The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By punisher
6/03/2019 8:08 am
Kababmaster wrote:

So, this rookie was drafted in round 2, got the associated contract desired for a round 2 pick, then went MINUS 32 in training camp, and now has a trade score of TWO.


John Lyles = https://theefl.myfootballnow.com/player/6090

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 8:21 am
punisher wrote:
Kababmaster wrote:

So, this rookie was drafted in round 2, got the associated contract desired for a round 2 pick, then went MINUS 32 in training camp, and now has a trade score of TWO.


John Lyles = https://theefl.myfootballnow.com/player/6090


You never miss a beat Punisher....LOL

I was not going to make a point of the team/GM that took the risk......but thanks for that (NOT) lol

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 8:27 am
raymattison21 wrote:

To me these senerios are alot more like early retirement.....


I could swallow that if the player did not drop THAT heavily with such a huge investment (the dice rolled so hard it almost killed him).

I'm not sure you could compare Sanders (legendary) to a player here that just took top dollar and walked off into the sunset with no recompense. I find that very annoying.

As already mentioned, if the dice falls or rises in TC...so should the contract to reflect the drop off/Gain. It is a double edged sword with high vol in the draft.
Last edited at 6/03/2019 8:28 am

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By mmr253
6/03/2019 9:13 am
TarquinTheDark wrote:
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Lions, Bengals, or Browns?


Ha...exactly what I thought as a life long Browns fan.
At least in MFN you know the player is going to **** after one training camp and can work round it rather than hanging on for two/three seasons hoping he'll come good..

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Lamba
6/03/2019 9:27 am
Kababmaster wrote:
punisher wrote:
Kababmaster wrote:

So, this rookie was drafted in round 2, got the associated contract desired for a round 2 pick, then went MINUS 32 in training camp, and now has a trade score of TWO.


John Lyles = https://theefl.myfootballnow.com/player/6090


You never miss a beat Punisher....LOL

I was not going to make a point of the team/GM that took the risk......but thanks for that (NOT) lol

If you find a fix, I'm sure Washington would like a message. ;-)

https://ags.myfootballnow.com/player/3287

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By preshead
6/03/2019 10:06 am
Kababmaster wrote:
Again, not a rant...just thinking of the logic on this. To walk into a camp and go minus 32 (granted on a dice roll on high vol)....is very much like a very good NCAA grad coming out to go Pro...gets his monies, and then sticks his fingers up the GM's jacksey!

I genuinely cannot think of a player "flopping" THAT much, on THAT much monies, before taking an honest snap.

I'd struggle to find an NFL example of that type scenario tbh.


I don’t see a problem with how this happens. NFL players, even rookies, don’t show up for training camp without a contract.

And the way I view training camp here in MFN, is that players come OUT of it with their abilities going up or down. Not going into it.

And just like in the NFL, a players contract doesn’t go up or down because of it.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I don’t see a problem with how this works.

On the flip side of your comment, if a players contract should go down because they turned out to be a big bust, then should they equally go up if they boom?

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 3:11 pm
preshead wrote:

On the flip side of your comment, if a players contract should go down because they turned out to be a big bust, then should they equally go up if they boom?


Yes. I have alluded to both +/- in my OP as a workaround/solution.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Lamba
6/03/2019 3:19 pm
Kababmaster wrote:
preshead wrote:

On the flip side of your comment, if a players contract should go down because they turned out to be a big bust, then should they equally go up if they boom?


Yes. I have alluded to both +/- in my OP as a workaround/solution.

That could lead to major cap struggles if you had a really good draft.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Cjfred68
6/05/2019 8:58 am
The problem here is that in real life a single training camp for rookies NEVER definitively answers the question will this player become a starter or be a bust. The NFL draft is littered with high draft picks that recieved the appropriate slotted rookie contract and never amounted to anything.

The biggest difference is that we in MFN know from day 1 if a player will ever amount to anything and will cut a 1st rounder without hesitation if we can absorb the cap hit. We know that we arent giving up on a player that may one day put it all together with another team.

Every year in the NFL, roster moves and cuts take into account where a player was drafted despite a bad showing in training camp. The hope is that the player will continue to develop during the season or in subsequent seasons based solely on financial commitment.

Tony Mandarich, Brian Bosworth, Ryan Leaf, Heath Shuler, JaMarcus Russell, Akili Smith, Charles Roger's and Rick Mirer are just a few examples of real life draft picks that in the NFL played multiple seasons despite playing horrible football because of where they were drafted......In MFN, they all would be immediately cut after rookie training camp or if kept on the roster due to cap reasons, would never see the field in a regular season game unless injuries forced them to be active.

The biggest difference between real life and MFN is that in real life it takes 5 years to truly evaluate a draft class while in MFN, we get an immediate answer after training camp.

With that being said, I dont think you can adjust a drafted players contract after the fact because it would create too much uncertainty when it comes to managing the cap. Whenever I have a player bust that hard, I will simply cut him and deal with the subsequent dead cap next season. Keeping dead weight players on the roster because of dead cap fears makes a roster weaker in my opinion. Fill that roster spot with an aging vet with a 1 year contract that can add depth.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By raymattison21
6/05/2019 9:51 am
Cjfred68 wrote:
The problem here is that in real life a single training camp for rookies NEVER definitively answers the question will this player become a starter or be a bust. The NFL draft is littered with high draft picks that recieved the appropriate slotted rookie contract and never amounted to anything.

The biggest difference is that we in MFN know from day 1 if a player will ever amount to anything and will cut a 1st rounder without hesitation if we can absorb the cap hit. We know that we arent giving up on a player that may one day put it all together with another team.

Every year in the NFL, roster moves and cuts take into account where a player was drafted despite a bad showing in training camp. The hope is that the player will continue to develop during the season or in subsequent seasons based solely on financial commitment.

Tony Mandarich, Brian Bosworth, Ryan Leaf, Heath Shuler, JaMarcus Russell, Akili Smith, Charles Roger's and Rick Mirer are just a few examples of real life draft picks that in the NFL played multiple seasons despite playing horrible football because of where they were drafted......In MFN, they all would be immediately cut after rookie training camp or if kept on the roster due to cap reasons, would never see the field in a regular season game unless injuries forced them to be active.

The biggest difference between real life and MFN is that in real life it takes 5 years to truly evaluate a draft class while in MFN, we get an immediate answer after training camp.

With that being said, I dont think you can adjust a drafted players contract after the fact because it would create too much uncertainty when it comes to managing the cap. Whenever I have a player bust that hard, I will simply cut him and deal with the subsequent dead cap next season. Keeping dead weight players on the roster because of dead cap fears makes a roster weaker in my opinion. Fill that roster spot with an aging vet with a 1 year contract that can add depth.


At some point , when the game is ready, I dreamed of a league where ratings were hidden . Probably not desired weights, but a combine for measurables instead . Complied with grades for skills like A+,A, A-, and so one. Not much different than what we have now but having guys not always go up or go down would throw a wrinkle into things .

One other neat part to add along would having a whole college version that would give stats/ accomplishments of players who would be eligible for the pro-versions up coming draft . So we have stats and real life play familiarity within those potential draftees to go by as well.

But back to reality , I just cut them or play them on STs or as a reserve till cap is available for a cut. Faster busts are more valuable and in mfn 1 were at like 60% of the cap with a competitive team. So, the cap I never a worry about in a seasoned league where I have been managing the cap.

Busting hard and often during a rebuild puts thing back seasons if that team is already in bad shape.

The games design is arcade. Injuries are lower, cap is friendly , and drafting is finacially safe only cause using low volatility is safe as well . These high volatile guys are meant to be picked later, but we like to gamble as much as the nfl.

The distribution of talent is in line with the nfl. We get most of our probowlers/hall of famers early and some decent gems fall . Drafts are pretty random here so a weak draft might call for some reaches, but those 2nd , 3rd and 4th rounders are expensive when you bust there compared to the nfl. It alot of dead cap in the end.

But if you bust on a first and he's fast, decent and semi productive the renegotiation is friendly . The nfl would have that contract with incentives . Sometimes I wish we had that too.