Official 2012-2013 hR Keeper League thread!:Time to take down Csquared

[akhhorus]

Someone in one of my other leagues sent this email, it's pretty funny



The sender's team in bold.

:lol1:

Who do you guys use for your league site?

ESPN.

[CarMike]

I have just about given up on Yahoo. ESPN is so much better it's not even close.

[Keino]

I have just about given up on Yahoo. ESPN is so much better it's not even close.

I pretty much hate them both. But for a free service, ESPN isn't bad.

I like Myfantasyleague.com as a host.

[RedskinsDave]

I pretty much hate them both. But for a free service, ESPN isn't bad.

I like Myfantasyleague.com as a host.

+1. We switched to them from Fanball (who was awesome until NBC effed it up). Once I got all my settings right, they were great.

[CarMike]

I pretty much hate them both. But for a free service, ESPN isn't bad.

I like Myfantasyleague.com as a host.

+1. We switched to them from Fanball (who was awesome until NBC effed it up). Once I got all my settings right, they were great.

Does MyFantasyLeague.com offer free leagues? I've never used them before.

Keino, is that the site you and dj used for our one and only official hR $$$ league 5 or 6 years ago?

[RedskinsDave]

Does MyFantasyLeague.come offer free leagues? I've never used them before.

Keino, is that the site you and dj used for our one and only official hR $$$ league 5 or 6 years ago?

No, they're a premium service. The only free ones are attached to the big companies.

[bfauble83]

I have just about given up on Yahoo. ESPN is so much better it's not even close.

The only thing I don't like about ESPN is that its super slow when i'm at work.

[Keino]

Does MyFantasyLeague.come offer free leagues? I've never used them before.

Keino, is that the site you and dj used for our one and only official hR $$$ league 5 or 6 years ago?

Nah, that was a premium service offered by Fanball. I didn't care for it much.

[CNYSkinFan]

I started 1-5 this year and had a strong finish to squek into the playoffs even at 6-7, I just won last week and advanced and i am running a 4 game hot streak of points scored thanks to my receivers going off (espescially a great waiver wire pickup in deion branch. Fent I got my eyes set on you and the undefeated DS. I am this leagues version of the NFC west baby!

[fent]

I started 1-5 this year and had a strong finish to squek into the playoffs even at 6-7, I just won last week and advanced and i am running a 4 game hot streak of points scored thanks to my receivers going off (espescially a great waiver wire pickup in deion branch. Fent I got my eyes set on you and the undefeated DS. I am this leagues version of the NFC west baby!

I have no clue how I am where I am. I have one RB, a couple decent receivers, but everything else has been mediocre on offense. My defense has carried me in several games...not sure how much longer that can last.

[Biggie]

I started 1-5 this year and had a strong finish to squek into the playoffs even at 6-7, I just won last week and advanced and i am running a 4 game hot streak of points scored thanks to my receivers going off (espescially a great waiver wire pickup in deion branch. Fent I got my eyes set on you and the undefeated DS. I am this leagues version of the NFC west baby!
Kyle Orton built me up all season just so he could crush me. :(

[danny's stogie]

I started 1-5 this year and had a strong finish to squek into the playoffs even at 6-7, I just won last week and advanced and i am running a 4 game hot streak of points scored thanks to my receivers going off (espescially a great waiver wire pickup in deion branch. Fent I got my eyes set on you and the undefeated DS. I am this leagues version of the NFC west baby!

Well, NCSkinsfanatic and I are certainly lucky that we had a bye last week because we wouldn't have beaten any of the playoff teams with what happened to Rodgers and some of our other offensive players. You've certainly caught us at the right time with the uncertainty surrounding Rodgers and Cassel having a really big impact on three of our best offensive players, especially since we've been struggling to find some depth at QB all season. We're hoping to patch things together right now and come out ahead.

[akhhorus]

My smoke and mirrors have been thanks to Rivers/Fitzpatrick at Qb, GB defenders and MJD.

[CNYSkinFan]

I have no clue how I am where I am. I have one RB, a couple decent receivers, but everything else has been mediocre on offense. My defense has carried me in several games...not sure how much longer that can last.
i actually found that decent IDP picks in this league can counteract horrible offensivve holes. I pretty much have made the playoffs each year and once the championship game with no running backs whatseoever because my idps keep me in games. That said I ride more highs and lows then anyone lol, thus the mediocre record.

[CNYSkinFan]

Kyle Orton built me up all season just so he could crush me. :(
yeah that was a dagger lol, if he had a mediocre day you probably beat me or come colose despite my high score

[CarMike]

No, they're a premium service. The only free ones are attached to the big companies.

Nah, that was a premium service offered by Fanball. I didn't care for it much.
Thanks guys. I may look into MyFantasyLeague.com next year with some friends around here. [Lexington]
The only thing I don't like about ESPN is that its super slow when i'm at work.
Hmmm, I've never had a problem with ESPN being slow work or home...
Kyle Orton built me up all season just so he could crush me. :(
No kidding me! The last two weeks he's gotten me two points. The difference in me heading into the playoffs at the #3 seed instead of the #6 seed. Which I lost by a total of 3 points. :banghead

Did I mention this was a cash league???

[Biggie]

yeah that was a dagger lol, if he had a mediocre day you probably beat me or come colose despite my high score
I also had Malcolm Jenkins and his 35 points on my bench, and I'm pretty sure I benched him the day before. Start him and get a couple more passes out of Orton and I'm in the next round.

Ah well, baby steps. My team's gotten better every year, hopefully next year will see more progress.

[CNYSkinFan]

I also had Malcolm Jenkins and his 35 points on my bench, and I'm pretty sure I benched him the day before. Start him and get a couple more passes out of Orton and I'm in the next round.

Ah well, baby steps. My team's gotten better every year, hopefully next year will see more progress.
yeah i did the same thing with Dansby, sat him because of injury question and two straight crappy performances and he turns in a 25 point game...wtf

[danny's stogie]

Congrats to akh on ending the dynasty. I'm not sure how Danny Amendola and Jacoby Ford scored so many more points than Blount, but we definitely got beat by a better team today. It would have been great to go undefeated, but when we went made it through the regular season unscathed I had a feeling we'd go down in the playoffs.

[CNYSkinFan]

Congrats to akh on ending the dynasty. I'm not sure how Danny Amendola and Jacoby Ford scored so many more points than Blount, but we definitely got beat by a better team today. It would have been great to go undefeated, but when we went made it through the regular season unscathed I had a feeling we'd go down in the playoffs.
i think it is ironic i decided to bench Moss for reggie bush in my flex spot thinking greossman would not connect to hima dn he goes off. I probably will lose by more then just that but it is a stinging irony in my heart.

[akhhorus]

Congrats to akh on ending the dynasty. I'm not sure how Danny Amendola and Jacoby Ford scored so many more points than Blount, but we definitely got beat by a better team today. It would have been great to go undefeated, but when we went made it through the regular season unscathed I had a feeling we'd go down in the playoffs.

I got a bit lucky having players on so many teams who were clawing for the playoffs. Henne and your IDPs killed you along with the Aaron Rogers injury. Congrats on a memorable FFL season though.

[CNYSkinFan]

ok i need ryan longwell to hit 9 fgs from 50+ yards tonight! I got a chance!

[fent]

ok i need ryan longwell to hit 9 fgs from 50+ yards tonight! I got a chance!

Sorry, I just saw this or I would have had a witty response. Okay, probably not a witty response, but at least a response. Good run there for the guy that didn't have a single RB until week 13.

[Keino]

Apparently the winner is some guy Who Screwed Texas. Congrats.

[CNYSkinFan]

Now that the league is over, I would like to consider a few changes for next year:

1.) No s Draft. This is a keeper league and thus like the real NFL a straight draft will allow for parity.

2.) A max on the qb limit on roster. I suggest 4 that way you could have 3 even if a catastropic injury happens in pre-season and you want to keep someone for the next year. I would be ok with 3 as well.

That is all i got for now, but I think those two changes will really help the league

[akhhorus]

Now that the league is over, I would like to consider a few changes for next year:

1.) No s Draft. This is a keeper league and thus like the real NFL a straight draft will allow for parity.


I can look into this to see if its even possible, but it would have to be voted upon. THe QB issue will be voted on.

[Keino]

Since it is a Keeper and not a Dynasty, I would be opposed to a non-serpentine draft (And I would be the biggest beneficiary of such a change). Perhaps a compromise that works well in my other Keeper league is make the 1st 2 rounds by order of finish and start the Serpentine portion of the draft in round 3 instead of round 2.

As to Issue #2, I have been wanting this since I entered the league. Even under the revised scoring rules, QB remains the highest scoring position on average and therefore each team could start 2 each week. As such, a team should not be able to carry more than 4, thus preventing other teams from picking up a replacement when one or more of their regulars goes down. I would prefer the number be kept at 3 rather than 4 because of the IR feature that allows you to stash an injured player until said player is healthy.

[CarMike]

I'm all for 4 QB max.

As for the snake draft, Keino makes a good point about this not being a Dynasty League.

Good job fent! Great year. And congrats to Dustin as well. You had a pretty amazing run going.

[fent]

Thanks all, even Keino.

I'm all for the QB limit. Should probably put it at 3. Even at 3, not every team can lock down 3 starting QBs given it's a 12 team league.

I'm also fine with whatever on the draft system. Obviously it hurts me the most this year, but I view this league as a dynasty league. Keeping 15 guys really limits roster movement, at least on the offensive side of the ball.

edit: I'm also now in the market for a starting QB, so if someone feels like building a deal around the core of a starter for someone like Fitzgerald or Nicks, I'm all ears.

[CarMike]

Thanks all, even Keino.

I'm all for the QB limit. Should probably put it at 3. Even at 3, not every team can lock down 3 starting QBs given it's a 12 team league.

I'm also fine with whatever on the draft system. Obviously it hurts me the most this year, but I view this league as a dynasty league. Keeping 15 guys really limits roster movement, at least on the offensive side of the ball.
Personally, I liked the 3 QB limit at first, but the more I thought about it the more it could hurt everyone. If you're limited to 3 QBs, you have a hard time drafting a rookie QB that may take a few years to get to a starting spot. 4 would give you that ability to be patient plus having 3 QBs that you rely on weekly.

[fent]

Personally, I liked the 3 QB limit at first, but the more I thought about it the more it could hurt everyone. If you're limited to 3 QBs, you have a hard time drafting a rookie QB that may take a few years to get to a starting spot. 4 would give you that ability to be patient plus having 3 QBs that you rely on weekly.

Perhaps we could have a limit of 4, but you can leave the draft with only 3 starters and the 4th has to be a non-starter.

[CNYSkinFan]

Perhaps we could have a limit of 4, but you can leave the draft with only 3 starters and the 4th has to be a non-starter.
hard tompolice that since when we draft so many of the rookies will not be starters but will be by end of the year. Maybe 3 plus a rookie?

[CarMike]

Perhaps we could have a limit of 4, but you can leave the draft with only 3 starters and the 4th has to be a non-starter.

hard tompolice that since when we draft so many of the rookies will not be starters but will be by end of the year. Maybe 3 plus a rookie?

yeah, that might be hard to police. Especially when 2 or 3 rookies may be starters right off the bat. I know at least one will be probably.

I think the easiest would be just allow 4 QBs and do your best with what you get.

[CarMike]

damn, I just counted and DS has 7 QBs on his roster. lol

[CNYSkinFan]

damn, I just counted and DS has 7 QBs on his roster. lol
yeah this could be labeled the ds rule lol

[Keino]

Personally, I liked the 3 QB limit at first, but the more I thought about it the more it could hurt everyone. If you're limited to 3 QBs, you have a hard time drafting a rookie QB that may take a few years to get to a starting spot. 4 would give you that ability to be patient plus having 3 QBs that you rely on weekly.

To me that is merely an extra layer of management. As we agreed that this is not a dynasty league, if you want to use one of your roster spots to develop a rookie then that is certainly your prerogative. If a Starter goes down to injury, the IR slots would essentially allow you to carry a 4th QB.

I certainly think we should discuss the issue before putting it up to vote, so that we have a firm understanding as to what we would be voting on.

[CarMike]

yeah this could be labeled the ds rule lol

I like it. lmao

[Keino]

damn, I just counted and DS has 7 QBs on his roster. lol

Honestly, when he picked up Troy Smith given what he already had I was extremely upset. But he was within the rules, so I could not bitch too much, except that the rule needed to change.

[CarMike]

So, you agree with fent that we should limit it to 3 QB max?

To me that is merely an extra layer of management. As we agreed that this is not a dynasty league, if you want to use one of your roster spots to develop a rookie then that is certainly your prerogative. If a Starter goes down to injury, the IR slots would essentially allow you to carry a 4th QB.

I certainly think we should discuss the issue before putting it up to vote, so that we have a firm understanding as to what we would be voting on.

[Keino]

So, you agree with fent that we should limit it to 3 QB max?

That would be my preference, yes. Even then, assuming everyone has 3, that is 4 non-starters being carried on rosters.

[CNYSkinFan]

So, you agree with fent that we should limit it to 3 QB max?
If IR slots allow for the 4th qb to be on the roster if injured i have no problem with a 3 qb max.

[fent]

hard tompolice that since when we draft so many of the rookies will not be starters but will be by end of the year. Maybe 3 plus a rookie?

That's essentially what I'm getting at, but would allow 3 starters plus a 2nd stringer that isn't a rookie. Not much policing other than to say if you draft a 4th starting QB, then we rewind the pick and you go again. After the draft is over, all bets are off as long as you don't carry more than 4 QBs.

I think the hard part would be deciding what to do with guys like Roethlisberger who wasn't the opening day starter, but everyone knew was taking over again when his suspension was over. What does Dixon get counted as in that spot? May just be easiest to say 3 and be done with it.

[CarMike]

If IR slots allow for the 4th qb to be on the roster if injured i have no problem with a 3 qb max.

But you can only keep a player on IR for so long. I think I'd rather have 4 QBs per roster. But if the votes go with 3, I'm cool with that as well.

Which brings me to another thing that upset me this year. A certain team had 2, maybe 3 players on their IR list when they were healthy and able to play. Hoarding players on IR shouldn't be allowed. IR should be used for what it was intended for, injured players.

[CarMike]

My bad. I missed two QBs. He has 9 QBs on his roster.

damn, I just counted and DS has 7 QBs on his roster. lol

[Keino]

But you can only keep a player on IR for so long. I think I'd rather have 4 QBs per roster. But if the votes go with 3, I'm cool with that as well.

Which brings me to another thing that upset me this year. A certain team had 2, maybe 3 players on their IR list when they were healthy and able to play. Hoarding players on IR shouldn't be allowed. IR should be used for what it was intended for, injured players.

Mike was that me? I know I put some players on IR when they got hurt, and then left there by accident when they were healthy, but corrected it as soon as I noticed.

I remember asking Akh about the IR players, and he basically indicated that as long as they are hurt they can be placed there, but when they are healthy, you have to make a move.

The bottomline to me, is that hoarding players at any position is not really in the spirit of fairness and good sportsmanship. I've never played in a league that didn't have roster limits at every position, let alone the highest scoring one.

[CarMike]

Mike was that me? I know I put some players on IR when they got hurt, and then left there by accident when they were healthy, but corrected it as soon as I noticed.

I remember asking Akh about the IR players, and he basically indicated that as long as they are hurt they can be placed there, but when they are healthy, you have to make a move.

The bottomline to me, is that hoarding players at any position is not really in the spirit of fairness and good sportsmanship. I've never played in a league that didn't have roster limits at every position, let alone the highest scoring one.

No, DS again. lol They were there for like 4+ weeks. I brought it up to akh and he said there was nothing wrong with it.

[CarMike]

BTW, no hard feelings DS. As Keino said, you're clearly within the rules so you did nothing wrong. :)

[danny's stogie]

I'd like to put it out there that I have nothing to do with what goes on with my team since I merely play a figurehead role to Bateman's GM duties. But yes, we do in fact have 9 QBs on our roster. I'm really curious to hear how having John Skelton, Max Hall, Rex Grossman, Chad Henne, Matt Flynn, Troy Smith, and Tim Tebow on our roster is hurting our league because I'm pretty sure that if you combined the 7 of them you would have half an NFL caliber starting QB.

Congrats to Fent on winning the league, btw.

[Keino]

Well Troy Smith was a starter when picked up when Alex Smith was injured, but feel free to believe that hoarding all available QBs with a shot of seeing the field is in the spirit of competitive balance for a league in which the QB is the highest scoring position.

[akhhorus]

"The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right." -Alex Hamilton

We shall vote upon it.

If anyone has any other ideas for changes/adjustments/how to screw their fellow managers, please contact me.

[danny's stogie]

No, DS again. lol They were there for like 4+ weeks. I brought it up to akh and he said there was nothing wrong with it.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to. For one, you can't make any pickups if you have guys on IR who are ineligible so stashing players there really just hurts your team. Secondly, we had a lot of guys this year who were injured and whose team didn't officially rule them out until later in the week. So you might have seen our roster while they doubtful tag was on them and before the official designation.

This is something that bothers me about the way the IR is handled by ESPN. You have a player (DeAngelo Williams comes to mind most often this year) who you know isn't going to play but doesn't get ruled out officially until game-time and in order to make any roster moves you have to take him off the IR and drop a potentially useful player. It's double punishment when your player gets injured.

[danny's stogie]

Well Troy Smith was a starter when picked up when Alex Smith was injured, but feel free to believe that hoarding all available QBs with a shot of seeing the field is in the spirit of competitive balance for a league in which the QB is the highest scoring position.

Did you have an opportunity to own Troy Smith?

[Keino]

Did you have an opportunity to own Troy Smith?

I freely admit that you beat me to the punch (Hooray for greater access), but that doesn't at all address the issue of hoarding players that will never see the light of day. I've been playing fantasy football for a long time, and I've never seen a league allow one owner to have 9 players of any one position. Ever.

[csquared]

Posting my .02...........

I have 5 QB's on my roster. I feel it would be very unfair for me to have to drop any of them. In my case I've had Brady and Cutler for a few seasons now (Since Ive joined the league really). DS dropped Garrard 2 seasons ago so i jumped on him(I needed a 3rd QB at the time). I then picked Vick up when he came back to the NFL(EVERYONE had a chance at him). Then this year i drafted Bradford. Why should i be required to drop any of these players? If you want one send me a trade. I need RB's.......

If we add a limit on Qb's there needs to be a limit on all positions. Also we can ditch the OP spot in the lineup.

[Biggie]

First, congrats to fent. Nice to have a new league champion for once.

Second, I'm totally on board with the QB max, although I would make it 4 if we're keeping the OP spot. Like csquared said, another way to reduce the need for so many QBs on each roster is to make one starting spot instead of two, which is basically what we have now. It would probably make more sense to ditch the OP spot or convert it to a RB/WR/TE position anyway, but I'd be fine with either option.

[akhhorus]

If we add a limit on Qb's there needs to be a limit on all positions. Also we can ditch the OP spot in the lineup.

THis is another option: convert the OP spot to a RB/WR spot and there's no need for any QB limit.

[csquared]

THis is another option: convert the OP spot to a RB/WR spot and there's no need for any QB limit.

Then we have people hoarding RB's and WR's. I say put a limit on all players.

[akhhorus]

Then we have people hoarding RB's and WR's. I say put a limit on all players.

We'll vote on all the options.

[fent]

If we add a limit on Qb's there needs to be a limit on all positions. Also we can ditch the OP spot in the lineup.

What? You don't like my 9 WRs? ;)

I'm fine with capping everything or ditching the OP spot. Without the potential for 2 slots, not much benefit to sitting on that many other than screwing other teams.

[csquared]

What? You don't like my 9 WRs? ;)

I'm fine with capping everything or ditching the OP spot. Without the potential for 2 slots, not much benefit to sitting on that many other than screwing other teams.

Hey I'm cool with it. Its others who are complaining about it. I figure everyone has had a shot at all the players we have picked up. Build your team how you want to. But if we limit QB's we better limit all the rest as well.

[bfauble83]

Ditching the OP spot seems like the best choice to me.

[danny's stogie]

If anyone thinks the number of QBs we have on our team or picking up Troy Smith is with the intention of screwing other teams then they're out of their mind. We dealt with injuries to Rodgers and the suckiness of our backup QB, Henne, all year long and we had just as much right as any other team in the league to try to fix these issues with our team. Ultimately our inability to make up for the loss of Rodgers prevented us from even winning a playoff game this year. This is also on the heals of us either dropping or trading away for nothing two good starting QBs last year in an attempt to help the expansion teams.

[danny's stogie]

"The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right." -Alex Hamilton

We shall vote upon it.

If anyone has any other ideas for changes/adjustments/how to screw their fellow managers, please contact me.

I would expect the commissioner to prevent issues from being voted upon that don't appear to have any benefits to the league that outweigh the many negatives and problems already outlined by those backing the issue.

[danny's stogie]

I freely admit that you beat me to the punch (Hooray for greater access), but that doesn't at all address the issue of hoarding players that will never see the light of day. I've been playing fantasy football for a long time, and I've never seen a league allow one owner to have 9 players of any one position. Ever.

We happened to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be online when the news broke. Frankly, I was surprised he was available since it was widely known that Singletary had been itching to bench Alex Smith for weeks. There's no more hoarding at QB than there is at any other position and missing out on a player doesn't justify trying to initiate a rule to single out a few teams and punish how they decide to run their team.

[Keino]

If anyone thinks the number of QBs we have on our team or picking up Troy Smith is with the intention of screwing other teams then they're out of their mind. We dealt with injuries to Rodgers and the suckiness of our backup QB, Henne, all year long and we had just as much right as any other team in the league to try to fix these issues with our team. Ultimately our inability to make up for the loss of Rodgers prevented us from even winning a playoff game this year. This is also on the heals of us either dropping or trading away for nothing two good starting QBs last year in an attempt to help the expansion teams.

This is BS. You were offered fair trades by one of those expansion teams for one of the players you dropped and then proceeded to drop the player weeks later. If you were interested in helping the expansion team in question you would have made the trades, whereby you receive compensation instead of putting the player up for grabs for the entire league without notice.

Neverthless, you still had Peyton Manning, so please spare us the "we had suckiness at the QB position". There is a difference between fixing your back-up QB issue and hoarding all available QBs. Again, everyone agrees that you didn't break any rules, so why be defensive about it? Nobody is saying you are the problem, they are saying that the rule is the problem.

As to the issue of Roster limits for all players, I wholeheartedly agree. There should be roster limits at every position which is the case in every league I have ever participated in.

[akhhorus]

I would expect the commissioner to prevent issues from being voted upon that don't appear to have any benefits to the league that outweigh the many negatives and problems already outlined by those backing the issue.

Which is why Fent's "200 point penalty for non-Texans" has never come to a vote.

[Keino]

We happened to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be online when the news broke. Frankly, I was surprised he was available since it was widely known that Singletary had been itching to bench Alex Smith for weeks. There's no more hoarding at QB than there is at any other position and missing out on a player doesn't justify trying to initiate a rule to single out a few teams and punish how they decide to run their team.

I agree, there should be limits on every single position. It was the first observation I made to the Commish when I entered the league. Again, I've stated why I think the rule should be changed, but if you want to characterize it as the reasons are simply that I missed out on a player, that is your choice. It wouldn't be the first time you were completely wrong.

[danny's stogie]

Here are my thoughts on why it’s a terrible idea to put in position limits and there are much better solutions to the inequality problems with our league. Even if we decide to put position limits on everything it can be a real pain in the arse to deal with since there's so much uncertainty from week-to-week about starters and injuries in the NFL. So here are the many reasons why I think doing this is unjustified:

1) There doesn't appear to be any correlation between the number of QBs on a roster and winning. Fent's team has 3 QBs, akh's has 3. The team with the best crew of QBs, C2's team, finished 6-7 this year. Carrying extra QBs is a tradeoff with not carrying extra RBs, WRs or IDPs.

2) Position caps create a whole host of problems and you guys have already sort of touched on them when talking about injuries. Well, you also have situations like Oakland where there's controversy over who starts. So you can easily end up in situations where you have multiple injuries, need to carry backups, want to carry a prospect, and then you don't have the room to pick up a fill-in without dropping someone of value. Inevitably, someone gets screwed in this arrangement and it's not always going to be the guy who wants to carry an extra QB or even an extra 7. It's most likely to hurt the teams without the unquestioned starters who don't get injured.

3) Putting a position cap would actually make it more difficult to protect yourself against injury. If you have Mike Vick for example and the cap prevents you from owning Kolb then when Vick goes down everyone in the league has opportunity to get Kolb. It's the same with a stud RB; when you lose Chris Johnson and you don't also own Javon Ringer that's your mistake and everyone in the league has a right to make that claim. This is an overreaction when there's a simple solution: handcuff your players.

Instead of putting in position caps, creating huge administrative headaches and doubly screwing the teams with injuries and uncertainty there are a few ways to make things more equitable: (a) make waiver claims go through on Thursday because it gives everyone even more of a chance to hear news about players and make their claims accordingly, (b) reduce the number of bench spots making it more costly to own multiple players at one position and deepen the free agent pool, and (c) reduce the number of keepers making it more costly to hold multiple players at one position.

[Keino]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there 4 IR Spots? Why on earth would you need to drop your player should he go down on an injury?

Isn't reducing the number of bench spots imposing a Roster Limit? Isn't reducing the number keepers imposing a roster limit?

Position caps are reasonable, just as all of the above proposals are reasonable, and do not create an administrative headache at all. Once input into the league settings, one would automatically be prevented from exceeding the limit. Just like you are automatically prevented from adding a player to a full roster.

[akhhorus]

I will be forming all thoughts into votable proposals and I'll post them on the league page on Saturday.

[csquared]

I will be forming all thoughts into votable proposals and I'll post them on the league page on Saturday.

Until then I need to go pick up a qb or 2.....

[danny's stogie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there 4 IR Spots? Why on earth would you need to drop your player should he go down on an injury?.

There were several times this season when we had more than four people out with injury. We had Grant, DeAngelo, Britt, out most of the year, some of our better IDPs out with injury (who we ended up dropping), and injuries at QB to both Henne and Rodgers at various points in time. If you've sustained a lot of injuries and don't want to cut one of those players on IR then you're either forced to keep injured players on your bench and make cuts at other positions or not add the replacement. Either way it's an unnecessary headache to deal with and puts at disadvantage anyone dealing with injuries or uncertainty.


Isn't reducing the number of bench spots imposing a Roster Limit? Isn't reducing the number keepers imposing a roster limit?

It is but it doesn't dictate how players manage their team.

Position caps are reasonable, just as all of the above proposals are reasonable, and do not create an administrative headache at all. Once input into the league settings, one would automatically be prevented from exceeding the limit. Just like you are automatically prevented from adding a player to a full roster.

But the other proposals don't generate as many problems and address the real issues with how to make the league more equitable.

This is BS. You were offered fair trades by one of those expansion teams for one of the players you dropped and then proceeded to drop the player weeks later. If you were interested in helping the expansion team in question you would have made the trades, whereby you receive compensation instead of putting the player up for grabs for the entire league without notice.

No it's not BS. I didn't like the trade offers you made, they didn't help my team out at all. Don't belittle the fact that I tried to help you guys out and in the end I decided to give them to you guys without asking for anything in return. When I dropped Garrard you were high in the waiver wire order and you let him pass by to an established team. I did my part, the rest is out of my hands. To prevent that from happening again I traded away Warner for a bag of balls.

Neverthless, you still had Peyton Manning, so please spare us the "we had suckiness at the QB position". There is a difference between fixing your back-up QB issue and hoarding all available QBs. Again, everyone agrees that you didn't break any rules, so why be defensive about it? Nobody is saying you are the problem, they are saying that the rule is the problem.

I'm defensive about it because its unclear whether this issue is up for discussion because it'll actually help the league or if it's a convenient scapegoat for teams that either neglected to draft a QB or are admittedly pissed off about missing out on a player. Why bother to take care of our own team when we can lobby to have the rules changed instead? And why wouldn't I be defensive when half the posts trying to make a case for the change reference how we've structure our team, who we've picked up off of waivers, and the initial spirit of the lobbying -- just a limit on QBs -- was to put in place a rule that would have adversely affected mine and one other team above all?

I agree, there should be limits on every single position. It was the first observation I made to the Commish when I entered the league. Again, I've stated why I think the rule should be changed, but if you want to characterize it as the reasons are simply that I missed out on a player, that is your choice. It wouldn't be the first time you were completely wrong.

You haven't offered any other evidence as to why putting in position caps is actually of benefit to the league so as far as I can tell there isn't any other reason for backing it.

[Keino]

There were several times this season when we had more than four people out with injury. We had Grant, DeAngelo, Britt, out most of the year, some of our better IDPs out with injury (who we ended up dropping), and injuries at QB to both Henne and Rodgers at various points in time. If you've sustained a lot of injuries and don't want to cut one of those players on IR then you're either forced to keep injured players on your bench and make cuts at other positions or not add the replacement. Either way it's an unnecessary headache to deal with and puts at disadvantage anyone dealing with injuries or uncertainty.

So how does reducing the number of Bench positions available help you in this issue?

It is but it doesn't dictate how players manage their team.

Every rule you propose would dictate how someone manages their team, from who they keep to the number of players that would be on their bench. Roster limits are another mechanism to ensure competitive balance and do not unfairly punish anyone, as everyone would be subject to the same rules. Just as reducing the number of keepers and bench spots.



But the other proposals don't generate as many problems and address the real issues with how to make the league more equitable.

See Above




No it's not BS. I didn't like the trade offers you made, they didn't help my team out at all. Don't belittle the fact that I tried to help you guys out and in the end I decided to give them to you guys without asking for anything in return. When I dropped Garrard you were high in the waiver wire order and you let him pass by to an established team. I did my part, the rest is out of my hands. To prevent that from happening again I traded away Warner for a bag of balls.

It is BS, and nobody asked you for charity. I don't see how offering you the (at the time) the NFL leading TE in receptions was not offering you something in return for a player who wasn't getting off your bench anyway.



I'm defensive about it because its unclear whether this issue is up for discussion because it'll actually help the league or if it's a convenient scapegoat for teams that either neglected to draft a QB or are admittedly pissed off about missing out on a player. Why bother to take care of our own team when we can lobby to have the rules changed instead? And why wouldn't I be defensive when half the posts trying to make a case for the change reference how we've structure our team, who we've picked up off of waivers, and the initial spirit of the lobbying -- just a limit on QBs -- was to put in place a rule that would have adversely affected mine and one other team above all?

Once again, every single rule you have proposed above affects how one would manage their rosters. Furthermore, the initial spirit of lobbying was for ALL positions and not just the QB, and AKH can confirm that to be factual, as this lobbying took place upon my entrance into the league, so you are wrong yet again.



You haven't offered any other evidence as to why putting in position caps is actually of benefit to the league so as far as I can tell there isn't any other reason for backing it.


I most certainly have, you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your narrative.

[danny's stogie]

So how does reducing the number of Bench positions available help you in this issue?

Every rule you propose would dictate how someone manages their team, from who they keep to the number of players that would be on their bench. Roster limits are another mechanism to ensure competitive balance and do not unfairly punish anyone, as everyone would be subject to the same rules. Just as reducing the number of keepers and bench spots.

By your logic any cap on how many players you own is restrictive, even the current 15 bench spots. Reducing the number of bench spots doesn't dictate who you own, only how many you own. Position caps restrict your maneuverability, and limit your ability to protect against injury and try to sure up weaknesses in your roster in a manner that's excessive and that unequally punishes those that have weaknesses or injuries at a certain position. If there aren't position limits and we just reduce the bench size then if you're weak at RB and strong at WR you can still drop a WR and pick up another RB. If we have a cap then you have to keep the WR and the only way to pick up another RB is to drop one. Furthermore, there's absolutely no way to institute a position cap right now that isn't going to screw over some teams more than others.

It helps the league because it increases the free agent pool, makes it more costly to own multiple players at one position, while at the same time it doesn't screw over some teams more than others.

It is BS, and nobody asked you for charity. I don't see how offering you the (at the time) the NFL leading TE in receptions was not offering you something in return for a player who wasn't getting off your bench anyway.

Fine, you're too good to ask for charity, you'd rather just have the rules changed to meet your needs.

I get to make the decision about what helps my team, not you. Daniels wasn't as good as my WRs at the time and he wouldn't have cracked my starting roster, while I'd used Garrard several times. I made this clear to you at the time and suggested what would work to help me out and get you a QB.

Once again, every single rule you have proposed above affects how one would manage their rosters. Furthermore, the initial spirit of lobbying was for ALL positions and not just the QB, and AKH can confirm that to be factual, as this lobbying took place upon my entrance into the league, so you are wrong yet again.

Sorry, but these two initial posts make no mention of any position besides QB and it's not until C2's posts that anything about capping other positions was mentioned. Don't tell me I'm wrong and expect me to be keeping tabs on your conversations with akh.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1365116&postcount=775

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1365122&postcount=777

I most certainly have, you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your narrative.

No, you haven't. Explain how hoarding players at a position hurts the league when everyone has had equal access to those players. What hurts the league is trying to institute rules that punishes teams for picking up who they want.

[Keino]

By your logic any cap on how many players you own is restrictive, even the current 15 bench spots. Reducing the number of bench spots doesn't dictate who you own, only how many you own. Position caps restrict your maneuverability, and limit your ability to protect against injury and try to sure up weaknesses in your roster in a manner that's excessive and that unequally punishes those that have weaknesses or injuries at a certain position. If there aren't position limits and we just reduce the bench size then if you're weak at RB and strong at WR you can still drop a WR and pick up another RB. If we have a cap then you have to keep the WR and the only way to pick up another RB is to drop one. Furthermore, there's absolutely no way to institute a position cap right now that isn't going to screw over some teams more than others.

It helps the league because it increases the free agent pool, makes it more costly to own multiple players at one position, while at the same time it doesn't screw over some teams more than others.

And roster limits create the exact same increase in the free agent pool. You are proposing a lemon while I am proposing a lime and you are trying to argue that only one of us is proposing citrus fruits. The emboldended section is the only legitimate gripe you can possibly have, and yet your proposals would ALSO restrict who could be kept and how many players could be kept.

If the size of the bench is reduced, you will have to drop players. If the number of keepers is reduced, you will have to drop players you would have otherwise kept. If you can have no more than 4 QBs/5RBs/7WRs/3TE etcs, everyone will have to drop players. If we get rid of the OP spot, your hoarding of QBs will have less value. All of these proposals will change the way you manage your roster as a function of the rule.

Fine, you're too good to ask for charity, you'd rather just have the rules changed to meet your needs.

No I am proposing a rule change in the interest of fairness and equity, and one that is pretty standard in every fantasy football league I have ever been a part of.

The rule changes you are proposing would (Reducing the number of Keepers for example) would also dictate to you what you could and couldn't keep. Keep continuing to ignore that fact.

I get to make the decision about what helps my team, not you. Daniels wasn't as good as my WRs at the time and he wouldn't have cracked my starting roster, while I'd used Garrard several times. I made this clear to you at the time and suggested what would work to help me out and get you a QB.

You didn't use Garrard, which is why you dumped him. But feel free to continue to revise history to fit your narrative. Everyone is ganging up on DS. And your counter-offer was a joke. There is a reason you apologized for the action......only you know what that reason was.



Sorry, but these two initial posts make no mention of any position besides QB and it's not until C2's posts that anything about capping other positions was mentioned. Don't tell me I'm wrong and expect me to be keeping tabs on your conversations with akh.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1365116&postcount=775

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1365122&postcount=777


Have you seen the league page on Facebook? Who is asking you to keep tabs on convos I have off the board with the commish? He can certainly confirm what I say to be true. He won't because he doesn't want to get in the middle of this, but when he asked me to take over the team it was the very first issue I raised. You can believe that or not. IDGAF.



No, you haven't. Explain how hoarding players at a position hurts the league when everyone has had equal access to those players. What hurts the league is trying to institute rules that punishes teams for picking up who they want.

That's just it, we don't have equal access. But more to the point are equity and competitive balance not "league integrity" issues?

[CarMike]

I'm totally against the OP doing away with. I just made a trade so that I could have two capable starters at the QB position for next year. And I traded away one of the best RBs in fantasy football to do so. [Chris Johnson]

[akhhorus]

I'm totally against the OP doing away with. I just made a trade so that I could have two capable starters at the QB position for next year. And I traded away one of the best RBs in fantasy football to do so. [Chris Johnson]

Well...in a strict semantic sense, you haven't "made" that trade yet lol.

[CarMike]

Well...in a strict semantic sense, you haven't "made" that trade yet lol.

Excellent point and one I thought of as I hit "Submit Reply". lmao

However, I'd hate to screw over fent.

I like the OP position personally. Perhaps scale back the QB points a little to make people want to use all three positions?

In the end not everyone will be happy. lol

[CNYSkinFan]

its quite simple, i would hazard tog uess most people want the qb max, wheteher it is at 3 or 4 can be debated. However ds is the only one carping and he is the biggest abuser of the current system. It simply is not fair with so many dp ers that once your starters get by their bye weeks you cna start dumping defensive players to hoarde qbs. the reason we dont need it for other positions is that backup nrbs and wrs stilll get points, bacup qbs do not. With 12 teams and 2 starting spots for qbs potentiatlly several teams start without a bye backup,,,that is fine with me but if you allow one team to horde the qb position it makes the problem that much worse. Time to level the field. I think limits on the qb only is a good first step to that.

[csquared]

It has to be all or none. That's the only fair way with limits. Some of the same people all for the qb limits would be effected by limits at other skill positions. So of course they don't want the other limits. If there is a limit that OP spot has to go. Sorry Mike

[CNYSkinFan]

It has to be all or none. That's the only fair way with limits. Some of the same people all for the qb limits would be effected by limits at other skill positions. So of course they don't want the other limits. If there is a limit that OP spot has to go. Sorry Mike
i don't see why. The limite is on a position that is unlike any other position in football. Tieing them together is arbitrary. Only one qb will score points in any nfl game, unlike any other position. If you limit 4 qbs, thne the limit on wrs would have to be 12 since there are three strating spots for wr and the same for rb. I have no problem with putting limits on those positions but I don't see alot of abuse in that position and the high limit of 12 would be ineffectual

[fent]

I would also suggest we change the scoring on the QBs to make them come back to earth a little bit. Passing yardage gets the same award as rushing and receiving. If we pulled it back to a point every 20 yards rather than every 10, then the QBs wouldn't be the beginning and end of your team.

[danny's stogie]

And roster limits create the exact same increase in the free agent pool. You are proposing a lemon while I am proposing a lime and you are trying to argue that only one of us is proposing citrus fruits. The emboldended section is the only legitimate gripe you can possibly have, and yet your proposals would ALSO restrict who could be kept and how many players could be kept.

If the size of the bench is reduced, you will have to drop players. If the number of keepers is reduced, you will have to drop players you would have otherwise kept. If you can have no more than 4 QBs/5RBs/7WRs/3TE etcs, everyone will have to drop players. If we get rid of the OP spot, your hoarding of QBs will have less value. All of these proposals will change the way you manage your roster as a function of the rule.

There's a huge difference between restrictions on who you keep and have on your bench and how many you keep and have on your bench. The former screws some teams more than others and legislates how they structure their roster, while the latter effects all teams equally.

No I am proposing a rule change in the interest of fairness and equity, and one that is pretty standard in every fantasy football league I have ever been a part of.

The rule changes you are proposing would (Reducing the number of Keepers for example) would also dictate to you what you could and couldn't keep. Keep continuing to ignore that fact.

Saying, "it's been a part of every league I've been in" isn't a rationale, it's a comparison, (kickers have been a part of every league I've been in but it doesn't mean they enhance the game) and it doesn't make it a good rule to institute going into the 5th year of a league. Nobody appeared to have a problem with not having a position cap until they looked at their roster and realized they didn't draft or grab the QB they should have. If the number of QBs I or anyone else has on their roster was really a detriment to other teams than those teams should have drafted, traded, or grabbed a QB when they had the opportunity, and yes, everyone has had the opportunity.

You didn't use Garrard, which is why you dumped him. But feel free to continue to revise history to fit your narrative. Everyone is ganging up on DS. And your counter-offer was a joke. There is a reason you apologized for the action......only you know what that reason was.

Wrong, I was playing Garrard:

http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/boxscorequick?leagueId=56955&teamId=9&scoringPeriodId=4&seasonId=2009&view=scoringperiod&version=quick

http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/boxscorequick?leagueId=56955&teamId=9&scoringPeriodId=5&seasonId=2009&view=scoringperiod&version=quick

From my gmail to yours without any editing: "I have Boldin in another league and I'm getting pretty frustrated with him, he also got banged up again yesterday, so I'm not keen on trading for him. How about Warner, Berrian, and Morgan for Marshall and some junk? This should help restock your team a good deal."

This is after Warner was coming off of an MVP-caliber season and finished second in scoring in our league, Berrian was coming off of a top-20 year and was getting drafted in the top 20s of WRs even in leagues that don't count return yardage, and Morgan was a popular sleeper at the beginning of last year. Should I have thrown in Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant too? On top of that, you didn't even counter-offer when I would have happily worked with you to get you the players you wanted.

Have you seen the league page on Facebook?

No, I haven't. I was told you pitched a fit on facebook when I picked up Troy Smith, but I didn't think much of it until now.

Who is asking you to keep tabs on convos I have off the board with the commish? He can certainly confirm what I say to be true. He won't because he doesn't want to get in the middle of this, but when he asked me to take over the team it was the very first issue I raised. You can believe that or not. IDGAF.

How can you expect me to know that you really in fact want limits on all positions when nobody said anything about it in this thread until C^2?

That's just it, we don't have equal access. But more to the point are equity and competitive balance not "league integrity" issues?

I'm all on board with trying to level the field, but first it's not clear to me that a position cap that forces me to drop Matt Flynn, Max Hall, and Rex Grossman is really going to do anything to help. What I proposed on the other hand addresses the heart of the issue of access without trying to screw over teams.

[danny's stogie]

Commish: I'm not a fan of all of these proposals. I think we'd be better served if you interjected, picked out the best ideas, and if you condensed the ideas down to two one or two proposals.

[danny's stogie]

I'm totally against the OP doing away with. I just made a trade so that I could have two capable starters at the QB position for next year. And I traded away one of the best RBs in fantasy football to do so. [Chris Johnson]

We've had the OP spot since the inception of the league. We might as well start a whole new league if we're going to drop it.

[CarMike]

We've had the OP spot since the inception of the league. We might as well start a whole new league if we're going to drop it.

agreed. Why can't we do the simple thing? Put a player limit on all positions. And change the QB scoring to match the RB / WR scoring so you don't HAVE to start 2 QBs. Make it where people would want to start a QB / RB / WR.

Do that and we're set to go.

[danny's stogie]

its quite simple, i would hazard tog uess most people want the qb max, wheteher it is at 3 or 4 can be debated. However ds is the only one carping and he is the biggest abuser of the current system. It simply is not fair with so many dp ers that once your starters get by their bye weeks you cna start dumping defensive players to hoarde qbs. the reason we dont need it for other positions is that backup nrbs and wrs stilll get points, bacup qbs do not. With 12 teams and 2 starting spots for qbs potentiatlly several teams start without a bye backup,,,that is fine with me but if you allow one team to horde the qb position it makes the problem that much worse. Time to level the field. I think limits on the qb only is a good first step to that.

This isn't very well thought out. With 12 teams it's impossible for all teams to have a QB for bye weeks and this legislation isn't going to change that at all. If anything the teams with less stability at QB are hurt because they won't be able to draft prospects and keep backups.

If there's a problem with me picking up Max Hall, Matt Flynn, Rex Grossman, John Skelton, Troy Smith, and Tebow then why didn't anyone else try to grab them first? Nobody put in claims on them. Grossman was on the waiver wire for two full weeks after he was given the starting job. Tebow was a 15th round pick of mine -- all teams passed on the opportunity to own him multiple times. Bradford was the 8th pick in the draft to C^2 so what am I supposed to think when the teams that want to legislate that teams can't own who they want are the same ones that passed on the opportunity to ameliorate their own situation?

[danny's stogie]

agreed. Why can't we do the simple thing? Put a player limit on all positions. And change the QB scoring to match the RB / WR scoring so you don't HAVE to start 2 QBs. Make it where people would want to start a QB / RB / WR.

Do that and we're set to go.

There isn't that great a gap in the scoring. The top ten or so QBs beat out all but Arian Foster this year and it wasn't by that much per game. After that, the mid-tier QBs are mixed right in with a lot of WRs and RBs. I think the changes made in years past have done a really good job of fixing the issue and there's really clear evidence of this in the fact that the teams with the best QB duos didn't win this year.

[fent]

There isn't that great a gap in the scoring. The top ten or so QBs beat out all but Arian Foster this year and it wasn't by that much per game. After that, the mid-tier QBs are mixed right in with a lot of WRs and RBs. I think the changes made in years past have done a really good job of fixing the issue and there's really clear evidence of this in the fact that the teams with the best QB duos didn't win this year.

As a guy that benefitted for the last several seasons from 2 top-flight QBs, it's not that the number of QBs at the top of the board is all that bad compared to other leagues, it's that the top 14 QBs (15 if Ben had kept his pants on) scored 400+ points this season with the top at 520. Contrast that with the other skill positions who have one guy in the top 10 at 473 points, then every other player 100 points behind him. The number 2 RB/WR is 20 points behind the 14 QB and several of those QBs didn't play every game through week 16 (Orton, Rodgers, Vick, Cassel). Trying to argue that the league isn't VERY weighted to QBs is like trying to argue the moon is made of cheese.

[Keino]

There's a huge difference between restrictions on who you keep and have on your bench and how many you keep and have on your bench. The former screws some teams more than others and legislates how they structure their roster, while the latter effects all teams equally.

The latter also legislates how people structure their roster.



Saying, "it's been a part of every league I've been in" isn't a rationale, it's a comparison, (kickers have been a part of every league I've been in but it doesn't mean they enhance the game) and it doesn't make it a good rule to institute going into the 5th year of a league. Nobody appeared to have a problem with not having a position cap until they looked at their roster and realized they didn't draft or grab the QB they should have. If the number of QBs I or anyone else has on their roster was really a detriment to other teams than those teams should have drafted, traded, or grabbed a QB when they had the opportunity, and yes, everyone has had the opportunity.

Only that isn't all I've said, that fact only buttresses the point about equity and fairness.



No, I haven't. I was told you pitched a fit on facebook when I picked up Troy Smith, but I didn't think much of it until now.

Only reiterated the position I took when I first entered the league.




How can you expect me to know that you really in fact want limits on all positions when nobody said anything about it in this thread until C^2?

Because I've said so, more than once now. C-Squared was absolutely correct.



I'm all on board with trying to level the field, but first it's not clear to me that a position cap that forces me to drop Matt Flynn, Max Hall, and Rex Grossman is really going to do anything to help. What I proposed on the other hand addresses the heart of the issue of access without trying to screw over teams.

And if the number of keepers are reduced, as you have proposed, you will have to drop those players anyway. If the number of bench players is reduced, you will have to drop those players anyway. If there is a position cap on all positions, every single team will be affected. Let's stop acting like people are trying to make you drop your best players. The rationale for the rule is pretty simple...everyone does not have equal access, and therefore limiting the number of players any one team can have at a given position ensures that people can fill rosters with live warm bodies come gameday, thereby increasing competitive balance in the league. The talent rich would still be the talent rich.

I've pointed out that in other leagues this is done. Why, Because nobody thinks it is a good thing for the league if teams can, for example pick up 6 Kickers the week their opponent for the week has his kicker go on bye week, thereby preventing that player from fielding a live body in a position.

[danny's stogie]

As a guy that benefitted for the last several seasons from 2 top-flight QBs, it's not that the number of QBs at the top of the board is all that bad, it's that the top 14 QBs (15 if Ben had kept his pants on) scored 400+ points this season with the top at 520. Contrast that with the other skill positions who have one guy in the top 10 at 473 points, then every other player 100 points behind him. The number 2 RB/WR is 20 points behind the 14 QB and several of those QBs didn't play every game through week 16 (Orton, Rodgers, Vick, Cassel). Trying to argue that the league isn't VERY weighted to QBs is like trying to argue the moon is made of cheese.

I certainly can't argue that it's not a nice advantage to have a top tier set of QBs, but you can definitely agree that it's not nearly as bad as it once was. It's definitely not something that's too difficult to overcome when the per-game scoring difference between QBs and WR/RBs isn't greater than 5 to 10 points at most and the average team scores about 270 points per game. That's not a big enough gap for to me think it's worth altering the structure of the scoring.

[fent]

I certainly can't argue that it's not a nice advantage to have a top tier set of QBs, but you can definitely agree that it's not nearly as bad as it once was. It's definitely not something that's too difficult to overcome when the per-game scoring difference between QBs and WR/RBs isn't greater than 5 to 10 points at most and the average team scores about 270 points per game. That's not a big enough gap for to me think it's worth altering the structure of the scoring.

Not as bad as it once was isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for sitting with the status quo.

And 5-10 points? The number 7 QB who missed over 3.5 games (Vick) averaged 32.8 over the first 16 weeks, but 40.95 points for the games he actually played, including the 3ish drives he survived in the first game against the Skins. Contrast that to the number 1 RB at 31.5 points across the 16 games isn't as bad if you ignore the 3+ games Vick missed, but then compare him to the number 2 RB/WR who averaged 25.6. Even taking Vick's skewed numbers, that's 7 points from the number 7 QB to the number 2 RB/WR. Evaluate a true per game scoring basis and you're talking 15 points per game difference. Vick's an extreme example, but the fact stands that the elite QBs push the balance of power significantly toward QB teams. To use a less extreme example, who here would have thought that playing McNabb in the OP would be a better option than Chris Johnson? Even with only taking snaps in 14 of the 16 games used to establish his average, McNabb's per game scoring is still a point higher than Johnson's.

[csquared]

Well looks like i have some QB's avail. Im looking for Rb's or WR. ALL Qb's are avail.



Edit: Im not happy about limiting qb's either. Like DS said you guys had plenty of chances of getting the players i have.

[danny's stogie]

Not as bad as it once was isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for sitting with the status quo.

And 5-10 points? The number 7 QB who missed over 3.5 games (Vick) averaged 32.8 over the first 16 weeks, but 40.95 points for the games he actually played, including the 3ish drives he survived in the first game against the Skins. Contrast that to the number 1 RB at 31.5 points across the 16 games isn't as bad if you ignore the 3+ games Vick missed, but then compare him to the number 2 RB/WR who averaged 25.6. Even taking Vick's skewed numbers, that's 7 points from the number 7 QB to the number 2 RB/WR. Evaluate a true per game scoring basis and you're talking 15 points per game difference. Vick's an extreme example, but the fact stands that the elite QBs push the balance of power significantly toward QB teams. To use a less extreme example, who here would have thought that playing McNabb in the OP would be a better option than Chris Johnson? Even with only taking snaps in 14 of the 16 games used to establish his average, McNabb's per game scoring is still a point higher than Johnson's.

Looking at this without the extreme examples and dropping the top 5 at both positions. QBs 5-25 scored an average of 25.55 per/game and RB/WRs 5-25 scored 22.14. Just looking at 5-20 gives QBs an average of 27.14 and RB/WRs 22.64.

The 10 at most part refers to the top handful of QBs over the field.

[danny's stogie]

Well looks like i have some QB's avail. Im looking for Rb's or WR. ALL Qb's are avail.



Edit: Im not happy about limiting qb's either. Like DS said you guys had plenty of chances of getting the players i have.

I'd be in favor of you getting the first pick in the draft if this stuff passes considering how badly your team is going to get bent over.

[fent]

Looking at this without the extreme examples and dropping the top 5 at both positions. QBs 5-25 scored an average of 25.55 per/game and RB/WRs 5-25 scored 22.14. Just looking at 5-20 gives QBs an average of 27.14 and RB/WRs 22.64.

Does this evaluation take into account Ben's suspension or Vick/Orton/etc's missed games or just take their total points divided by the 16 games played so far?


edit: in the 5 to 25 QBs, there are 27 games where no points were accumulated bringing that average down. contrast that with the 5 to 25 RB/WRs and 10 games missed.

[danny's stogie]

Does this evaluation take into account Ben's suspension or Vick/Orton/etc's missed games or just take their total points divided by the 16 games played so far?

I don't take into account the injuries or suspensions, but if you do that you also have to consider those to Harvin, McFadden, MJD, CJ, Nicks, TO, and Andre Johnson. I'm not going to take the time to verify, but I'd be surprised if the effects didn't wash out.

And I'm just going by the column "AVG" given here http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/freeagency?leagueId=56955&teamId=9#&slotCategoryId=3&avail=-1

[fent]

I don't take into account the injuries or suspensions, but if you do that you also have to consider those to Harvin, McFadden, MJD, CJ, Nicks, TO, and Andre Johnson. I'm not going to take the time to verify, but I'd be surprised if the effects didn't wash out.

And I'm just going by the column "AVG" given here http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/freeagency?leagueId=56955&teamId=9#&slotCategoryId=3&avail=-1

see my edit to the last post. 27 missed games for the 5-25 QBs and only 10 for the 5-25 RB/WR. That's a pretty significant difference. 8.4% possible games missed for QBs vs 3.1% for the RB/WR set.

[danny's stogie]

see my edit to the last post. 27 missed games for the 5-25 QBs and only 10 for the 5-25 RB/WR. That's a pretty significant difference. 8.4% possible games missed for QBs vs 3.1% for the RB/WR set.

Good catch, so if you add 8.4% and 3.1% you can adjust scores to 27.7 and 22.8 respectively, but that's if you assume that the play of the backup is on par with that of the starter. Not assuming that would dampen the effect somewhat.

[akhhorus]

Looking for a new owner to take over a team on the rebound. PM me if interested.

[wave6ten]

Akh ...I'm interested

[danny's stogie]

Looking for a new owner to take over a team on the rebound. PM me if interested.

I could take the crappy team and let Bateman run mine.

[akhhorus]

I could take the crappy team and let Bateman run mine.

I've already invited Wave6ten in. If you find someone else wanting to bolt or someone else pms me, its all yours.

[CarMike]

akh, can I be nosy and ask who dropped out? :)

[akhhorus]

akh, can I be nosy and ask who dropped out? :)

You did.

[wave6ten]

Akh,

Thanks for the invite. I hope to bask in mediocrity for years to come.

[wave6ten]

I know I'm the new guy and all...but I am trying to get acclimated to the league and its nuances. When I was going through the scoring...am I understanding that receivers get 1 pt for being targeted? Or is this 1ppr?

Just kinda seemed weird...that would be the same as a QB getting a point per attempt.

[akhhorus]

I know I'm the new guy and all...but I am trying to get acclimated to the league and its nuances. When I was going through the scoring...am I understanding that receivers get 1 pt for being targeted? Or is this 1ppr?

Just kinda seemed weird...that would be the same as a QB getting a point per attempt.

Yes, but they don't get points for receptions. RBs get points per rush.

[CNYSkinFan]

I am looking for qb/Rb or draft picks for my wrs. I am keeping them all but would be willing to give up one or even two of them in a package for a qb or RB and a pick depening on talent.

I have Santana Moss, reggie Wayne, Braylon edwards, and Santonio Holmes.


Also I am thinking of renaming my team now that Palmer is retiring...maybe I will make it a contest

[Keino]

Keepers need to be set by the 10th, correct?

I know C-Squared and I were talking trade but wanted to wait on the CBA. I will have to dig through those emails and get those talks going again.

[akhhorus]

Keepers need to be set by the 10th, correct?

I know C-Squared and I were talking trade but wanted to wait on the CBA. I will have to dig through those emails and get those talks going again.

はい

[csquared]

I have Qb's available. I want rb's. The Qb you want will match talent with a RB you offer. For example.... You want Vick or Brady you better come with a top 5 Rb. Also I'm keeping all my Qb's. So no you won't be able to wait to draft them lol. Send me an email through the league if interested, as I no longer check this very often.

[CNYSkinFan]

isn't there a qb limitrate now? did that get passed? just asking

[akhhorus]

isn't there a qb limitrate now? did that get passed? just asking

Nope to both questions.

[CNYSkinFan]

Nope to both questions.
booooooooo

[csquared]

booooooooo

Don't hate...... lol

[danny's stogie]

If anyone wants to stock up their team with mediocre offensive players before the keeper deadline, I'd deal my crew of Tebow, Henne, Knox, DeAngelo, Grossman, Smith, etc., etc., etc. for one very good to great player or a high draft pick.

[Keino]

I had a brain fart and need the league's help to rectify it:

Prior to the keeper deadline, I traded Brandon Marshall for Jay Cutler. My intention was to keep him.

While waiting for the transaction to process, I completely forgot to go back in and make Cutler my Keeper. Obviously if I traded a Keeper quality player for him, my intent was to keep him.

I am asking for the league to allow the Commish to place Cutler back on my roster and cut Kerry Collins. That was my intent in making the trade.

Thanks.

[CarMike]

I had a brain fart and need the league's help to rectify it:

Prior to the keeper deadline, I traded Brandon Marshall for Jay Cutler. My intention was to keep him.

While waiting for the transaction to process, I completely forgot to go back in and make Cutler my Keeper. Obviously if I traded a Keeper quality player for him, my intent was to keep him.

I am asking for the league to allow the Commish to place Cutler back on my roster and cut Kerry Collins. That was my intent in making the trade.

Thanks.

Cool with me.

[CNYSkinFan]

all for it but i think you should have to select Doughty as well

[flave1969]

If a spot ever comes free please bear me in mind.

[akhhorus]

all for it but i think you should have to select Doughty as well

Yes. I'm invoking commish's principle and saying that you have to have doughty on your roster for the whole season lol.

If a spot ever comes free please bear me in mind.

Will do. I might have an opening in another league, but I'll keep you in mind.

[Keino]

I can agree with having to draft Doughty. I am sure he will be there in the last round. I cannot agree with keeping him on my roster for the whole year.

[akhhorus]

I can agree with having to draft Doughty. I am sure he will be there in the last round. I cannot agree with keeping him on my roster for the whole year.

No, you wouldn't have draft him. You would have to pick him up after the draft and keep him on your roster for the whole season.

[flave1969]

Yes. I'm invoking commish's principle and saying that you have to have doughty on your roster for the whole season lol.



Will do. I might have an opening in another league, but I'll keep you in mind.

Thanks open to all leagues.

[fent]

Another issue to consider...locking the waiver wire once the previous season ends. I noticed when looking at the league today that a player was picked up from the wire and kept by that team rather than being available to all on draft day. At least to me, this seems to be contrary to the point of having a draft. I think we need to give serious consideration to requiring all keepers to have been on a (as in any) team's roster at the end of the previous season. The draft pool is already shallow as it is with so many players being kept from season to season. Allowing teams to go in and cherry pick players whose situation has changed thanks to free agency dilutes the pool even more. I guess I'd assumed this was a fundamental rule to a keeper/dynasty league.

[CarMike]

Another issue to consider...locking the waiver wire once the previous season ends. I noticed when looking at the league today that a player was picked up from the wire and kept by that team rather than being available to all on draft day. At least to me, this seems to be contrary to the point of having a draft. I think we need to give serious consideration to requiring all keepers to have been on a (as in any) team's roster at the end of the previous season. The draft pool is already shallow as it is with so many players being kept from season to season. Allowing teams to go in and cherry pick players whose situation has changed thanks to free agency dilutes the pool even more. I guess I'd assumed this was a fundamental rule to a keeper/dynasty league.

I'm pretty sure fent is talking about me picking up Plaxico. He was there so I took him. :)

[CNYSkinFan]

I can agree with having to draft Doughty. I am sure he will be there in the last round. I cannot agree with keeping him on my roster for the whole year.
any more guff and you have to start him every week! Don't worrry he is a sure tackler and will get you lots of points

[Keino]

Another issue to consider...locking the waiver wire once the previous season ends. I noticed when looking at the league today that a player was picked up from the wire and kept by that team rather than being available to all on draft day. At least to me, this seems to be contrary to the point of having a draft. I think we need to give serious consideration to requiring all keepers to have been on a (as in any) team's roster at the end of the previous season. The draft pool is already shallow as it is with so many players being kept from season to season. Allowing teams to go in and cherry pick players whose situation has changed thanks to free agency dilutes the pool even more. I guess I'd assumed this was a fundamental rule to a keeper/dynasty league.

I agree with this. A Dynasty league, I can see it, but in a Keeper league, the only transactions that should occur are trades between teams.

[akhhorus]

I'm pretty sure fent is talking about me picking up Plaxico. He was there so I took him. :)

No, he's not.

Obviously we can't make any changes for this season, but we shall vote on this issue.

[Keino]

Anyone in need of a TE? It's a position of pretty much no value in this league because you don't have to start one, but I seemed to have cornered the market on TEs (my fault).

You can have one for cheap. I am pretty much looking for WR/CB/S in return. You can have an upper tiered TE for a mid-level player at one of those positions.

Make an offer, chances are I'll accept it.

PS. I am open to trading Gates, but he is actually going to cost you more than Gonzo, or Winslow or any of the other 30 TEs on my roster.

[CNYSkinFan]

i have a glut at wr, anyone looking to trade a promising rb for a top flight wr we can talk....


and oh yeah, Kerry Collins bitches

[CarMike]

i have a glut at wr, anyone looking to trade a promising rb for a top flight wr we can talk....


and oh yeah, Kerry Collins bitches

LMAO

[CNYSkinFan]

LMAO
thank god i sat newton for collins...yeah i wont be making that mistake again

[CarMike]

thank god i sat newton for collins...yeah i wont be making that mistake again

LOL, if not for the first few plays, Collins played well the rest of the game. No PM of course. But not bad.

[CNYSkinFan]

LOL, if not for the first few plays, Collins played well the rest of the game. No PM of course. But not bad.
i lost by 1.5 points...I did not get a chance to sit tuck as it was a late game and i would have played Kerrigan (22 points) could not get to my computer in time, and oh yeah kerry collins 12 points, cam newton 51

fmfl (the extra f is for fantasy)

[CarMike]

I highly doubt any one started Scam Newton. Don't beat yourself up over that one. If I had him on one of my teams, I wouldn't have played him neither.

i lost by 1.5 points...I did not get a chance to sit tuck as it was a late game and i would have played Kerrigan (22 points) could not get to my computer in time, and oh yeah kerry collins 12 points, cam newton 51

fmfl (the extra f is for fantasy)

[CNYSkinFan]

The Manlove is back!!!

Carson Palmer bitches!!!!!

[CarMike]

Were you waiting for him to make his return or were you able to pick him up yesterday? Either way, congrats. He may pay dividends next year.

The Manlove is back!!!

Carson Palmer bitches!!!!!

[CNYSkinFan]

Were you waiting for him to make his return or were you able to pick him up yesterday? Either way, congrats. He may pay dividends next year.
i did not keep him on my keepers but as soon as the draft ended and waivers cleared for the first time I picked him up in week 1 and stashed him on IR as he had an O status

With Newton, Freeman, and now "hopefully" Palmer back producing I can concentrate on RB next year. I also have Matt Flynn and think he is going to actually be traded next year (maybe to us) and be next year's Kevin Kolb/Matt Cassell (wiht better results. Right now my rb trio is stewart, Bush, and Graham....pretty damn crappy. However I am stacked at WR/TE so if I can cocentrate on it I think I can make a run. That and if Blount and Williams both get arrested in Mexico.

[akhhorus]

playoff picture:
Current standings:
#1 Bfauble(9-1)
#2 Biggie(6-4)
#3 Fent(6-4)
#4 Csquared(6-4)
#5 DS(5-5)
#6 CNY(5-5)
_____(cut line)
#7 wave6ten(tied at 5-5)
#8 Carmike(tied at 5-5)
#9 Akh(1 game back)
#10 NCskinsfanatic(1 game back)
#11 Keino(2 games back)
#12 Rube(3 games back)

[CNYSkinFan]

how i have stayed alive i don't know. i started the year in my customary 0-4 position like my team is coached by Norv turner.

I actually have some qbs with Newton, Freeman, and Palmer re-emerging. But my rb situation is as pathetic as ever and injuries are piling up at wr. My defense is getting me points though

[CarMike]

My season is probably shot now with Schaub out for the season. Hopefully Ponder will pick up a little slack. Not really depending on a rookie QB to win me games.

Picking up D. Murray has saved my season at the RB spot. Too bad I can't team him up with Jamaal Charles this season.

[Biggie]

Second place or not, Denver benching Orton has killed me. It's my own fault for missing the draft, but still. Now I don't have Cassel either.

[akhhorus]

playoff picture:
Current standings:
#1 Bfauble(clinched)
#2 Biggie(7-5, division leader)
#3 Fent(8-4)
#4 CNY(7-5, tied as a division leader)
#5 Akh(6-6)
#6 NCskinsfanatic(6-6)
_____(cut line)
#7 Csquared(6-6)
#8 Carmike(6-6)
#9 DS(1 game back)
#10 wave6ten(1 game back)

#11 Keino(eliminated)
#12 Rube(eliminated)

Playoff relevant matches in the final week:
Akh vs Keino(akh clinches the playoffs with a win)
NCskinsfanatic vs CNY
Csquared vs CarMike(loser is eliminated)
Biggie vs DS
Wave vs Bfauble.

[Biggie]

Best of luck this week csquared. I don't think you'll need it, I have no idea how my MASH unit of a team made it this far. Maybe Tebow took pity on them.

[CarMike]

Who won this league last year? hR screen name? I'll edit the thread title accordingly.

[wave6ten]

Idk...but I am ready to draft...I think I have the third pick. Which should be Luck Griffin or TRich....anyone wanna trade send me a relatively decent QB and we can deal

[CarMike]

I have the #1 pick and am thinking about trading out of that spot but no lower than #4. If the deal is good enough I'd seriously think about trading down. BUT NOT LOWER THAN THE 4TH PICK! LOL

Idk...but I am ready to draft...I think I have the third pick. Which should be Luck Griffin or TRich....anyone wanna trade send me a relatively decent QB and we can deal

[akhhorus]

I have the #1 pick and am thinking about trading out of that spot but no lower than #4. If the deal is good enough I'd seriously think about trading down. BUT NOT LOWER THAN THE 4TH PICK! LOL

Csquared won it. I'll shoot you a text with an offer lol.

[akhhorus]

Looking for a replacement owner. PM me if interested.

[CarMike]

Can I be nosy? Who dropped out? lol

[akhhorus]

Can I be nosy? Who dropped out? lol

No lol. They're still considering but leaning towards leaving.

[CarMike]

damn....lol Hope they decide to stay. Even though this is one of my worst teams in FF. It has become my favorite league overall.

No lol. They're still considering but leaning towards leaving.