Commish wrote of a recent trade:
Fort Wayne trades QB Tony Graziani, DE Elfrid Payton and DT Austin Flyger to Portland for QB Ricky Ray, DT Ronald Fields and a 2nd round draft pick.Teams should shop around as Portland gets a steal in this deal, getting Elfrid Payton and Austin Flyger and gives up just a 2nd round pick and a young, but unnecessary QB. Fort Wayne unloads some veterans, however now have 3 QB's creating a controversey. QB Tony Graziani is happy to return to a contender. After leading Fort Wayne to a 6-2 finish and a playoff birth in 2018, Graz is now a backup to Khari Jones on the 7-2 Portland squad. Graziani is 81-45-2 (64.1) all-time as a starter.
I'll take that as a mild criticism. I basically got the #1 QB of a draft year, a lot younger. Payton wasn't performing (and arguablly is not a huge improvement over POR's Seeds). Flyger is sitting as DT3.
FWS did get a 2nd round pick, picked up a free DT, and with an extra roster slot decided to give K Glas a try, (2nd kicker overall in his draft year, now 7/7 while K Zendejas struggles).
Does FWS deserve criticism? You decide.
Poll: FWS or POR made good trade?
Poll: FWS or POR made good trade?
2011 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
I think its a bad trade. Also saw the trade where Odesta Shannon finally left Fort Wayne, now that was one bad trade. Shannon must have splinters he was sat on the bench for so long.
At 4-8 i wouldnt want to play veterans , no point. Its just an 'Emmitt Smith' impressioin where they want to pad out their stats.
I mean theres Lexington signing Kenny McEntyre which is crazy, McEntyre is awful, yeah hes had a long career but he should have been benched many years ago. (Now i've seen they've signed S Delmonico Montgomery who sadly has the speed of a snail) I'm positive McEntyre was signed, he now seems to be a FA again ?
I really like my players such as Rob Mager and Shan Housekeeper, the second Mager starts having poor games as hes old or Housekeeper doesnt make many tackles and my run defense is ranked 18th hes benched.
Its bad to see some players just starting just to pad out their stats.
Coleman is still playing very very well but at 4-8 i would want to start a young HB to give him a few games to see how well he does. I mean you've made that switch at QB to a young player to see how he does. Once he breaks the all time rushing record i would actually bench him (As Dallas did with Emmitt Smith) and try a young HB. I see youre starting young players in every other position
Same for Larry Ray Willis, shouldnt be starting
I do love veteran players, i've had some great ones over the years but i've mostly been a .500/playoff team and theyve had good years.
At 4-8 i wouldnt want to play veterans , no point. Its just an 'Emmitt Smith' impressioin where they want to pad out their stats.
I mean theres Lexington signing Kenny McEntyre which is crazy, McEntyre is awful, yeah hes had a long career but he should have been benched many years ago. (Now i've seen they've signed S Delmonico Montgomery who sadly has the speed of a snail) I'm positive McEntyre was signed, he now seems to be a FA again ?
I really like my players such as Rob Mager and Shan Housekeeper, the second Mager starts having poor games as hes old or Housekeeper doesnt make many tackles and my run defense is ranked 18th hes benched.
Its bad to see some players just starting just to pad out their stats.
Coleman is still playing very very well but at 4-8 i would want to start a young HB to give him a few games to see how well he does. I mean you've made that switch at QB to a young player to see how he does. Once he breaks the all time rushing record i would actually bench him (As Dallas did with Emmitt Smith) and try a young HB. I see youre starting young players in every other position
Same for Larry Ray Willis, shouldnt be starting
I do love veteran players, i've had some great ones over the years but i've mostly been a .500/playoff team and theyve had good years.
Paul, your response about veterans is interesting since most of the career leaders in tackles in the FWL were signed by you and played for your clubs in their final seasons.
As you can see from the numbers, age and diminished skills do not equal a crappy player.
The UIF I ran was a way of showing what veterans could still do, albeit against lesser quality young players, but still it showed what they can do. As for McEntyre in the UIF, while he only had 45 tackles, he lead the league with 2 interceptions including a 26 yard return for a TD.
As you can see from the numbers, age and diminished skills do not equal a crappy player.
The UIF I ran was a way of showing what veterans could still do, albeit against lesser quality young players, but still it showed what they can do. As for McEntyre in the UIF, while he only had 45 tackles, he lead the league with 2 interceptions including a 26 yard return for a TD.
Yeah good response !
But often i try to sign veterans who the year before had 80 tackles and 5 sacks kinda thing. I do find it disappointing when a veteran the previous season, eg the LB example i said has 80 tackles and 5 sacks, then theyre cut as theyre 'too old'.
If a player puts up great stats i dont care how old they are. BUT often i just wanted them on rosters, with London i had made the playoffs several years in a row and signed eg LB Claus Biedermann as a veteran backup. I wouldnt have slotted him instantly as LB1.
If my teams 5-9 then i would have to go with a youth movement. DE Mark Word and LB Willie Walker for example were veterans who kept playing well, Word would have 10+ sacks every year and Walker 80 tackles and 5 sacks.
If there was a superb veteran CB with player stats of 80 81 79 80 etc i 'might' sign him so hes on a roster but i wouldnt be starting him if i'm rebuilding.
Dont get me wrong i didnt mean to slate Mike, its great all the owners in the FIFL are different and have different ways, if we all wanted the same type of DT or QB then it would be boring.
And if we agreed on every player starting there would be no point in a forum.
But if my teams 5-7 (As in Lexington) and fighting for a playoff spot I then wouldnt sign a 36 year old S in Del Montgomery. Lexington then lost their last two games.
Of course its like the NFL, WR Larry Ray Willis is a huge name in the FIFL, its depressing to see him have say 30 catches for 400 yards as you would expect 1000 yard season after 1000 yard season (Same for many NFL vets). Its a fine line as a GM whether to be loyal to your players and help them set personal records or look to the team as a whole and see what you need to do to win.
In the FWL (and the FIFL) i'm very loyal to a lot of my veteran players. Marco Lambert (Frankfurt) i notice often will make 'radical' changes and cut veterans (Even if theyve had a 1000 yards season) and start younger players. Must work as at the end of the day hes a perrenial winner in the FWL.
Its like the NFL, sometimes you have to be tough as anything and make huge decisions and not get too 'close' to players.
Thats one great thing about these leagues, yeah we're GM's but you get many of the same decisions you would get in the NFL. Do i start a 12 year veteran at LB whos approaching records or do i start the 4th year former 1st round pick who is eager to start.
As long as LB Shan Housekeeper and WR Rob Mager continue playing well theyre starting, IF they start to suddenly slow and i go 4-10 then i have to make big decisions.
I quite liked the old way Kansas City would start veteran QB's (All the ex Niner ones in Bono, Montana, Grbac etc) instead of some very young player to develop at QB.
But i know you do like veterans a lot in the FIFL and i'm glad teams embrace veterans instead of cutting them the instant they go down in skills.
I could understand if someone signed an 11th year WR with say stats of 90 89 90 88 90 kinda thing.
But on the other hand i think its kinda 'insulting' when you get a once great player like Montgomery starting...
A S1 36 Delmonico Montgomery OK 11 80 79 77 67 77 81 83 80
I mean hes slowwwww as anything.
But at the end of the day if we all agreed on the same players and moves it would be boring so its interesting to see.
BUT the aim in any league is to win isnt it ? Be a shame if its just to start a player for 15 seasons no matter what for them to beat records ? I would rather win an FIFL Gold cup with 2000 yards passing and a RB with 700 yards than a non playoff year with 4500 yards passing or a HB with 1600 yards to keep his streak of 1000 yard seasons going ?! I think Kurt Warner had something like 3 playoff years in 15 seasons, i'm glad he didnt beat Albert Higgs records who was a true great
But often i try to sign veterans who the year before had 80 tackles and 5 sacks kinda thing. I do find it disappointing when a veteran the previous season, eg the LB example i said has 80 tackles and 5 sacks, then theyre cut as theyre 'too old'.
If a player puts up great stats i dont care how old they are. BUT often i just wanted them on rosters, with London i had made the playoffs several years in a row and signed eg LB Claus Biedermann as a veteran backup. I wouldnt have slotted him instantly as LB1.
If my teams 5-9 then i would have to go with a youth movement. DE Mark Word and LB Willie Walker for example were veterans who kept playing well, Word would have 10+ sacks every year and Walker 80 tackles and 5 sacks.
If there was a superb veteran CB with player stats of 80 81 79 80 etc i 'might' sign him so hes on a roster but i wouldnt be starting him if i'm rebuilding.
Dont get me wrong i didnt mean to slate Mike, its great all the owners in the FIFL are different and have different ways, if we all wanted the same type of DT or QB then it would be boring.
And if we agreed on every player starting there would be no point in a forum.
But if my teams 5-7 (As in Lexington) and fighting for a playoff spot I then wouldnt sign a 36 year old S in Del Montgomery. Lexington then lost their last two games.
Of course its like the NFL, WR Larry Ray Willis is a huge name in the FIFL, its depressing to see him have say 30 catches for 400 yards as you would expect 1000 yard season after 1000 yard season (Same for many NFL vets). Its a fine line as a GM whether to be loyal to your players and help them set personal records or look to the team as a whole and see what you need to do to win.
In the FWL (and the FIFL) i'm very loyal to a lot of my veteran players. Marco Lambert (Frankfurt) i notice often will make 'radical' changes and cut veterans (Even if theyve had a 1000 yards season) and start younger players. Must work as at the end of the day hes a perrenial winner in the FWL.
Its like the NFL, sometimes you have to be tough as anything and make huge decisions and not get too 'close' to players.
Thats one great thing about these leagues, yeah we're GM's but you get many of the same decisions you would get in the NFL. Do i start a 12 year veteran at LB whos approaching records or do i start the 4th year former 1st round pick who is eager to start.
As long as LB Shan Housekeeper and WR Rob Mager continue playing well theyre starting, IF they start to suddenly slow and i go 4-10 then i have to make big decisions.
I quite liked the old way Kansas City would start veteran QB's (All the ex Niner ones in Bono, Montana, Grbac etc) instead of some very young player to develop at QB.
But i know you do like veterans a lot in the FIFL and i'm glad teams embrace veterans instead of cutting them the instant they go down in skills.
I could understand if someone signed an 11th year WR with say stats of 90 89 90 88 90 kinda thing.
But on the other hand i think its kinda 'insulting' when you get a once great player like Montgomery starting...
A S1 36 Delmonico Montgomery OK 11 80 79 77 67 77 81 83 80
I mean hes slowwwww as anything.
But at the end of the day if we all agreed on the same players and moves it would be boring so its interesting to see.
BUT the aim in any league is to win isnt it ? Be a shame if its just to start a player for 15 seasons no matter what for them to beat records ? I would rather win an FIFL Gold cup with 2000 yards passing and a RB with 700 yards than a non playoff year with 4500 yards passing or a HB with 1600 yards to keep his streak of 1000 yard seasons going ?! I think Kurt Warner had something like 3 playoff years in 15 seasons, i'm glad he didnt beat Albert Higgs records who was a true great
ROC picked up Bironas.
Slate Mike? Mike doesn't have to respond, as FWS was always on top of MAD/ROC when they were in the same division.
BTW, Harold Shaw only had 3.6 yds/carry. Tied for second in fumbles. Second-worst all-purpose yards in starting HBs. Did not make top 50 in scoring.
....POR has FB Wes Ours available...maybe you can trade for him!
Slate Mike? Mike doesn't have to respond, as FWS was always on top of MAD/ROC when they were in the same division.
BTW, Harold Shaw only had 3.6 yds/carry. Tied for second in fumbles. Second-worst all-purpose yards in starting HBs. Did not make top 50 in scoring.
....POR has FB Wes Ours available...maybe you can trade for him!
2011 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
Dont get me wrong Harold Shaw frustrates me like anything, he showed in Week 13 he has talent, a couple of td's including an 80 yard sprint. But yeah then the next week hes dire.Mike wrote:BTW, Harold Shaw only had 3.6 yds/carry. Tied for second in fumbles. Second-worst all-purpose yards in starting HBs. Did not make top 50 in scoring.
Had a poor poor playoff game this week. Just annoying as looking at his stats...
A HB1 23 Harold Shaw OK 3 91 91 87 91 80 76 77 77
Hes not that bad at all, hes young, has talent but despite having a decent line in front of him and a top FB he just doesnt get the yards.
I'll try with him for another season but if not hes getting traded.