Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
Erie Fantasy Sports Classic League 2 |
| *Chaos Theory | 
Date Fri Apr 28 8:03:26 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Fri Apr 28 8:20:37 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Since it appears few want to talk about a new league name right now, I thought I'd start a thread with regard to what, if any, rules brought over (by default) from EFS 9 you guys wanted to change. Obviously, in order to modify any rules, the vast majority of the league probably should be in favor of it. For the most part, I'm pretty happy with the scoring system. However, I've always thought turnovers (interceptions/fumbles) should have a point subtracted. If they get added to the defense scoring, wouldn't they naturally get subtracted from whatever player caused it? I also attempted to get the 2TE set added to the list of authorized starting lineups about 4 years ago with KFFL. Most agree a 4WR set puts a lineup at a disadvantage, statistically, compared to the usual 2RB/3WR standard lineup. The 2TE set would be even worse, however, in a pinch it could be useful. It seems there are more and more decent TEs in a league that used to only have Sterling Sharpe, Ben Coates and Wesley Walls worth a damn. It would be a valuable bye week or injury crunch time option. What do you guys think of these ideas, and what would you like to see added/removed/modified? |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Fri Apr 28 8:16:07 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Fri Apr 28 8:23:40 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Let me add that some of you may say you would never use a 2 TE set because of the statistical disadvantage. I understand that. But would you be against it as an option? If so, why? If installed into our rules, here would be your lineup options: STANDARD FORMATION: 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D/ST RUN AND SHOOT: 1QB, 1RB, 4WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D/ST DOUBLE TIGHT-END SET: 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 2TE, 1K, 1D/ST SPREAD OFFENSE: 1QB, 1RB, 3WR, 2TE, 1K, 1D/ST (aka "5-WR Set") I think it'd be really cool... |
| *Bada Bing |
Date Fri Apr 28 8:52:48 p.m. ET 2006
|
| I like the option for the 2 TE set, I do not like minus points for fumbles but minus for int is fine. I also like the idea that TD be worth 6 pts insted of 5. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Fri Apr 28 11:27:49 p.m. ET 2006
|
| A 2 TE option is fine with me, though the leagues I've played in with a "flex" position that allowed for a 2nd TE or 4th WR rarely resulted in anyone actually using the 2nd TE. I did it a few times out of desperation, as did others. I don't think it would be used all that often. The change I'd most like to see is the use of individual defensive players. Other leagues I played in with a scoring system identical to this one have employed systems where each team fields 5 individual defensive players (with 1 DL, 1 LB and 1 DB required and two flex positions). Points for forced fumbles (1pt), recoveries (1pt), interceptions (2-3pts), sacks (2pts) and tackes (1pt for every 2 tackles or every 4 assists). The points for tackles/assists is generally the most controversial of that system, but I play in a league that has used that system for over 10 years, and the stats for tackles/assists are much more formalized than they once were. Not sure what kind of scoring system GLFFl employs in its IDP leagues, but I personally would be open to just about anything that gets the DT/ST units out of the game. |
| *Desperados |
Date Fri Apr 28 11:29:32 p.m. ET 2006
|
| I'll go along with the two TEs. We did that in an other league I was in and I was surprised by the number of times it was used. I'm a little indifferent about subtracting points for interceptions and fumbles but I'll go with it because they are game changing plays and QBs get inflated numbers with yardage when they're trying to bring their team back and get a lot of yardage but still lose because of the interceptions, I like six points for TDs. I didn't have any problems last year but it seems that somebody couldn't change their lineup after a Thursday game when they found out a player wasn't going to play Sunday. I hope that problem has been resolved. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:23:05 a.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat Apr 29 1:51:01 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Great feedback... Lots of ideas. The 2TE option has been endorsed by the 4 of us that have responded, with no one as yet dissenting. Granted, there are 8 other opinions to be heard, but I feel comfortable putting this one on a poll to be voted on immediately. The reason for the fast-track approach is that there is a possibility it could change/affect people's draft plans, since it theoretically will, albeit slightly, increase the value of the TE position. Therefore, I'd like it either installed, or killed, prior to the first round of our draft in 2 weeks. The poll has 3 options: Yes, No and Abstain. I would like 100% participation in the voting, although it may be impossible to get James Gang's vote (has anyone heard from him?). Since this is a rule change that will affect all of us, I'm going to assume that any more than 2 "no" votes will kill it. If you don't agree with the proposed change, but don't want to potentially kill the rule, you may vote to "abstain". This will count your vote, but will not affect the outcome. Please get your vote registered. The ballot will be concluded if/when all 12 of us have voted, or we determine that 12 votes cannot be attained (again, if James Gang cannot be found). As for the other ideas, I'm open to further discussion. |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Sat Apr 29 2:41:41 a.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat Apr 29 2:44:55 a.m. ET 2006
|
| Maybe I would vote for the 2 TE set if I had Heap and Shockey on MY roster. I say that in jest because I am not insinuating that you are trying to skew the rules in your favor. HOWEVER, it does seem give an unfair advantage to some owners as rosters are already set. The other thing it does is change the value of draft picks that have already been traded. I traded a pick that is right around where Davis might go, if the rule were in place I may have re-thought givig up that pick. Why would Davis have been as appealing to me with Winslow starting and Davis as a backup? A rule change like you suggest would make Davis a starter for me, but I traded that pick away because there was no rule in place at the time for that possibility. For that matter, why not have the option of starting 2 QBs or DTs? We are talking about a change in a STARTER and that change would NOT affect all teams equally. I am going to vote against the 2 TE rule, not because I don't like it in general, but that it needs to be applied fairly. How about this . . . we change the rule as you laid out HOWEVER, the rule will read that ALL the TEs currently on rosters get thrown back into the FA pool. That would allow all teams to have equal access at taking advantage of a 2 TE rule. If that WERE the way the rule was going to be put in effect, would you be for it? See what I mean? As for the fumbles and INTs, I have mixed emotions, and play in formats that use them. My problem with it is that an INT is not always the fault of the QB. Fumbles in foul weather can't always be the fault of the RB. Just like I do not agree with deducting for missed FGs . . . a bad snap penalizes the PK? A bad snap from center, resulting in a lost fumble, should be charged to the QB even if the center snapped on the wrong count? IMO, there IS a difference between giving points to a DT and not subtracting them from the offensive player. The difference is that you are talking an entire unit getting credit as opposed to an individual getting penalized. Frankly, I think that sometimes the guy that FORCED the fumble should get the credit rather than the guy that fell down on it . . . but those are IDP issues, IMO. I am certainly open to listening to other thoughts on what I have presented. -bill (VTCats) |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Sat Apr 29 11:25:24 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Hmmm. The difference between having an option for a 2 TE set and a 2 QB set, or 2 DT set is that the former actually exists in the NFL, while the latter two do not. The only thing approximating a 2 QB set in the last 50 years of the NFL has occurred for a dozen or so plays per season in Pittsburgh, first with Slash and ODonnell, and more recently (arguably) with Roethlisberger and Randle El. Other than that it's pretty much non-existant. The two TE set has been a fixture in the NFL pretty much forever, and periodically has been used by teams 15 plays a game. And the two DT set, of course, doesn't exist in reality. I've always thought that if it occurs in the NFL, you should try to create some analogy for it in your fantasy league, as possible, and if it doesn't, you shouldn't. That's why I'm open to a two TE set option, point deductions for INTs, and individual defensive players. As for the varying impact on different teams depending on their rosters, that problem would prevent you from ever changing the rules. It's a problem that should certainly be balanced against the desire for the rule change, but I don't think it should defeat every rule change alone. In this particular instance, the two TE set isn't exactly a sea change. Unless you've got Gonzo and Gates (or maybe Heap and Shockey!), for instance, the two TE set is more a formation of desperation than anything else. I've played in many leagues over the last 12 years or so that allowed the two TE set, but I've never seen anyone rely on it regularly, so the impact on those of us (I have only one TE on my roster) that aren't prepared to exploit the option currently is a mirage in this instance. And while I know the Chaos reference was just a joke, to illustrate the point I have to say that I don't find the prospect of facing Chaos with Heap and Shockey in the starting lineup any more intimidating than i would if only one of those guys were starting. Just my opinion. Of the rule changes that have been thrown out there, I'm not really opposed to any of them myself, but I'd much rather incorporate the point deduction for INT and individual defensive players than the two TE sets. One of the ways I've seen rule changes handled before is to vote on it this year, adopt the rule, and have the change go into effect the following season, giving everyone a year to prepare. That way, a guy with Jake Plummer and Brett Favre would have 12 plus months to get a QB on his roster that doesn't throw 20 INTs a year. Just a thought, but one that should be taken seriously if the quick turn around on rule changes for roster positions already set makes people vote no for a rule they would otherwise not object to. IDP's, however, shouldn't require that kind of delay since no one currently owns any in this league. |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Sat Apr 29 11:52:50 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| *Kobayashi Maru:> I have no problem with changing the rule for the TEs IF it is for the 2007 season. Or we throw ALL the TEs back into the FA pool. 
|
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Sat Apr 29 12:04:33 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I think we all know that the TEs currently on rosters are not going back into the FA pool... |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Sat Apr 29 12:27:42 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| *Kobayashi Maru:> I think we all know that the TEs currently on Hence the smiley face. But I think it does help prove my point that teams FOR the change immediatelymay NOT be for it if we were to level the TE playing field by having the drops. I won't keep harping on this because I have expressed my opinion, and stand by it. I will go along with what the majority of owners decide. -bill |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat Apr 29 12:58:57 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat Apr 29 1:16:47 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Bill, I'm sorry you feel my only motivation to add the devastating, league-altering 2 TE set was because I had decent players on my roster at the position. Perhaps if I had no TEs, or two guys that sucked, we could have gotten past character and gone straight to the practicality of having such a rule. The throwing back of all TEs is just silly. But I agree with Mark, it seems with that reasoning, no rules can be changed unless we are willing to redraft, at least partially. I don't believe that scenario would find much support. Your argument regarding the trading of your pick with regard to your strategy this year makes more sense to me, and I agree that any change should wait until next year. Would you reconsider if such a rule were pushed back until '07? Either way, the 2-TE formation has been killed for '06. I gotta say that I love the voting. KFFL used to just force crap upon us (sometimes without even telling us). I'm curious about the voting, though. 3 'no' votes already, even though only 2 teams who did not outright support the idea on this message board have checked in to the site. In fact, there are 5 votes registered at this time, but only 4 teams have checked in since I put up the poll.  I think any rule change voting from now on probably should be registered on the message board to ensure accuracy.It also appears there is not, nor will there be, enough support for subtracting points for INTs/Fumbles to even bring to a vote. So that leaves further discussion regarding 6pt TDs and individual defensive players. Obviously, the IDP scenario would be a major change, and probably couldn't happen until '07 at the earliest. What kind of draft would you be looking at? A seperate draft for current defensive players, and then throw both offense and defense into the annual rookie draft? Either way, a lot of discussion/concession will have to be made here, and considering the rapid fate of the 2TE set, I'm not optimistic. |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:15:37 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| *Chaos Theory:> Bill, I'm sorry you feel my only motivation to add Justin, the FIRST thing I stated was that I did NOT question your motives (your character), I was using your roster as an example to make my point. In hindsight, I should have used a hypothetical roster. Again, I was NOT and am NOT questioning your chanracter!!!! I thought I made that clear in my first post, if it wasn't clear, then please accept my apology as my intent was not malacious in any way. Again, I stated tha I would be in favor of the 2 TE rule change if it takes effect for the 2007 season. As Mark also stated, that would give all owners a 12+month window to adapt there rosters. -bill VTCats) |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:25:37 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| No worries, but I did get the impression having Shockey/Heap was being considered a factor in my motivation. It's a moot point now, but I would not have proposed it if I had not intended to use it, so I could see how it would look dubious. I'm pleased you're willing to consider it for '07, though. I'd be curious to hear opinions from the other 2 persons who voted against it so that I can determine if a message board vote is warranted to have it installed for the '07 season. GREEN BAY=== AJ HAWK baby! 
|
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:43:56 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I think I may have voted no on the TE poll by accident. Thought I voted yes, but that's obviously not what happened, unless Chaos is the one who screwed up his vote. As for the individual defensive players, it is complicated. I don't think it's impossible to do in time for 2006 if everyone was in contact, but given the lack of contact from a handful of owners over the last few weeks it may not be realistic. My suggestion is that we discuss this major change during the course of the offseason and put it to a vote in August or September. If it passes, there would be plenty of time to work out the logistics for the 2007 season. I think you'd have to do a seperate draft of IDP to start with next offseason and expand the overall rosters to 25 with a requirement that everyone maintain at least 5 IDP on their rosters at any moment, and I do think there should be positional requirements as well (1DL, 1LB and 1DB). After the initial season, however, I don't see any reason to continue seperate defensive rookie/fa drafts. Limiting the rookie/fa drafts to 5 rounds, as they are now, would increase the importance of rounds 2-5 since some of the best rookie defensive players would likely drop out of the first round. From my perspective, I'll take just about any change that includes IDP. The DT system sucks. I hate it and always have, as it's just as likely to reward the uninformed as it is the informed. IDP systems, on the other hand, more accurately reflect the importance of defensive players and systems in the NFL, and while in most systems they can't make up for glaring deficiencies on the offensive side of the ball, they can help close the gap for astute owners who love defense. I'll give it its own thread later on this summer and see what everyone's thoughts are. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:46:22 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I think the INT point deduction rule should be taken on its own merits and voted on. There appears to be more support for that than there is for fumble recoveries. There's no reason to try to force it through for 2006, so votes for or against should be based on the merits of the proposed rule, not the timing of its implimentation. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat Apr 29 1:49:20 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat Apr 29 1:56:37 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Dood! You live in Florida, or what??  Bill made a strategy argument that I agree with, so it's probably a good idea to wait until '07 for it to take affect. Once I hear from more owners and get the impression it would pass for '07, we can do a seperate thread for the vote. We can also consider the INT issue, but again, I'd like to hear from some other owners. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Mon May 1 7:06:28 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Mon May 1 7:37:50 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Still waiting to hear from some more owners about our ideas. I would like to get an agreement on the 2TE set for '07 at least before the draft. If you're totally against it-- even for next year-- please state your argument here first so we know if a vote is even worthwhile. C'mon folks, this is why we moved-- so you can have a voice in how we run this league. Again, I'm not gonna use the poll on the front page... Too important. I will start a new thread for you to log your vote at that time. Also, just a request-- only half the league has completed the 'trade bait' section. It's extremely useful for everyone. If you haven't done so, please do-- even if it's to say "No one is tradeable at this time". If you're looking to improve your team at all, it behooves you to keep this section updated so people know what you want and what you're willing to give up. |
| *Annihilators |
Date Mon May 1 7:51:48 p.m. ET 2006
|
| I'm for the 2 TE set being added for 2007. I think Bill, Vermont Cat's, idea about throwing the TE's back into the pool was a good idea in general. I have a good set of TE's and would be for it. That would be a great way to level the field. This is mute if we are planning a possible change for 2007 except for me giving support to a good idea that was proposed. I'm also glad for your comments C.T. about the trade bait section. Everyone using that section keeps an element of interest and activity going in the league at all times. Thanks C.T. | |
| *Bada Bing |
Date Mon May 1 7:54:49 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I vote yes for the 2007 2 TE option. I updated my trade bait and will look at offers for the 2nd pick a young rb must be included. |
| *The Montana Grizzlies |
Date Tue May 2 11:26:24 p.m. ET 2006
|
| 2TE set is fine with me also. But it should go into effect in 07, so all is fair. Anyone ever hear from James Gang yet? | |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Wed May 3 12:42:47 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I see they 'checked in' but not sure if he's committed to the season. Need to know soon, though. We've now heard from half the league, and so far all have said they would accept the 2 TE set for '07. That's enough for me to start an official vote thread... Please go there and actually write 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. You can argue for or against it, but we do need one of those 3 answers regardless so we don't misinterpret your comments. |