FF2012: GWJFFL Week 4

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Man, Fleaflicker's currently screwing me out of 10 points for the 49er's defense. They somehow assigned the defensive TD as a score against.

Yeah that's messed up. You're losing points for them giving up between 6-10 even though they had the shutout.

Stele wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Man, Fleaflicker's currently screwing me out of 10 points for the 49er's defense. They somehow assigned the defensive TD as a score against.

Yeah that's messed up. You're losing points for them giving up between 6-10 even though they had the shutout.

They'll fix it.

Gumbie wrote:
Stele wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Man, Fleaflicker's currently screwing me out of 10 points for the 49er's defense. They somehow assigned the defensive TD as a score against.

Yeah that's messed up. You're losing points for them giving up between 6-10 even though they had the shutout.

They'll fix it.

Yeah, they will. I read what you wrote incorrectly. Defense scores are always reviewed and corrected.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Man, Fleaflicker's currently screwing me out of 10 points for the 49er's defense. They somehow assigned the defensive TD as a score against.

They've also given santonio holmes a TD eventhough the Jets were shutout.

Man a stellar team effort may be for naught thanks to two rcvs not doing well.

REEECCCEEIIVVERRS!

Brian Hartline is killing my coach rating.

The boneheaded move of not putting in James Jones made me lose this week. I also hope Belial Powell wasn't a waste of money.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Brian Hartline is killing my coach rating.

Someone actually started him in Gold...

TempestBlayze wrote:

The boneheaded move of not putting in James Jones made me lose this week. I also hope Belial Powell wasn't a waste of money.

The game I lost I started him. I'm scared to put him back in the line up but with byes starting I'm sure it will happen.

ukickmydog wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Brian Hartline is killing my coach rating.

Someone actually started him in Gold...

I almost did as a bye week fill-in instead of Hawkins. I would have broken 200 if I had.

I got annihilated in Gold.

214 points? Is that the all time high score record?

Jeez...

I. Benched. Him.

Apparently Michael Turner is going to be my struggle this year. I finally benched him this week and he puts up 25 points.

I'm playing Turner until he breaks and just hope for a TD each week.

oldmanscene24 wrote:

Apparently Michael Turner is going to be my struggle this year. I finally benched him this week and he puts up 25 points.

Things had started looking good for my Jacquizz Rodgers pick and then Turner pulls that garbage.

Left a lot of pointS on the bench. I should have Hixon in right now since Nicks is out. Another boneheaded mistake.

I'm going to for Boogling lose to Boogle, for for Boogle's sake. Grrr.

Huh, I almost had the exact score last week and this week in Gold: 193.85 and 194.05. I like.

tboon wrote:

I'm going to for Boogling lose to Boogle, for for Boogle's sake. Grrr.

Huh?

tboon wrote:

I'm going to for Boogling lose to Boogle, for for Boogle's sake. Grrr.

I mean, thanks for giving me an opportunity to root against the cowboys.

I think we are allowing rosters to be far too big. 10 person bench plus 2RB/3WR/1FLEX position in a 12-team league means there is not enough waiver wire fodder for teams at the back of the pack to bolster their rosters in the event of injuries or bad performers. It's just not competitive when teams can load up and sit on players from week to week. Managing shouldn't simply be a decision of who to start/bench from a large roster but should also involve tough decisions on who to cut/who to pick up. One man's garbage could indeed be another man's gold. Smaller rosters also encourage trading more. What need is there to trade when you have 7-starting RB/WR/FLEX/TE positions and a 10-person bench?

For examples, in my Reddit 12-team league there is 2WR/2RB/1FLEX and a 7-person bench. In my Yahoo RCL 10-team leagues, it's 2RB/2WR/1FLEX and a 6-person bench. Guys like Fitzpatrick, Hartline, Roberts, Chandler, Battle, Burleson, Celek, Daniels, Schaub, Crabtree, Gresham, etc. are all on the wire.

Any chance of changing it next season in the interest of better competition?

I like the deep benches.
Builds character.

I agree with FSeven because waivers are much more of a shot in the dark.

I think they should be smaller as well, at least in the non-keeper leagues. Not so small as what yahoo uses though. Perhaps an 8 person bench would be a good compromise.

I'd be ok with dropping 2 spots, as long as we add one IR spot.

Like I have Fred Jackson this season. And he gets hurt week 1 but is scheduled to be out 3-4 weeks. And now he's back. I would not have wanted to drop him with such a short term injury, and with the large size of our rosters I didn't have to. But moving him to IR when he's "Out" for the upcoming week would be a great option to have.

I like the way things are. The larger rosters allow for you to take more chances.

Stele wrote:

I'd be ok with dropping 2 spots, as long as we add one IR spot.

IR also doesn't actually mean IR anymore in the NFL. Teams can bring a player back from it now. I think we should have an IR spot for real NFL IR and for the PUP list, but not for just if someone is 'out'.

ukickmydog wrote:
Stele wrote:

I'd be ok with dropping 2 spots, as long as we add one IR spot.

IR also doesn't actually mean IR anymore in the NFL. Teams can bring a player back from it now. I think we should have an IR spot for real NFL IR and for the PUP list, but not for just if someone is 'out'.

Agreed.

Since we have a rather unique format (2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1FLEX) I think 3 bench spots (I would say 2 but that third WR slot really while still having a FLEX position changes things dramatically) should be dropped and 1 true IR (like ukick described) should be added.

With that third WR and FLEX position, a team could line up 3 RB's and 3 WR's while still having a TE. I understand this is fantasy football but couldn't the fantasy be a little more realistic? To put it in gaming terms, it's Arcade mode versus Simulation.

I just mentioned the IR for out because that's the way ESPN does it. It is a nice way to keep a guy that will come back later in the season but still be able to pick someone else up to play. You'll still have to make an add/drop decision when that guy returns but it gives you some flexibility.

I'd be for smaller rosters for non keeper leagues, but while I can't speak for the other GWJ leagues, in Silver, there are maybe 1 or 2 players picked in the last 6 rounds (15-20) that you would legitimately say would consistently crack someones weekly starters. Players like Andre Brown, Ogletree, Hartline were all FA pickups, and those first 2 have been 1 week wonders. I like smaller rosters not necessarily because it puts better players on the waiver wire, but because it makes the owners decision of who to cut harder. For my FA moves in this I've bascially cut my last 3-4 players drafted because they were irrelevant and non-contributors. If you only have 16 or 17 players on your team, you are looking to cut/upgrade possibly your 4th WR or RB which is a much harder decision to make vs. dropping my 6th WR (STL's Steve Smith).

Personally my favorite format is in my league where there are 16 player rosters.. basically 9 starters + 7 bench. To make things more restrictive, there is only 1 pickup per week + 1 bonus pickup to be used at any point during the season. With a lot of busy people, the idea was not to give advantage to the team that can be constantly scouring the waiver wire ready to push the button as soon as waivers open. Of course it turns into a lot of thinking ahead esp if you have a K and a D with the same bye week since you can only grab one a week, but if those are the rules you live by it.

And of course, my snide comment to folks who are concerned about FA pickups (regardless if its too many or too few) is always the same one... "Draft Better".

Also, I've never been a fan of the "IR". What qualifies? Questionable or worse? Hakeem Nicks was "Doubtful" for most of the week and downgraded to "Out" on Saturday.. as we know most players aren't ruled "Out" until just before gametime. I would be for it if the IR rules were something like pro... if you put someone on IR they must be out of your active roster for x weeks (where x > 2). In pro's if someone is on IR, they can't activated for the season.. in MLB, there's a 15 or 60 day disabled list. There was to be some cost to deciding to put someone on IR.. not just a potential free roster spot.