Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
Erie Fantasy Sports Classic League 2 |
| *Chaos Theory | 
Date Wed May 3 12:49:50 a.m. ET 2006
Edited Wed May 3 12:54:24 a.m. ET 2006
|
| It has been proposed that a 2 TE set be introduced for the 2007 season and beyond. To clarify, here's what will be added (in bold): 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") In essence, our lineup options double, as we now have 4 potential combinations instead of 2. THIS WILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE OFFICIAL RULES BEGINNING *2007* We need a 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain' vote from at least 10 owners. If more than 2 vote 'no', the proposed change will be killed. So that we can prepare accordingly for this year's draft, let's have this in the books before May 15th (1st Round), as it will slightly affect the value of the TE position. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Wed May 3 12:50:44 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Chaos Theory votes 'yes' So let it be written, so let it be done... |
| *Bada Bing |
Date Wed May 3 1:13:14 a.m. ET 2006
|
| Bada Bing votes yes. |
| *The Montana Grizzlies |
Date Wed May 3 3:35:16 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Montana Grizzlies vote YES | |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Wed May 3 3:58:44 p.m. ET 2006
|
| YES |
| *Desperados |
Date Wed May 3 8:43:32 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Desperados vote yes. |
| *Mighty Lunge II |
Date Wed May 3 9:07:49 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Lunge, Says YES |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Wed May 3 10:06:31 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Wed May 3 10:09:28 p.m. ET 2006
|
| I'm really ambivalent about the whole thing. I don't really oppose it, but I don't think it adds all that much. I don't regard the two TE set as a viable lineup likely to produce wins on a regular basis. So my reaction to the idea is both why not? and why bother? Even if there were a TE in the league that was matching Antonio Gates production from last year and both of those players were on the same roster, you'd still be fielding the equivalent of a mediocre WR at the position. In the much more likely scenario that your second TE is putting up significantly less than 8 points per game (only three averaged more last year, and two of them were just above 8pts per game), starting two TEs is not a good plan. Put another way, the 36th best WR in the league last year was the 142nd best player overall, while the 24th best TE (or, the worst TE that might be used in a two TE set in a 12 team leauge) was 287th overall. Moreover, even if you had the two best TEs in the league last year, you would have been better starting off one of them and a mediocre WR. Check this out: Gates averaged 11.5pts per week. Shockey averaged 8.5.pts per week. So if you started them both you would have averaged 21pts per week from your TE and your "flex" position. Now say your third WR is the 24th (or so) best WR in the league. It might sound optimistic, given the 12 team league, but its really Jerry Porter we're talking about here so its not that far out of the realm of possibility. Porter averaged the same 8.5pts per game Shockey did. So even if you have the two best TEs in the game last year, a mediocre WR would match their production. IF you're in the situation where your TEs rock and your WRs are stink out loud bad, so that your 3rd WR is 36th overall at the position or worse, then this kind of lineup might make sense on more than an emergency bye week basis. Chaos Theory, who had two of the top three TEs in the league last year (Heap and Shockey, both putting up 8.5pts per week) and whose third WR (Lelie) was registering a weak 5.8pts per week, would have been better off most weeks fielding the two TE set. I don't think I've ever encountered a team that could say the same in ten+ years of playing this game. Its an anomaly. There certainly isn't another roster in the leauge currently that could say the same, and that's despite TE pairings like Gonzo and McMichael, Clark and Cooley. And all Chaos has to do to render his two TE set an afterthought is find the equivalent of Jerry Porter in the draft, trade or free agency, and my guess is he'll have a couple of guys on his roster like that before he ever gets the chance to run Shockey and Heap out on the field simultaneously. All of which leaves me wondering why we want this option available? For 1-2 bye weeks per year? That's fine with me I guess, but it's not going to have any significant impact on the league, even if we were starting it in 2006 instead of 2007. Sorry for the length of this post. Lawyers really have a difficult time with yes or no questions. My vote is yes, mostly because I don't think it will change the leauge all that much. If I thought it was a significant change, I'd probably vote no. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Wed May 3 11:34:45 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Wed May 3 11:41:53 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| "So even if you have the two best TEs in the game last year, a mediocre WR would match their production" Yes, but unfortunately there are very few mediocre WRs-- like Jerry Porter-- in free agency in this league, because we're all so damn good at picking through it. That's my point. I'm not suggesting you could (or even that I did) devise a strategy where you would disregard WR depth to form 'TE-focused strategy' to build your team around. I think most of us are aware that using it would be a disadvantage about 90% of the time, and probably should be reserved for dire straights. It's a short-term solution for a team struggling with crappy depth, injuries and/or the bye week to afford them a chance to field the best possible roster they can instead of fielding a broken WR they know isn't even going to play for their NFL team that week. I see it almost weekly in this league: Team 'A' has WRx in his starting lineup even though he's 50/50 to play that week-- but he has no choice because his other WRs are on a bye. With this rule he could say "OK, I'm going to play my 2nd TE, because I would at least get 2 points instead of a big fat zero if WRx doesn't play". A couple years ago when the NFL re-aligned the divisions, bye weeks quite frankly became a bitch... Instead of a couple teams being off every week, now we have entire divisions sitting. That fact, combined with the 3-WR requirement in this league, is what would force many of us to use it now and then-- without upsetting the balance of the league. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Wed May 3 11:53:00 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Actually, from what i saw people played the guy who was dinged and might not play because they thought if he did he'd get more points than the alternative, not because there was no alternative. That's still going to happen frequently even if you can pop in the second TE instead of a 3rd WR. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Thu May 4 12:02:53 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| So you're saying you would play WR Jerry Porter, who is listed as 'doubtful' on the injury report, over a 2nd TE simply because if Porter played, he would probably outscore that 2nd TE? I could see maybe Terrell Owens or another stud WR, but when the doubtful guy is crappy to begin with-- why not get the guaranteed points since you know Porter wouldn't win the game for you even if he was playing? Again, I would admit that it won't be used often, but used it will be... I really don't know why I'm advocating, since you voted in the affirmative. Just want to make sure people don't think it's going to be a worthless addition. 
|
| *Annihilators |
Date Thu May 4 4:47:33 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Annihilators: Yes | |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Thu May 4 5:38:14 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| *Chaos Theory:> It's a But isn't part of being a successful owner planning for buy weeks and having enough depth on the team? Perhaps if that owner had opted not to keep 2 quality TEs over the course of a year (or more) he would have had the depth. > I see it almost weekly in this league: Team 'A' There ARE other choices . . . waive a TE and pick up a needed WR . . . trade a TE and pick up a needed WR. I bet that at just about any point in the year a top 5 TE would be sufficient trade bait to land a mediocre WR to fill the holes. Just like in the NFL, often times it is the team with the depth to sustain injuries that wins . . . even if it is at th ecost of letting stud players go from time to time. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Thu May 4 6:21:59 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I think it's fairly obvious what i'm saying, and that I was reporting what I witnessed during play in the league over the last few years. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Fri May 5 12:46:52 a.m. ET 2006
Edited Fri May 5 1:27:28 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Catamounts, I understand what you're saying, however, I think I have a different philosophy when it comes to dynasty leagues (not wrong, just different). In my opinion, most of what you're saying fits perfectly with a yearly redraft league. You plan for bye weeks in that case, because you know when they are before you fill out your roster. But in a dynasty league I cannot justify trading guys on my roster year after year simply to deal with the bye weeks. Yes, bye weeks are something you have to deal with. But no, I wouldn't trade a quality starter or backup at a loss just to get through a single week where the bye would kill me. I'd take the hit in that case. I have done it in the past, but it's something I rarely do. I actually prefer not to trade my players, as it tends to be at a loss-- at least initially. If I were to casually and often trade my guys away to get through a week or two, I don't think I'd have as much fun in this hobby. I know some guys love trading. I don't, really... I like watching guys go from rookie to saavy veteran over the years on my roster. I obviously don't stick to this plan religiously, but I do more than most. None of you were around the first 4 years I was in this league, but I think I made like 2 trades during that time. It actually pissed other owners off cuz I was such a miser. Then I opened the floodgates (3 years ago?). But I can assure you that once I reach the point again where I'm comfortable with my roster, the crickets will start chirping again. When that will be is anybody's guess... If I would just quit blowing first round picks on shitty WRs, I'd probably be there by now...  ...but that's a philisophical dilemma which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask. It's off topic, I realize, but I would like opinions. (besides, we're only 1 yes vote away from the rule passing and the thread becoming obsolete) Anyway, let's assume none of my 3 QBs are going to be healthy enough to start the season and I don't want to blow any of my 4 draft picks on a utility QB when I can pick one up in free agency after week 1. On top of that, I don't want to trade anyone for less value than normal simply because my hands are tied. Would it be considered unethical in fantasy football for me to go into week 1 realizing I'd likely lose without a starting QB, or am I obligated as a responsible owner to do what it takes to get a QB to start that week?  We're talking about a single week-- week 1. After that, I'm sure I can find something on waivers to get me through until one of my 3 is healthy enough to start. Interesting question, me thinks... |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Fri May 5 8:35:34 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| CT . . . I guess I fall in the catagory of one of those owners that enjoys trading. In fact, the trading/waivers/drafting/auctions are my favorite part of FF. Plugging in line-ups, and being powrless as to how my players will do week-to-week, is secondary. If I am doing the other things properly, submitting starters is often times a no-brainer. But, as you said, we all have different philosophies adn areas of enjoyment in how we run our teams. Personally, the way I look at it is, a player has little value to me if he is not in my line-up. He doesn't gain me much advantage by being inactive week after week. For example, suppose I have Brady and Peyton as my QBs . . . one is getting traded (assuming its not a start 2 QB league). Whats good does having the two of them do for my team overall? Ok, I'm covered for bye week or injury, but that could result in 15 weeks of ZERO points for them. Sure, you could play the match-ups week to week, but with stud players that is a tough call as to which will have the biggest game regardless of who they are facing. I would trade one of them fo ra player that would help me every week, instead. I look at my team and trade from it's strong points to improve it's weak points. Again, different strategies. As for the QB situation you brought up . . . I would not enter the season without a starting QB if at all possible. First of all, each week represents about 8% of your playoff birth record. Secondly, my opinion is that owners owe it to the integrity of the league to field their best possible team from week-to-week. Although, I can appreciate the argument that every owner is in it to do what is best for HIS team in order to win the title. So we are looking at a double-edged sword. However, the case with the 3QBs is a bit different, IMO. Why not trade or release your #3 QB for one that would play? Again, the longterm value MAY be less, but maybe not. How many active points is your #3 QB likely to get you over the course of the year? The door that gets opened in the scenario you speak of is one or two teams becoming so dominant player-wise in a league that it becomes more and more difficult to find owners to take over lesser orphaned teams. In fact, an argument can be made that the reason the team is orphaned is because the previous owner evaluated the other teams rosters and concluded there were 1-2 teams that could not be beat because of the number and depth of stud players on a couple rosters. This happens in a lot of leagues. We have not seen it in the GLFFLs often because most of the owners are very saavy. However, as the GLFFL grows we will see less experienced players coming in and they end up trading his one stud player to the top team that has 2 lesser players of need for the new owner. I think you must have seen that in the KFFL, I know I did. I know I could look at the rosters in many of their leagues, and tell yo uwhich owners had likely been in th eleague the longest strictly by their rosters. Where am I going with this? Well, as teams get stronger they can AFFORD to take a chance of losing in one week by not releasing or trading a better valued player for one that can start for a bye week . . . because they are holding all the talent. The short answer to your question? Trade me Brees fo rHArrington and you'll be covered for one of Cully or Carson come week 1. 
|
| *Devil's Den |
Date Fri May 5 12:45:30 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Hi everyone hope all are doing well. I am not sure how big a deal this is so I will agree with the ruling!!!! I have no problem with it. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Fri May 5 9:10:33 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Fri May 5 9:12:48 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| A couple of years ago I got caught with an unexpected last minute cut of the only PK on my roster and was left without a PK for week one since there was no waiver wire move. I traded for a PK before the first week so I could field a complete roster. That's not quite the same thing since I found out I had the problem only a week before the season, and since even when everyone knew I was desperate it was a lot cheaper to land a PK than a QB. In your situation you've got four months left to address the situation and the ammunition to land a QB you can play in week one includes your draft picks, so I think you've got a responsibility to field a complete team. I think owners always have that responsibility, even when they have only a few days notice, to at least try to get a complete roster together. But not doing so with half a year's notice would be a pretty weenie move to make. Anyway, I'd be surprised if none of those three was ready to start in week one. If that does look like it's going to be the case, you can always use that 3 or 4 to get their backup, since that guy's unlikely to have much value to any of the rest of us. You may not want to do that, but too bad. I didn't want Billy f****** Volek on my roster last year or the year before either. This isn't really a serious question is it?  You know I'm ok with any move that might result in you getting an extra loss (and spotting somebody a 20pt head start in week 1 certainly increases the odds of that), but dude. Seriously. Cripes I've been in a lousy mood on the boards lately. Good thing I'm going on vacation tomorrow. 
|
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Fri May 5 11:59:42 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat May 6 12:01:52 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Thanks for the input. I was kinda hedging... As a member of the BOD I look forward to these types of scenarios, but since this one involved me directly, I probably couldn't look at it as objectively as others. But at this time it is a hypothetical scenario. Even though great news is being reported for Brees and Palmer regarding their progress, it's tough for me to believe, in Palmer's case, he could have an injury that severe and come back in less than a year. Brees is probably my best shot at starting. But my 'point of no return' is that 4.1 pick, and unfortunately it will need to be made in July. Otherwise, I'm going to be held hostage (eg: Harrington for Brees) Anyway on to more important business: We now have 9 total votes in the affirmative for adding the 2 TE set for 2007. Theoretically we need 1 more "yes" vote to have it immediately passed, or we need to wait until May 15th before we can proceed (because at that time, the no-shows will be counted as abstentions). FastFish, Gamblers and James Gang have not yet voted. Bottom line is we wait. Our next item up for vote is whethor or not to allow Kobayashi Maru to go on vacation... 
|
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Sat May 6 1:08:58 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I'll be back in time to make my pick, don't worry. I don't seem to be able to get a deal done right about now anyway... |
| *Vermont Catamounts |
Date Sat May 6 7:46:18 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| *Chaos Theory:> Cats abstain on the vacation vote. 
|
| Gamblers |
Date Sat May 6 12:52:45 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Gamblers Vote Abstain The 2 T.E. Set | |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat May 6 1:04:20 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat May 6 11:34:45 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| With 10 votes now cast (none in the negative), the remaining 2 votes are inconsequential. The 2-TE set, provided it's approved by the commissioner, can be installed for 2007 and beyond. |
| *Chaos Theory |
Date Sat May 6 11:29:55 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Sat May 6 11:33:42 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I would like to clarify something here: despite my enthusiasm for being with GLFFL and this new league, I am not the commissioner. I merely promoted an item I would like to see added, and the vast majority of you agreed. ...it is still up to the commissioner with regard to it actually being approved and installed. So my saying "will be installed" was a bit presumptive. Not trying to run things or be cocky and all that... I'm just so damn excited to be here! Kirk runs many other leagues, and while I maintain we are a special case, it must be understood that it is probably not practical to assume that all leagues can change their rules simply because we can (theoretically). Prior to moving us over from KFFL, I had discussions regarding flexibility with our rules. So if you are in other GLFFL leagues, it's probably a good idea to keep it on the down-low without commissioner approval. |
| *Bada Bing |
Date Sun May 7 1:05:03 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I love the fact that we have the option to change some things if needed. |