(05-07-2019, 11:32 PM)MrStennett Wrote:The recent suggestion promoting the abolishment of the o-line position was for one very simple reason: we need players. Now, this may seem like a strange step to take here, but hear me out. With expansion about to read it’s ugly head (which in my mind was a mistake altogether brought about as an overreaction to one overly large draft class, but I digress) the league in general is going to be in short supply of active users at many skill positions.True, the best way to encourage active users is to take away their voluntary choices.
(05-07-2019, 11:32 PM)MrStennett Wrote:While there is no inherently good way to dole out “bots” and whatnot to most of these positions, there is a current system in place to do so with the o-line. It seems like quite a waste of talent and activity to have users in a position where you have such a high entrance point that many users never make it out of the DSFL. These players could be making WRs or DBs or DLs that will eventually be much more useful to their teams than at OL.Exactly, we should fix that. It's absurd to have offensive line be completely useless unless you're a max earner - in which case you're better off at another position.
(05-07-2019, 11:32 PM)MrStennett Wrote:Most teams can field a fairly competitive OL, entirely without the use of active players. On the other hand, why would we boost a position? If you choose to play OL, that’s a decision that you make as a user. The league goes to pains to spell out why it is an “undesirable” position. Picking something you know is going to be hard and then expecting the league to make it easier on you is asinine.You already pointed out why we should boost it. It's a position that demands you be a max earner to be competitive at the position but is not a position that a max earner should be at because of its comparatively low impact on the field. Make it more semi-active friendly like Kicker or Defensive Line. Thank you for your support brother Stennett.