka team ratings).

Your team rating is based on three sub-ratings: your offense, your defense, and your special teams. However, depth has no impact on team ratings. Team ratings at any given moment are based on the active, starting players for a team. That is why I only do the team power rankings at the beginning of the preseason since everyone is healthy. That also means your team rating is based on 24 or 25 players:

Offense
QB
HB
FB
WR
WR
TE
LT
LG
C
RG
RT

Defense
LE
DT
DT (if you run a 4-3 defense)
RE
LOLB
MLB
MLB (if you run a 3-4 defense)
ROLB
CB
CB
FS
SS

Special Teams
K
P
KR/PR (could very well be someone from above)
---

The importance of depth comes into play when someone goes down via injury. Depending on how you ordered your depth chart though, your rating in any area might go up or down once an injury happens.

Each person values some positions over others, but they all make a major impact on your team. I have gone on record as saying that individual performance of players is largely luck based (especially for special teams), but I feel like that may have led people to believe that in turn the overall ratings for players do not matter as much because this is why they do.

If someone with a 95 kicker replaces him with an 80 kicker, then their special teams will go down significantly and their overall rating might go down a full point.

When I did playtesting for this several years ago, my feeling was that your team rating is about 40% offense, 40% defense, and 20% special teams.

For people who do not have experience with this aspect of sports games or never had any of this cross their mind, do not panic because even though you might be at a major disadvantage when it comes to that, I'd say that having a plan when it comes to team building and coming up with coaching strategies (you may not understand that now Tangicide, but you will when the time comes) that best suit your team can go a long way to mitigating any deficiencies your team may have.

At the beginning of the league, we had a random fantasy draft that resulted in every team being within two points in team rating of each other. After seven seasons, the largest difference last season was seven points (the worst being a team that was absolutely gutted after the first season) and about 80% of the league was still within two points of each other. I'd say that this has been a success!

Had I gone with the original teams that Madden 06 had, we'd have about four teams in the mid 90s and teams like the Browns and 49ers below 70.
---

It has also come to my attention that in addition to many users not being intimately familiar with their team, I might be the only who has paid attention to shifts of the league. The beauty of this project is that is constantly being shaped by the actions of users and the AI. I am always aware of that because I have to be, but everyone else is only required to have basic knowledge of their team (though you could argue that also isn't required).

Seeing everyone not understand the current state of the league at any given moment falls on me, and I am sorry that I haven't been a good commissioner. While that gap can never be fully bridged, I hope to give everyone an idea of how things have changed by looking at it from a position-to-position basis.

A word of note is that talent constantly fluctuates due to talent leaving via retirement, overall rating changes (aging, experience, good play, poor play, etc...), and talent incoming via the draft. The talent incoming is usually lower than the talent retiring, but that new talent, depending on playing opportunities, can rise to the talent that left via retirement within 2-3 seasons.


QBs
The average QB in the league has significantly risen over the years. There is more elite talent (I consider 90+ to be elite talent) at the position than there was in the inaugural season. It used to be common for someone's backup to be in the 70s and their third stringer as low as the 60s. Now, I believe that there's only one QB who is in the 60s, and most teams have an 80+ backup and a third stringer in the mid-to-upper 70s.


HBs
The game favors the run game (as people could probably tell by the stats of their QBs), and the inaugural season showed why. There were a lot of elite talent at the position. It was the position that probably had the highest percentage of starting players being 90+. Now, there's less elite talent at the position, but the average HB has significantly risen. Some teams have 3+ players at the position listed at 80+. This is largely due to some strong draft classes and HB being the unhealthiest position in the league.


FBs
FBs have significantly risen since the beginning, but fewer are specialized. Most used to be pure offense or pure blocking. Now the majority in the league are hybrid players who can do both.


WRs
Much like HBs, the average WR has seen a sharp risen, but there are fewer elite talents. Most of the elite talents that remain are on the wrong side of 30.


TEs
TEs have been on the decline over the years, which isn't unexpected since TEs do not have the gaudy stats they do in real life and backups rarely get playing time due to TEs being one of healthiest positions over the duration of the league. Most TEs that have entered the league since the beginning have little in the way of blocking skills.


OTs
The average OT has seen a significant rise, but the average starting OT is roughly the same, if not a slight decline from those in the inaugural season.


Gs
Gs have roughly stayed the same, but as late, an usually high amount of Gs do not see regular playing time as more and more teams start a backup OT at one or even both of the starting G positions.


Cs
No position on the offense has seen as much of a decline as the C. They deal with the same issues as Gs (OTs playing there), but they also post less gaudy stats, so they do not develop as swiftly as their other OL brethren. Most teams to used have multiple 80+ players at the position. Now, that is a rarity, and without looking at the spreadsheet, I can only think of the Raiders who do.
---

DEs
The average DE has slightly risen, but there's been a sharp decline in elite players at the position. They tend to age poorly once they hit their mid-30s, and a large chunk of the top players at the position are of that age.


DTs
The average DT has relatively stayed the same, but they have started to go on the decline as they have the the highest-average age for a starter on the defense. Said players have showed signs of aging.


OLBs
The average OLB has decreased as have the amount of elite talents at the position. This is largely due to users who favor the run. For whatever reason, the game targets OLBs as the the main victims when their team gives up a lot of rushing yards. Also working against them is OLB is the position that sees the fewest amount of rookies, 2nd, or 3rd year players seeing significant playing time. Most that do are part of poor defenses, so they fail to develop.


MLBs
MLBs have followed a similar trend as OLBs but for different reasons. 95% of the league runs a 4-3 defense, so there are fewer opportunities for younger MLBs to play. Lots of high-end talent has left the league over the years, so time will tell if the younger players will develop now that there are fewer obstacles.


CBs
No position has seen a sharper decline in talent than the CB. This is largely due to users favoring the pass (though like I said, the game favors the run and the teams that do tend to be more successful), and CBs are the first ones hit when a team gives up lots of passing yards.


FSs
The average FS has risen, but there are fewer elite talents at the position. They do not light up the stat sheet, so they rely on being part of good defenses to develop.


SSs
The average SS has risen much more than any other defensive position. This is due to accumulating high stat figures and not being as susceptible to ratings decreases as other defensive positions.


Ks/Ps
The average player at each position has significantly increased because these are the only two positions where all you have to do is show up and you can reach 80 even if you had a bad season or two. Now, you have to earn your way up to 90s, but kickers and punters of 2005 are not like the kickers and punters of today. Today, you are considered garbage if you don't hit 80% of your FGs. In B8NFLL, the average kicker probably hits 75-79% of their FGs. Punters now routinely hit 45+ yards per punt, but in B8NFLL, only the top punters each year will clear the mark.
---