FFMD Suggestions Thread

[EaglesPeteC]

Made this thread for suggestions of what you would like to see for next year's FFMD.

 

1) What worked well for you?

2) What didn't work?

3) What would you like to see added?

4) Is there anything you want changed or removed?

5) Any other suggestions?

 

I'm also open to any other suggestions of things you would like to see go on in this forum outside of draft season that would get you involved or interested in this forum.

 

 

Thanks! 

[MaximusGluteus]

Would be nice if people didn't start to bail in round 6 and be completely done with it by round 7.

[Tugboat]

1) What worked well for you?

Honestly it seemed liked most of it all ran smoothly, and i was really excited and engaged early.

 

2) What didn't work?

We had a forum specific problem where we made a bad choice basically.  Put the wrong person in charge, who wasn't really interested in making it a participatory game, and went out on their own, blatantly ignoring feedback.  Just killed the fun of participating in the game for me, and others.

 

3) What would you like to see added?

I want to say some sort of vetting process for "GMs", but it's obviously tough.

 

4) Is there anything you want changed or removed?

I think the biggest thing, would be some more regional flexibility in "draft windows".  Like, i love the way it's done with set "draft windows", and that's the way to go imo.  Just that at times, an 8am on Sunday morning draft window kinda sucks.  In the future, i'd maybe look into extending the timeline, to stretch the draft longer but over a less early timeline.  ie. Take longer overall, but keep the draft slots between a more "convenient" set of hours.

 

5) Any other suggestions?

Keep on keepin' on imo.  I love that this came back, and i was so invested in it early.  I kinda dropped out once our GM went rogue and it suddenly felt like i was just participating as a fan or something with no real input.  But this seemed like it was absolutely on the right track to reanimating the classic FFMD that was a cornerstone of this forum.

[Deadpulse]

39 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

3) What would you like to see added?

I want to say some sort of vetting process for "GMs", but it's obviously tough.

we used to do this, however we dont have enough guys wanting the spots to decline many if any guys. A lot of guys in this are used to running fairly solo in TCMD (although some do get the more active subs involved). 

[Tugboat]

3 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

we used to do this, however we dont have enough guys wanting the spots to decline many if any guys. A lot of guys in this are used to running fairly solo in TCMD (although some do get the more active subs involved). 

Yeah.  It's tricky.  I'm not sure how you're supposed to assess whether a GM is going to engage the communities or not.  Until you see it play out.

It's definitely an issue, when some GMs treat it like it's TCMD.  Need to continue to reinforce that it's NOT that.  But it's also an issue where certain teams don't even seem to have multiple people invested and willing to sign up for the responsibility.

 

I just think the Jaguars experience went particularly badly, but it was hopefully not typical of other forums.  We few really engaged, interested parties and quite a bit of activity and discussion early...but once the GM made a pick contrary to the general consensus...that pretty much killed participation.  Dead, on the spot.  It's just not fun at that point.

 

For me, i didn't even bother throwing my hat in the ring as a GM...because i absolutely knew i couldn't be around at certain draft slots.  So we went with someone who could.  But it went badly in terms of participation and forum engagement.  Which to me...is the whole point of FFMD.

[dcat]

It looked like a lot of fun. 

One thing....  way too many active player trades.  Dozens upon dozens it seemed, whereas in the real draft there are usually just a few (i.e.  Quincy Wilson for round 6, and Matt Breida to Dolphins for whatever).  I have no idea how it could be changed to match the reality of player trading during the real draft.   And some of the player trades were silly due to obvious salary cap implications that were ignored. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 hours ago, dcat said:

It looked like a lot of fun. 

One thing....  way too many active player trades.  Dozens upon dozens it seemed, whereas in the real draft there are usually just a few (i.e.  Quincy Wilson for round 6, and Matt Breida to Dolphins for whatever).  I have no idea how it could be changed to match the reality of player trading during the real draft.   And some of the player trades were silly due to obvious salary cap implications that were ignored. 

I respectfully disagree here. This is our chance to do what we think our organizations should do, not what we think they will do.

In addition, this takes place before the draft, so it's tough to say what's "realistic" weeks later. Had someone drafted Lamb at #17, someone else might have argued that it's unrealistic for Lamb to drop that far. Just one example, and perhaps a poor one, but I don't think we should chase "realism". Just try and make the best decisions for your franchise.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

I guess my only suggestion would be to keep discussion out of the draft and writer's room threads. (Yes, I was guilty of discussing things in the writer's room. That place was outstanding.) It would be great of those two areas were reserved for their respective functions, and discussion was funneled into the discussion thread.

Otherwise, a big tip of the hat to everyone that helped put this together. (And especially to the writers for their hours and hours of content.)

[dcat]

1 hour ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I respectfully disagree here. This is our chance to do what we think our organizations should do, not what we think they will do.

In addition, this takes place before the draft, so it's tough to say what's "realistic" weeks later. Had someone drafted Lamb at #17, someone else might have argued that it's unrealistic for Lamb to drop that far. Just one example, and perhaps a poor one, but I don't think we should chase "realism". Just try and make the best decisions for your franchise.

teams should not be trading players that give them ridiculous dead cap implications.  They only make trades when it is workable under the salary cap. So even if you think a player 'should' be traded away, you have to consider whether the team's cap situation would allow it or would it make it illogical?  Do you think that  the majority of player trades took cap consequences into consideration?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

40 minutes ago, dcat said:

teams should not be trading players that give them ridiculous dead cap implications.  They only make trades when it is workable under the salary cap. So even if you think a player 'should' be traded away, you have to consider whether the team's cap situation would allow it or would it make it illogical?  Do you think that  the majority of player trades took cap consequences into consideration?

Why? The Giants traded OBJ and were left with $16M in dead cap, and the Steelers tacked on $21M of dead cap after trading Antonio Brown, just to name two recent examples. (There are many.) These things happen. It's up to the members of each team to decide if it's worth taking on that dead cap.

Yes, the salary cap should be implemented into FFMD (as it has been in the past), and I know that many teams considered the salary cap this year. Trying to chase "realism" in a sport as unpredictable as the NFL is a slippery slope, and tends to limit viable options.

[bcb1213]

Realistic option would be for ffmd is to just not allow player for player swaps and just make it player for picks or picks for picks.  This is supposed to be a mock draft exercise and should probably stick to that instead of making it more tcmd 

[ny92mike]

1) What worked well for you?

2) What didn't work?

3) What would you like to see added?

4) Is there anything you want changed or removed?

5) Any other suggestions?

@EaglesPeteC, 

For me, the Giants forum is what it is however it showed hope during the first 3 or 4 picks of the actual draft, so I think you'll have more Giants fans participating next season.  I think everything went well this year and expect a much greater level of participation, look how it's already exploded the GM mock draft forum....It's booming with traffic now well more so than normal.  Actually reminds me of when I joined, back then there were like 6 mocks going at once, I'd love to give credit to tcmd for that but I can't...lol...It's why I pushed so hard for ffmd, so I'm glad it's back.

The talk of salary cap is probably due to why there was a version 1 and 2 for ffmd.  ME....I'd stick with just the draft only, I think the minute you attempt to install a salary cap you're opening up the discussion for a free agency, because what else are you going to spend money on, "trades" not worth the headache, imo?  Trade volume really doesn't bother me, I wish I was better at it, there are some of you that could sell a boat to someone with aquaphobia so I imagine for some that this is just part of the draft strategy and you hate to take that away, but if you froze player trades until after the say 5th round, because that is about when most start to die off.  Even the irl draft, I started losing interest after the early 5th round was selected.  Just hadn't scouted deep enough..."what she said".  I just don't think you can keep the attention for 7 rounds, so I'd put all my focus on the first 3 rounds, toss in player trades on or after the 5th.

 

[RpMc]

17 hours ago, bcb1213 said:

Realistic option would be for ffmd is to just not allow player for player swaps and just make it player for picks or picks for picks.  This is supposed to be a mock draft exercise and should probably stick to that instead of making it more tcmd 

Who says it’s supposed to be a mock draft exercise?  FFMD has never been that way, and would be less fun for people if you limit what they can do. FFMD is a site-wide engagement exercise, and it should be left to the individual GMs/forums on how they want to conduct their business, just like the NFL. There are a few teams who do enjoy player for player style trading - the Eagles being among them. Forcing teams to follow one set of trading expectations actually makes this exercise less realistic than the draft itself.

———

as far as the draft time slot suggestions, there’s never going to be a way to satisfy everyone. If you make the draft slots and avoid earlier morning hours/later evening hours, you’re going to have a draft that drags on and people will lose interest even earlier than they did in this one. Working between 8a/8p is the way that it kind of has to be to get 250+ picks in a timely fashion. Not going to be able to be on for your time slot, or it’s inconvenient for you? Engage more of your forum in the process and pass it off to them to make the pick, or give a big board to an FFMD overseer to make the pick for you. The draft slots are known well enough in advance, make a plan if you have an early or late one. 

[bcb1213]

1 minute ago, RpMc said:

Who says it’s supposed to be a mock draft exercise?  FFMD has never been that way, and would be less fun for people if you limit what they can do. FFMD is a site-wide engagement exercise, and it should be left to the individual GMs/forums on how they want to conduct their business, just like the NFL. There are a few teams who do enjoy player for player style trading - the Eagles being among them. Forcing teams to follow one set of trading expectations actually makes this exercise less realistic than the draft itself.

———

as far as the draft time slot suggestions, there’s never going to be a way to satisfy everyone. If you make the draft slots and avoid earlier morning hours/later evening hours, you’re going to have a draft that drags on and people will lose interest even earlier than they did in this one. Working between 8a/8p is the way that it kind of has to be to get 250+ picks in a timely fashion. Not going to be able to be on for your time slot, or it’s inconvenient for you? Engage more of your forum in the process and pass it off to them to make the pick, or give a big board to an FFMD overseer to make the pick for you. The draft slots are known well enough in advance, make a plan if you have an early or late one. 

Ffmd literally means football future MOCK DRAFT

[RpMc]

Just now, bcb1213 said:

Ffmd literally means football future MOCK DRAFT

And if you’ve been around for FFMD in the past you’d know that it’s never been about pick accuracy like the analysts/talking heads strive for. It’s fan groups coming together to make the moves for the franchises they root for, and make them better in their eyes. 
 

Mock means pretend or make believe or simulate as an adjective. You want to simulate the draft? The draft doesn’t have restrictions on player trades or pick trades - if a team wants to make the move, they should be able to make the move.