FFMD

[CWood21]

I'm tired of having to debunk conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, because a few people feel they have all the facts.  I honestly can't remember a single situation in which a player actively took less money.  The people who are complaining that they gave a "superior" offer either aren't aware of the other offers or offered an unhealthy contract.  On paper, a 4 year, $52M deal is superior to a 4 year, $48M deal.  I think we'd all agree upon that.  But would you still make that same argument if that $52M offer had most of the contract (say 60% of the contract) in the last two years of the deal and had very little in terms of guaranteed money in those years.  Compare that to the $48M deal that is relatively evenly spread out.  Is that $52M deal really that much better than the $48M deal?  Not really.  That's what I'm getting at.  A google doc doesn't remedy that issue.  It's just going to automate that process.  And I'm not even opposed to the Google Doc.  I'm merely stating that it's not this fix-all that it's being made out to be.

And using an outdated trade to justify your argument isn't valid either especially when the Trade Council was revamped to essentially be a center-point where all trades are received.  I can only remember one instance in which we "nixed" a trade, which was the RG3 trade which was nixed because of cap ramifications.  That trade would have put the Redskins so far into the negative cap that they would have to cut half their roster to do so.  The argument was made that they should be allowed to make that trade and then deal with the negative cap space AFTER the trade went through.  We said no.  Since then, there hasn't been a trade nixed that I'm aware of.

[EaglesPeteC]

36 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm tired of having to debunk conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, because a few people feel they have all the facts.  I honestly can't remember a single situation in which a player actively took less money.  The people who are complaining that they gave a "superior" offer either aren't aware of the other offers or offered an unhealthy contract.  On paper, a 4 year, $52M deal is superior to a 4 year, $48M deal.  I think we'd all agree upon that.  But would you still make that same argument if that $52M offer had most of the contract (say 60% of the contract) in the last two years of the deal and had very little in terms of guaranteed money in those years.  Compare that to the $48M deal that is relatively evenly spread out.  Is that $52M deal really that much better than the $48M deal?  Not really.  That's what I'm getting at.  A google doc doesn't remedy that issue.  It's just going to automate that process.  And I'm not even opposed to the Google Doc.  I'm merely stating that it's not this fix-all that it's being made out to be.

And using an outdated trade to justify your argument isn't valid either especially when the Trade Council was revamped to essentially be a center-point where all trades are received.  I can only remember one instance in which we "nixed" a trade, which was the RG3 trade which was nixed because of cap ramifications.  That trade would have put the Redskins so far into the negative cap that they would have to cut half their roster to do so.  The argument was made that they should be allowed to make that trade and then deal with the negative cap space AFTER the trade went through.  We said no.  Since then, there hasn't been a trade nixed that I'm aware of.

Its not a fix all because someone will always complain but it is very transparent and concince. With the docs you can see clearly your offer vs the other offers and why you did or didn't win the bid. With it being ultimately a formula that decides vs a person who decides it takes away the apperance of bias. There probably was little to no bias in the traditional talent agency but many people percieved it that way apparently. As a person running the mock you have the formula to back you up thus making most complaints getting squashed rather quickly. 

The system won't even let you build a contract or put in a trade that will put a team over the cap, so you won't even get into the situation above. 

[ny92mike]

4 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I'm tired of having to debunk conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, because a few people feel they have all the facts.  I honestly can't remember a single situation in which a player actively took less money.  The people who are complaining that they gave a "superior" offer either aren't aware of the other offers or offered an unhealthy contract.  On paper, a 4 year, $52M deal is superior to a 4 year, $48M deal.  I think we'd all agree upon that.  But would you still make that same argument if that $52M offer had most of the contract (say 60% of the contract) in the last two years of the deal and had very little in terms of guaranteed money in those years.  Compare that to the $48M deal that is relatively evenly spread out.  Is that $52M deal really that much better than the $48M deal?  Not really.  That's what I'm getting at.  A google doc doesn't remedy that issue.  It's just going to automate that process.  And I'm not even opposed to the Google Doc.  I'm merely stating that it's not this fix-all that it's being made out to be.

And using an outdated trade to justify your argument isn't valid either especially when the Trade Council was revamped to essentially be a center-point where all trades are received.  I can only remember one instance in which we "nixed" a trade, which was the RG3 trade which was nixed because of cap ramifications.  That trade would have put the Redskins so far into the negative cap that they would have to cut half their roster to do so.  The argument was made that they should be allowed to make that trade and then deal with the negative cap space AFTER the trade went through.  We said no.  Since then, there hasn't been a trade nixed that I'm aware of.

@CWood21I wish that you'd take some time to actual look at the amount of work that has been put into Total Control, because there is so much that you believe that the google doc's isn't doing or can't do, yet you've never even bothered to look at how the google docs work in conjunction with the guidelines.  It's frustrating, because you've got one viewpoint of how ffmd should be ran and anything that challenges it, is tossed out with a simple "A google doc doesn't remedy that issue" or claiming it's too complicated, or that no one wants to read the guidelines.  

A perfect example, is the contract comparison of which is better; a 52 million dollar deal with no guarantees or a 48 million dollar contract loaded with guarantees.  Your argument is that the google docs can't determine which is the better deal.  When in fact, we've spent hours creating a structure that takes in account how much of the contract is guaranteed vs non-guaranteed money, it puts more weight of the contract in earlier years rather than the back loaded deals.  There is also a formula that determines the player's asking price in terms of APY, contract length and bonus.

Again, it isn't the google docs that make total control, it helps because I'm able to do so much more with far less help.  That idea alone should encourage you to want to know more, since its freeing up man hours from assisting you and the other mods and enables them to be more active within their sub-forum.  What has made total control successful over the years, is that we came together as a group to make it better.  Which is exactly what we've been trying to do with FFMD but all we seem to receive in return is resistance and doubts.

Give me one year, and I'll show you improvement, give me 2 years and I'll increase the level of sub forum participation, give me 3 years and I'll win you a superbowl.  What do you say?

Does TCMD fix everything?  No, but it does fix several issues with transparency, subjective opinions, the amount of members needed to operate it in a timely manner, it removes down time, allows for real game planning, which is something I figure most within the subforums would appreciate.  It reduces the workload for the GM, it removes the complexity of understanding how the salary cap works.  All of these things allow for a more proactive experience and over time I believe the participation within the discussion thread and sub-forum would increase. 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by ny92jefferis

[scar988]

On 10/20/2017 at 5:26 PM, CWood21 said:

IIRC, the Talent Agency was added because there were several posters who wanted a more interactive FA rather than just the highest bid wins.

The Talent Agency was originally wanted instead of the all bidding FA period from what I remember when we came up with the FFMD. but No one had the time to actually run it until ET80 did.

[ny92mike]

@scar988you've been building up the workbooks and running ffmd for some time now.  What's your thoughts on making changes?

[scar988]

Just now, ny92jefferis said:

@scar988you've been building up the workbooks and running ffmd for some time now.  What's your thoughts on making changes?

From I think 2006 in the first one to around 2013 or 2014, I did the books on it. And At this point, I don't feel like running it any more. HOWEVER, I think it'd be extremely easy to get done properly. But the guidelines from 2010 or 2011 are probably the way it was run the best.

[ny92mike]

16 minutes ago, scar988 said:

From I think 2006 in the first one to around 2013 or 2014, I did the books on it. And At this point, I don't feel like running it any more. HOWEVER, I think it'd be extremely easy to get done properly. But the guidelines from 2010 or 2011 are probably the way it was run the best.

I didn't get involved with ffmd until I think the '13 season as a GM/ war room staff and then helped you in 2014, and then helped dhunt with the shark tank doc the following year.  So I can't speak of it's best years.  I remember seeing the potential of the ffmd my first year, and then when you came out with those google docs for the rosters.  I didn't realize the docs existed until that day, I had be using Excel back when you could actually buy a computer and the microsoft was preloaded.  It worked but it was so much more work than the google sheets.

When you say, "extremely easy to get done properly" could you elaborate on if that would bring change or not?

Anyway, if you're helping with ffmd or not next year, I'd love to see you manage the Falcons in our mock draft this year.  We almost had you last year, would be great to get you inked as a GM sooner rather than later.

Thanks man.

   

 

[scar988]

Just now, ny92jefferis said:

I didn't get involved with ffmd until I think the '13 season as a GM/ war room staff and then helped you in 2014, and then helped dhunt with the shark tank doc the following year.  So I can't speak of it's best years.  I remember seeing the potential of the ffmd my first year, and then when you came out with those google docs for the rosters.  I didn't realize the docs existed until that day, I had be using Excel back when you could actually buy a computer and the microsoft was preloaded.  It worked but it was so much more work than the google sheets.

When you say, "extremely easy to get done properly" could you elaborate on if that would bring change or not?

Anyway, if you're helping with ffmd or not next year, I'd love to see you manage the Falcons in our mock draft this year.  We almost had you last year, would be great to get you inked as a GM sooner rather than later.

Thanks man.

   

 

The FFMD is really easy to work out the way you want it to. Especially with the new board software that lets you DM multiple people. However, people trying to be too secretive with their picks is completely against the spirit of FFMD. Outside of trade negotiations and FA pitch submissions, nothing should happen in PM or off board.

ALSO, the Talent Agency should be able to rep every single player. No bidding. Bidding is a headache to keep track of and doesn't make sense for some players to go to certain spots. So instead of bidding, the talent agency should be able to rep everyone from the Matt Staffords and Peyton Mannings of the world to the Ben Garlands and Travian Robertsons of the world. It would be extremely easy with the right amount of people to track the low-level bids for these small prospects. People could submit a bid with a 1 paragraph pitch for lower players on how they would be used and if it makes sense, they would be able to sign right away.

The drafting side of things is always the easiest part. And the trade council would auto-pass trades that fit within 10% of the trade chart. However, people get way too big about these codes and such to try and dupe people into thinking they like pick A when they really like Pick B. It's an online forum mock draft. Let people peak into the war rooms. Let people see how your team would possibly think on draft day so that we can all get an idea of what kind of players they should be looking at. The goal of FFMD is education of other teams, education of how the processes work and well, fun. No one wins FFMD, so it's just an exercise in how to build teams.

 

 

 

[ny92mike]

15 minutes ago, scar988 said:

The FFMD is really easy to work out the way you want it to. Especially with the new board software that lets you DM multiple people. However, people trying to be too secretive with their picks is completely against the spirit of FFMD. Outside of trade negotiations and FA pitch submissions, nothing should happen in PM or off board.

ALSO, the Talent Agency should be able to rep every single player. No bidding. Bidding is a headache to keep track of and doesn't make sense for some players to go to certain spots. So instead of bidding, the talent agency should be able to rep everyone from the Matt Staffords and Peyton Mannings of the world to the Ben Garlands and Travian Robertsons of the world. It would be extremely easy with the right amount of people to track the low-level bids for these small prospects. People could submit a bid with a 1 paragraph pitch for lower players on how they would be used and if it makes sense, they would be able to sign right away.

The drafting side of things is always the easiest part. And the trade council would auto-pass trades that fit within 10% of the trade chart. However, people get way too big about these codes and such to try and dupe people into thinking they like pick A when they really like Pick B. It's an online forum mock draft. Let people peak into the war rooms. Let people see how your team would possibly think on draft day so that we can all get an idea of what kind of players they should be looking at. The goal of FFMD is education of other teams, education of how the processes work and well, fun. No one wins FFMD, so it's just an exercise in how to build teams.

I agree that most if not all discussion should remain in house, but I do think some things need to have some secrecy, particularly draft boards and potential free agent signings, thats just me I'm sure the vote on that would probably be split.

Completely agree that there should only be one free agency, however when you say "No bidding" are you referring to auction style bidding?  If not please explain.  I removed the pitch concept from my mock drafts, simply because leaning on the pitch to determine where the player lands just opened the door for members to complain about fairness.  A simple highest offer wins has removed any of those complaints from tcmd, it also drastically increased the turnaround time for announcing the winning offers as well as the need to have an increased staff.  I do like reading and even writing the pitch but to streamline the process and to remove any subjective opinions we more or less just list our signings for that round of bidding and explain how they'd work within the system.  

The draft stuff is the easiest part of mocking in terms of set up.  I was a advocate of the auto-pass within 10% of the draft pick value chart, but most GM's wanted more control to determine the value of their own players and picks and less "government" so the only time a trade is looked at is if it would damage the integrity of the mock draft, like if obvious attempts to game the system were discovered.  

Members do need to try to keep as much content as possible within their war room.  What I've noticed is that even if they are keeping things a secret, after the pick is made a flurry of discussion about the player selected is discussed.  I guess for me is if the restrictions are so overwhelming the fun is drained out as well.  I do think that FFMD 2 is typically a more open discussion mock draft, where 1 we see more secrecy.

[scar988]

42 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

I agree that most if not all discussion should remain in house, but I do think some things need to have some secrecy, particularly draft boards and potential free agent signings, thats just me I'm sure the vote on that would probably be split.

Completely agree that there should only be one free agency, however when you say "No bidding" are you referring to auction style bidding?  If not please explain.  I removed the pitch concept from my mock drafts, simply because leaning on the pitch to determine where the player lands just opened the door for members to complain about fairness.  A simple highest offer wins has removed any of those complaints from tcmd, it also drastically increased the turnaround time for announcing the winning offers as well as the need to have an increased staff.  I do like reading and even writing the pitch but to streamline the process and to remove any subjective opinions we more or less just list our signings for that round of bidding and explain how they'd work within the system.  

The draft stuff is the easiest part of mocking in terms of set up.  I was a advocate of the auto-pass within 10% of the draft pick value chart, but most GM's wanted more control to determine the value of their own players and picks and less "government" so the only time a trade is looked at is if it would damage the integrity of the mock draft, like if obvious attempts to game the system were discovered.  

Members do need to try to keep as much content as possible within their war room.  What I've noticed is that even if they are keeping things a secret, after the pick is made a flurry of discussion about the player selected is discussed.  I guess for me is if the restrictions are so overwhelming the fun is drained out as well.  I do think that FFMD 2 is typically a more open discussion mock draft, where 1 we see more secrecy.

no auction style. it's stupid. The constant bidding is annoying.

And all of that should be out in the open. All of it. It lets everyone understand your team and why you would make those decisions. No secrecy. That's not the point to teh whole process. And people thought it was. 

I like the pitch. The pitch should be convincing enough to help the talent agency determine the players and where they go for premiere guys. The lower level guys should be as simple as 1 paragraph pitch of "Come here kid, we need you for depth"

 

[jch1911]

18 minutes ago, scar988 said:

no auction style. it's stupid. The constant bidding is annoying.

And all of that should be out in the open. All of it. It lets everyone understand your team and why you would make those decisions. No secrecy. That's not the point to teh whole process. And people thought it was. 

I like the pitch. The pitch should be convincing enough to help the talent agency determine the players and where they go for premiere guys. The lower level guys should be as simple as 1 paragraph pitch of "Come here kid, we need you for depth"

 

As a participant and GM in both TCMD & FFMD, I understand the value of a good pitch.  I used to write many of the pitches in the Texans War Room.  I enjoyed doing the research (e.g. player connections to coaches, the area, teammates, hobbies, baby's momma situation, etc.).  Although we lost out on a fair number of players, once I read through some of the pitches I could see the logic the talent agency employed when making their decision.

I think in TCMD some of that is lost, but I do appreciate seeing how much a player went for and the speed of the decision.  Although sometimes it seemed, teams were spending just to spend.

I am cool with either honestly.  I sometimes just enjoy hearing the logic of a decision other than (for example) the Bengals gave $1M more in guaranteed money than the Browns did.

 

[EaglesPeteC]

1 minute ago, jch1911 said:

As a participant and GM in both TCMD & FFMD, I understand the value of a good pitch.  I used to write many of the pitches in the Texans War Room.  I enjoyed doing the research (e.g. player connections to coaches, the area, teammates, hobbies, baby's momma situation, etc.).  Although we lost out on a fair number of players, once I read through some of the pitches I could see the logic the talent agency employed when making their decision.

I think in TCMD some of that is lost, but I do appreciate seeing how much a player went for and the speed of the decision.  Although sometimes it seemed, teams were spending just to spend.

I am cool with either honestly.  I sometimes just enjoy hearing the logic of a decision other than (for example) the Bengals gave $1M more in guaranteed money than the Browns did.

 

There is a give and take in that process. I liked the pitches just from a creativity stand point, but the TCMD is cleaner and really reduces complaining and GM's feeling like they were screwed. 

 

The major thing I love about the TCMD process is the AVERAGE PER YEAR (APY) Some players value themselves more highly than the market does. That makes some bigger named players hang around longer in free agency until their asking price reduces. I find that really realistic and fun from a game planning perspective. Beats the pants of the shark tank rage bidding that you have to fight through.

I also like the fact every free agent is open to be bid on from the beginning. I remember vividly the year I was the GM for the Eagles in FFMD, I really wanted Malcolm Jenkins as my #1 FA target and he wasn't available until the Shark Tank. By the time we got there, people were so mad that they "got screwed" in talent agency and had so much money left over that he got way over bid. I like that I don't have to wait and there is value in the fact that I have prioritized someone as one of my top 3 targets. That happens in real free agency too. 2nd or 3rd tier players are likely to sign early with the team that comes after him as their primary target rather than being another team's 3rd or 4th choice at a position. 

[ny92mike]

5 minutes ago, scar988 said:

no auction style. it's stupid. The constant bidding is annoying.

And all of that should be out in the open. All of it. It lets everyone understand your team and why you would make those decisions. No secrecy. That's not the point to teh whole process. And people thought it was. 

I like the pitch. The pitch should be convincing enough to help the talent agency determine the players and where they go for premiere guys. The lower level guys should be as simple as 1 paragraph pitch of "Come here kid, we need you for depth"

 

Okay, thats what I thought you were saying about the no bidding just wanted to be certain.  All of my mock drafts are blind bidding, I know you've never messed with any of tcmd mocks but I think you'd appreciate the system.  It was built on a collaboration of ideas, from several of us mockers.  

The pitch is something I tried to keep but in order to remove subjective opinion and to stop the complaining, I had to pull it.  Might get some frowning faces when we announced who went where, but no complaining for a situation where something other than money determined the players location.  We just have worked in a way to still use the pitch but it has no bearing on where the player lands.  According to cwood, the pitch wasn't used in most cases when selecting the winning offer they just went off the contract offer to avoid being crucified with criticism for taking the pitch over the contract offer.  So from my understanding gm's took the time to write the pitch but because of the amount of time to review those and the fear of being burned alive, they simply used the contract offer to determine where the players landed, but you might be able to speak differently about this, if so I'd be interested to read.

Going back and trying to remember when I gm'ed the Giants and even thinking about the current discussions on who to draft with this 2nd/3rd overall pick so for example we've got a couple guys that see a greater need in getting the offensive line corrected while others think drafting quarterback is a must.  A forum divided on just about every transaction is hard to work around.  I think some focus on the team's staff positions getting reworked would also help with getting more involved.

I think there are several things that we could do to get ffmd back on track and dominating the forum again, but those in charge must be willing to change.  We just haven't seen that yet.

 

  

 

[ny92mike]

If FFMD is to get worked out in 2018, whether changes are made or not, the clock is ticking to get it done.  Regardless what you moderators decide to do with keeping it the same or making the switch, getting the forum to fully participate is going to take some time to build it back up.  

Let us try it this year with moderator support, what's the worst that can happen that hasn't already happened?

[Hockey5djh]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 12:02 PM, CWood21 said:

Honestly, at this point I'm probably not participating in it either way.  I'm tired of being attacked for presenting the facts as I see it, and quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time arguing over it.  EVERY year there are always a new form of complaints, and we as mods try our best to fix the issues that plague it.  I'm tired of hearing about these grand conspiracy theories, or using outdated examples to prove a point.  The 2010 trade isn't something I'm aware of off the top of my head.  Since I've been involved with FFMD from this side, we've only "nixed" one trade and that was when RG3 was traded and we nixed that because of cap ramifications.  In hindsight, we probably should have let them figure that one out.  That being said, the trade council is simply there to make sure that there is a single point to receive trade offers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Using an outdated example to prove a point is a logical fallacy.

The overwhelming issue that seems to have been presented is that FFMD has gotten too big and too meticulous.  Do you truly believe that inserting a google doc is going to magically fix all those issues?  LIS, I'm tired of wasting my breath.  And I know that feeling is mutual amongst others.

Hey, an argument was definitely the furthest reason I posted in here. I figured I'd try and offer opinions/help on getting FFMD off the ground again as I can see its importance and effectiveness to the forum. While you may not have been involved in the 2010 Eagles trade its not an outdated example if it's still the reason why many in a forum are turned off to FFMD. I know the Eagles board isn't like most but as a Packers fan you can appreciate the big posters of the forum that have been here for over a decade and still post regularly. These posters (whether they know it or not) carry a lot of weight and when FFMD is dismissed every year because of past issues from one of the biggest sub forums it probably should be taken into account.

As to the bolded is yes too simple of an answer? The google doc, while taking some minimal traffic away from the boards, offers an ultimately positive benefit of overall promoting and generating discussion that has ultimately been missing since FFMD has stopped.