No one else can accept or refuse the Trade for you either, just like no one else can Set your Game Plan.

You either sent the proposal yourself, or you chose to accept it yourself.

There really is no difference. I can suggest to you all day long how to Game Plan... if you follow that advice it was your choice. If you follow it, one could say I effectively set your Game Plan for you.

There really is no difference. In both scenarios you have a good amount of resources to either find knowledge already given or ask specifically for. You either use it or you don't. In both scenarios you either have a natural knack for figuring it out without said resources, or you don't.

In both scenarios other Owners can try to influence (for good or bad) and you either allow them to or you don't.

The 'Game Plan' Analogy is a good one in that regard. You get better at Game Planning the exact same way you get better at Trades, which is the exact same way you get better at Player Evaluation (which is needed for both Game Planning and Trades)... which is (1) Trial and Error and (2) Resource Support.

Well as long as people make the playoffs like every year ( https://mfn8.myfootballnow.com/team/view/1 ) and are able to trade for a top 10 draft pick ( https://mfn8.myfootballnow.com/forums/thread/1/404#762 ) then most likely we will always have a super teams on this web site.

I just think if you want super teams from happening then make it where every team that makes the playoffs can't trade their draft picks to be in the top 5 or top 10.

That really the only teams that can trade up should be teams that didn't make the playoffs.

I think the problem is the reason certain people want to get rid of the super teams is because they got across the bridge to being able to do it and now that it is convenient for them they want to BLOW up the bridge so no one else can do it .

also I think really if you make it harder for others to get super teams or even compete with those super teams then really all you will have is that team dominate a league for a decade or longer like winning the league 10 years in a row or more because if you take away the chances of people making super teams or even being able to play that team on a level playing field then most likely that will be the end result.

Not saying we should have super teams.

I am saying people should have policed themselves to keep it from happening.

Like the person above in that team I gave knowing he has always made the playoffs in MFN 8 that instead of trying to trade up in the 1st round or any round for that matter he should have said himself SURE I can do it but I shouldn't.

That would be like if someone knew HEY I can get the 1st 7 draft picks in the 1st round doesn't mean they should do or they should know that sure I can do it but I shouldn't.

Same for if someone did find a way to glitch/bug/scam/etc. their way to a win or what not doesn't mean they should they should know they shouldn't it even if they know they can do it.


But I don't think anyone will police themselves or even listen to what I have to say because they will just say they drafted well ( if you call drafting well by trading into the top 5 or top 10 when that team has always made the playoffs ) , they have traded well ( if you can trading well by trading into the top 5 or top 10 every season and making it even harder for teams to compete with you) , etc.

Anyway this is just my 2 cents or opinion on it.

take it anyway you see fit.

You are making a lot of generalizations about how some of the good teams got to be that way. There are some that do this, but I believe the majority of the good teams I am in leagues with were not built this way.

You can build a great team and acquire additional draft picks (even high picks) without "taking advantage" of or "tricking" other players.

I have had a lot of high draft picks throughout my time on MFN. Many of them were acquired years in advance, and all were acquired fairly. In fact, I have often overpaid for picks.

These comments are ridiculous, particularly your attempt to criticize my team in MFN-8.

You're saying it's a bad thing that this team has made the playoffs every year? You forgot to mention this team has been in the Championship game every year except for one, so I guess it's even worse, huh?
You also didn't mention that it was all done fairly.

There is nothing wrong with making a trade to move up in the first round. The trade you used as an example was a bad choice. I gave up a lot for that pick (2 1st, 2 2nd). Although NO traded those picks, they ended up being 4 starters. That's not a bad deal.

I mentioned NO traded those picks. They traded 3 of them for the #7 overall and a 3rd. I guess you think they really took advantage of whoever they made this trade with?

I think this trade worked out pretty well for both of us. The fact that you would use this as an example of something that shouldn't be done just further proves the point that you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know why I even responded to this post.

You tricked me I guess.

I just started reading this thread, but I don't have all day. So let me just add:

When trading you have to realize that you're probably making the other team better. So if it's a "super team" then you have the option of not trading with that team.

No one here has an inherent advantage over anyone else. Any advantage gained is/was an advantage earned based on a competitive strategy and the determination to follow a predetermined plan.

This isn't even like the nauseating discussion of the 'haves' vs the 'have nots' that has defined our political landscape in America. THIS is a perfectly level playing field. No one here was born into a rich family or given any special advantage.

Any attempts to make the game more 'fair' for the people that are not competitive and can't follow a successful plan, OR own it when their plan sucks and leads to an noncompetitive team, will only ruin what is a great game.

Possibly a league where there is no trading is in order? Of course this won't stop the whining about unfair "advantages" but it would be a partial solution.

If its an optional league .. fine. If trading is eliminated from all leagues I know I'd be gone. Trading is a component that I don't think should be taken away.

On the whole honestly, how many trades are actually made in the NFL? Outside of Cincy I don't really follow other teams .. I know Cleveland had a few this year.

And rarer still is player for player trades.

I've actually mulled the idea of having a league type where you only build your roster (no game planning), I hadn't thought of having one without trades.

In either case I wouldn't change any existing leagues, they would be new leagues with those settings.

Id love a GM based league. I don't want any coaching responsibilities at all. Not my thing. Sadly, as it stands now thats the way to way to win a league.

Custom league of course ... lol. Appreciate your taking this suggestion!

i would totally be interested in a gm based league. It would be cool if we could set our playbooks to the style we wanted and then build a team to fit that. I don't mind gameplanning but it definitely is time consuming and is making me rethink how many teams i can manage. I took a few weeks off on a team and left my gameplan and i lost all three games, lol.

Not me, at least not with the current AI.

Can you imagine how horrible the games/teams would be with the AI making all the decisions about the depth chart, selected plays from the playbooks, when to sit/start a player due to injury, etc.

It would be a constant game of 3TE/3RB sets, since those seem to be the only plays the AI recommends you select in your playbook.

Not to mention burying a 50 rated QB in the depth chart instead of switching his position to WR where he is rated at 85, playing your star RB in a meaningless week 16 game even though he is questionable with a leg injury, punting on 4th and 1 from the 50 when you're down by 6 with 1:15 to go, etc., etc.