What did you like the most about RFL this season?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): The parity in the league caused by the new rule change. It kept everyone involved up to the end, and gave those teams that lost their studs due to injury a chance to stay alive with lesser players. I also enjoyed the WIRs and the up to date transaction list on the web.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): The big numbers from players not expected to do anything.
Black Ops (JoePa): I liked the bigger scoring this year
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Solid trash talk from the good teams. All sorts of controversy around the pre-season votes.
TheDeterminedSperm... (Brodz): excellent upkeep by the commish
%$!@#& (Gary): I crushed FITH
Fire in the Hole (Wang): getting this bunch of losers into the playoffs

What did you HATE the most about RFL this season?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): The lack of quality TEs. [Commish's comment: I thought there were decent TEs who went unclaimed each week during the entire season. Most GMs didn't seem to want to "waste" time researching them. As for MN, SAlexander and RDudley *did* score a respectable amount. You just seemed to have the worst luck picking the wrong one to start/bench from week to week.] Maybe we should implement a rule to allow three WRs or two WRs and a TE (a variation on my 1RB and three WRs rule proposal, an old proposal that is no longer necessary with the 50yd rule change because losing a starting RB is no longer the kiss of death [Commish's comment: try convincing BO of that!]).
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yet another disappointing 1st round pick.
Black Ops (JoePa): I hated the lack of depth at the RB position
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Lack of trash talk from the shitty teams. My team folding down the stretch for the 2nd straight season.
TheDeterminedSperm... (Brodz): 50 yard rule
%$!@#& (Gary): Whining about the 50 yd rule.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): how my scrubby squad was such a doormat in the postseason

What was your final impression of the 50-yard rule?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): I like it.
Black Ops (JoePa): I was initially against it, but it provided a chance for a lot of players to contribute SOMETHING, instead of TD or nothing for most WR and TEs. The good backs got their points while lesser guys just got 3... seems fair.
TheDeterminedSperm... (Brodz): Not to sound repetitive, but I believe the 50 yard rule skews the historical perspective of RFL scoring. I don't have any opinions about what to do with the 50 yard rule now because the continuity has already been disrupted.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): before the season started, I was very unhappy that this rule change passed. But during the course of the season, the rule won me over.

Too easy for RBs?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): No, because some teams favor the pass, some teams have a RB by committee, and NFL matchups and weather conditions can change the offensive strategy each game. The new rule gives people a chance to have decent pair of backs each game but no guarantee of success.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): No.
Black Ops (JoePa): NO
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Yes.
%$!@#& (Gary): No- Good for the #2 RB to be useful.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Perhaps, but mostly no.

Good for WRs to get more pts?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): Yes. I think there's more balance now between backs and receivers.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yes.
Black Ops (JoePa): Yes
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Yes.
%$!@#& (Gary): Yes
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Yes

Good for TEs to get more pts?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): No. It's hard to pick a viable TE, so the new rule only hurts more than it helps the overall parity (and hence sustained interest) of the league. Again, we should allow the option of 3 WRs or 2 WRs and a TE with the current 50yd point rule. Good TEs will still get drafted and started over lesser WRs, so the TE position will remain important for some people. I think a lineup option would add a little bit of strategy fun with very little additional commish work.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yes.
Black Ops (JoePa): Yes
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Yes.
%$!@#& (Gary): Yes
Fire in the Hole (Wang): *definitely* yes

Should the 50-yd rule stay the same in 2001?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): Yes.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yes.
Black Ops (JoePa): Yes, bring it back. Higher scores and more players contributing is good!
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): No
%$!@#& (Gary): Yes
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Most likely yes

Or should we go back to the 100-yd rule?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): No.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): No.
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): No
Fire in the Hole (Wang): No

Or should we do something like 100-75-50 for RBs-WRs-TEs?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): If anything it should be 50-75-25.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): No.
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): we'll talk.
%$!@#& (Gary): No. The RFL is nice because scoring is very simple. Let's not make it complicated.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Maybe

Should the yardage level for QBs be changed? If so, how?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): I like it the way it is.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yes. 3 pts at 200 yds.
Black Ops (JoePa): I think the QB yardage level should be changed. You would see (if you checked) that there were far more 100yd rushers than 300yd passers this year. I'm not sure how to do it, though, because giving points for 200 yds seems cheap.
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Yes, is 250 good enough for you sissies?
%$!@#& (Gary): I voted for the original proposal and I would do so again.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): If we keep the 50 yd rule for RBs/WRs/TEs and want an "equivalent" rule for QBs, we'd then award QBs 3 pts for every 100 yds. But would we then double a QB's rushing yds? Should we halve a RB's passing yards?

Should there be a weekly bonus/penalty for highest/lowest score?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): No.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Yes (bonus/highest only)
Black Ops (JoePa): NO! no extra bonus for drafting Marshall Faulk every week
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): you mean additional RFL bucks? since everybody pays at the end of the year, maybe give little bonuses and penalties for weekly performance that can be reconciled at the end of the year.
%$!@#& (Gary): What? an extra win? Maybe 5 RFL bucks for highest each week.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): I'd like the threat of a weekly penalty (10 RFL bucks) to keep slacker GMs from abandoning their teams. But i wouldn't want to repeatedly punish a team that loses their stars due to bad luck.

What other rule changes would you like to see in 2001?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): The 3 WR or 2 WR/1 TE option. [Commish's comment: please keep in mind that any rule change involving 1 RB/3 WR or 3 WR and 0 TE options would have a *major* impact on depth chart submissions/interpretations]
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Only use Week 14 records to determine who gets into playoffs. Use all 17 weeks to determine winnings based on record. Keep the same playoff winnings.
Black Ops (JoePa): I would like the 1 RB/3 WR option. Now that all teams run one back with all the carries, forcing 16 teams to play 2 RBs is too much. Only 10-15 backs score any points, so that every draft, you are scrambling for RBs in a mad scramble. This option would open up the game. With the 50-yard rule, there is a huge pool of WRs and would give the league more strategy.
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Automatic draft rights to any NFL player/heisman trophy winner that you've played high-school ball with. [Commish's comment: OK, Cals' 2001 1st round pick will be Weinke.]
%$!@#& (Gary): Keep one player
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Head-to-head as #1 tiebreaker, 1 (or more?) point for each starter whose NFL team wins that week, defensive "key" (e.g., if I'm playing %$!@#&, I would pick Edgerrin to only get half his pts - but in turn I would allow the other RB's pt total to be doubled)

Which player were you ecstatic to've drafted?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): Curtis Martin. He's one of my favorite NFL players and performed nicely. I drafted him specifically because of the rule change (because of his traditionally high yards/low TD performance), and it worked.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Rod Smith
Black Ops (JoePa): I was happy with Fred Taylor and Torry Holt
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): 1st half of season: Isaac Bruce; 2nd half: nobody, they all sucked; ecstatic to have picked up amani toomer.
TheDeterminedSperm... (Brodz): I wasn't really ecstatic about any of them. I was pleased about Gonzalez.
%$!@#& (Gary): EJames and Grbac turned out well.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): even though he didn't perform as well as I'd hoped, I liked having James Stewart. I'd pick him at #19 again this fall.

Which player would you never draft again?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): Any Arizona Cardinal, especially Jake Plummer. I still think he got off easy on that pre-signing sexual assualt case.
TheArmchairQBAdventurePlayset(tm) (Stan): Ricky Dudley
Black Ops (JoePa): I would never draft Terrell Davis again. I hate the Broncos twice as much now. I also hated David Sloan's slack season. He put up goose eggs for weeks
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Can't say. all my guys were merely mediocre.
TheDeterminedSperm... (Brodz): [tony] banks, antowain smith
%$!@#& (Gary): Shitna
Fire in the Hole (Wang): Rob Johnson - this pansy-ass cost me a quarterfinal game against Joebob

What is your final assessment of your team name?

Minnesota Nice (Kevin): One of my best.
The Armchair Quarterback Adventure Playset (tm) (Stan): Brilliant but not user friendly.
Black Ops (JoePa): I was at first leery of my name, but I got used to it, and thought it gave my faithful commish some good opportunity for wordplay, especially about all of the operatives who did not come back alive. Next year, I'm going to try for something more ridiculous, like Brodkin's team. Hail to Black Ops, proud winner of the 2000 Scrub Bowl!!!!!
Fresh Squeezed (Cals): Fresh Squeezed is a classic. Two syllables (attn Brodz: 13??). Simple, yet eloquent. Enigmatic enough to make GMs wonder (and fear) just what those boys are up to. Mild innuendo value.
The Determined Sperm Which Squirm Like Worms With Firm Stern Perms (Brodz): I willmake sure to cut it down in the future.
%$!@#& (Gary): Best in the league.
Fire in the Hole (Wang): 9-8 didn't do this name justice

©1999-2002 RFL Inc.
All rights reserved.

Revised: January 25, 2002