FF14: 2014 Fantasy Football Catch-all

I will make my annual argument (which will get shot down I know ) to actually make the starting and total roster smaller, at least for the redraft leagues.

IMHO as it stands the free agency is really only beneficial for streaming K and D. There are few "hard" choices to make when picking up a free agent as everyone has extra chaff on their roster.

Last year I won Div I, part of that because I drafted Keenan Allen, Marvin Jones and Julius Thomas (full disclosure I dropped and picked back up Keenan Allen). 3 players I likely wouldn't have drafted if the rosters were tighter, and in my other leagues with 16-player rosters were all FA's in week 1. Now I can pretend I'm a genius, but anyone who knows anything about Allen and Jones and my personal biases, knows exactly why I drafted them and it has nothing to do with some magical research I do.

If we had limited rosters, now I have to decide which of 4 WRs do I cut for Keenan Allen instead of the 6 in this league? Do I drop an injured player who may come back in week 6 to pick up some other player? Those decisions are almost non-existent in a league where I sit on 20 players, only 2 of which are likely K/D.

Anyways, winning last year and losing in the finals 2 years ago because hakeem nicks couldn't fall forward , its hard for me to complain, but I think it would be a lot more interesting if there was a lot more competition for good FAs instead of just it sitting on someones bench, and teams would have to drop players someone else could use to take a chance on a FA.

I played in a Reddit league with 16-man benches last year and was appalled at the level of talent on the FA wire.

I had a poor draft (Doug Martin at 1.2, Stevan Ridley at 3.2) and I was able to fix it in week 5 because I could go "herp derp let's go shopping" and buy Keenan Allen and Zac Stacy and go from 1-3 to 10-3 and the league's #1 seed, and not have much competition for those players because no one else has room to put talent on their roster.

16 man rosters are atrocious IMO. I might listen if someone wants to talk about nudging roster size down to 19 or maybe 18, but I can say right now that I will go to full scale war against any proposal to go down to 16 like Reddit's leagues.

Carlbear95 wrote:

I will make my annual argument (which will get shot down I know ) to actually make the starting and total roster smaller, at least for the redraft leagues.

IMHO as it stands the free agency is really only beneficial for streaming K and D. There are few "hard" choices to make when picking up a free agent as everyone has extra chaff on their roster.

Last year I won Div I, part of that because I drafted Keenan Allen, Marvin Jones and Julius Thomas (full disclosure I dropped and picked back up Keenan Allen). 3 players I likely wouldn't have drafted if the rosters were tighter, and in my other leagues with 16-player rosters were all FA's in week 1. Now I can pretend I'm a genius, but anyone who knows anything about Allen and Jones and my personal biases, knows exactly why I drafted them and it has nothing to do with some magical research I do.

If we had limited rosters, now I have to decide which of 4 WRs do I cut for Keenan Allen instead of the 6 in this league? Do I drop an injured player who may come back in week 6 to pick up some other player? Those decisions are almost non-existent in a league where I sit on 20 players, only 2 of which are likely K/D.

Anyways, winning last year and losing in the finals 2 years ago because hakeem nicks couldn't fall forward , its hard for me to complain, but I think it would be a lot more interesting if there was a lot more competition for good FAs instead of just it sitting on someones bench, and teams would have to drop players someone else could use to take a chance on a FA.

You should be rewarded for drafting sleepers. Just being able to go out at any given time and get a stud off the FA wire sucks.

ukickmydog wrote:
Carlbear95 wrote:

I will make my annual argument (which will get shot down I know ) to actually make the starting and total roster smaller, at least for the redraft leagues.

IMHO as it stands the free agency is really only beneficial for streaming K and D. There are few "hard" choices to make when picking up a free agent as everyone has extra chaff on their roster.

Last year I won Div I, part of that because I drafted Keenan Allen, Marvin Jones and Julius Thomas (full disclosure I dropped and picked back up Keenan Allen). 3 players I likely wouldn't have drafted if the rosters were tighter, and in my other leagues with 16-player rosters were all FA's in week 1. Now I can pretend I'm a genius, but anyone who knows anything about Allen and Jones and my personal biases, knows exactly why I drafted them and it has nothing to do with some magical research I do.

If we had limited rosters, now I have to decide which of 4 WRs do I cut for Keenan Allen instead of the 6 in this league? Do I drop an injured player who may come back in week 6 to pick up some other player? Those decisions are almost non-existent in a league where I sit on 20 players, only 2 of which are likely K/D.

Anyways, winning last year and losing in the finals 2 years ago because hakeem nicks couldn't fall forward , its hard for me to complain, but I think it would be a lot more interesting if there was a lot more competition for good FAs instead of just it sitting on someones bench, and teams would have to drop players someone else could use to take a chance on a FA.

You should be rewarded for drafting sleepers. Just being able to go out at any given time and get a stud off the FA wire sucks.

This.

ukickmydog wrote:

You should be rewarded for drafting sleepers Cal Players. Just being able to go out at any given time and get a stud off the FA wire sucks.
This.

FTFY. I didn't pick them because I thought they were sleepers. In fact I thought they would both be useless players. I picked them because they went to my Alma Mater and I'm a Cal season ticket holder.

Trust me I'm all for rewarding good drafts. My point is I think it makes for more interesting season if people can actually get a difference maker in the FA pool rather than basically having the draft be the end all be all and the FA pool be where I pick up my bye week K and D. Its pretty clear who had crappy drafts within a week or two and it would be great to let those teams have a chance via FA to have a competitive year. Also, I think the challenge of debating whether or not a reasonable WR3 on the wire is better than my reasonable WR3 already on my team rather than just streaming a bunch of marginal players into your WR6 slot, and because we use an FAAB system it adds yet another layer of challenge. Ultimately I'm ok either way. I won my 16-player and 20-player leagues all the same last year

I am in agreement to reduce the roster size, even if it is only by one spot.

In terms of scoring, I'd personally argue for keeping .5. I think it strikes a good balance between 1PPR and standard. Just for fun, here's an article by 4for4.com writer John Paulson about PPR scoring. He seems to make an argument for points for first downs, which I think is way too arbitrary and could lead to an entirely differnet type of imbalance. I also think his example with Edelman is the exception, rather than the rule.

I second making the rosters smaller. In a competitive league, it is absolutely not easy to land talent off the wire, as most people are adept at identifying breakouts. It leads to its own meta strategy of managing roster space vs. picking up prospects. With a 20 person roster there's almost no reason to even look at the waiver wire most weeks. Literally almost every relevant fantasy player is rostered, except in rare cases like when Willis McGahee sort of came out of retirement last year to run ("run") for the Browns. You really are never faced with a hard decision about managing bench space or bidding on a breakout. If there's a breakout on the wire, it'll be a knife fight. Otherwise, you just sorta cross your fingers one of the multiple backup-level players you drafted breaks out.

Thanks for the draft feedback. I too am not sold on Jennings, but he's a low mileage starter who was able to put up top 10 numbers while starting for the Raiders of all teams last season. So I think he can be successful with the Giants if their offense gets back on track. I feel comfortable having some reasonable depth behind him. I feel pretty good about my roster considering the league size of 14 teams.

Evo wrote:

In terms of scoring, I'd personally argue for keeping .5. I think it strikes a good balance between 1PPR and standard. Just for fun, here's an article by 4for4.com writer John Paulson about PPR scoring. He seems to make an argument for points for first downs, which I think is way too arbitrary and could lead to an entirely differnet type of imbalance. I also think his example with Edelman is the exception, rather than the rule.

First downs is an interesting stat to give points for. I like the line of thinking though in that some games a guy can run 100 yards but not score, playing a critical role in moving his team down the field and entering scoring territory and end up with 10 points (in a .1 per 10yd system) but the the third down goal line guy with 2 3-yard receptions for scores can outscore him. Rather than points for first downs maybe more points for yardage.

I oppose reduction in roster size.

I agree that the current roster size means that actually paying attention to the waiver wire is, at best, a week 1 / week 2 concern and occasional kicker / defense / bye week concern. Oh yeah, and for keeper / dynasty, one more week at the end of the season.

At the same time, I like that I can be a LITTLE lazy after the draft and mostly just ride all the effort I put into the draft rather than spending hours week to week judging yet again waiver wire pickups vs. my current bench. So I'm quite happy to keep it as it is.

Also, I've got numbers! At least for keeper league. I will post them soonish.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I agree that the current roster size means that actually paying attention to the waiver wire is, at best, a week 1 / week 2 concern and occasional kicker / defense / bye week concern. Oh yeah, and for keeper / dynasty, one more week at the end of the season.

At the same time, I like that I can be a LITTLE lazy after the draft and mostly just ride all the effort I put into the draft rather than spending hours week to week judging yet again waiver wire pickups vs. my current bench. So I'm quite happy to keep it as it is.

I think part of the fun is the in-season management. The current roster emphasizes nailing your draft, whereas a "standard" roster is geared for more in-season churn and activity. A 12 team league with a 16 player roster is sufficiently deep that there aren't an abundance of studs sitting on the wire - mostly undesirable backup RBs and WR4/5 type characters at best. Not sure what kind of leagues people are playing in where it's dead simple to grab starter-quality talent off the wire. Either you identify them early or people are competing heavilty with waiver priority/FAAB in the other leagues I'm in. Under the current GWJFFL roster size, you're only left with the former option in most cases.

I guess it's a matter of preference, but I feel like it's makes things much more strategic and skill based to limit the bench. It's a bit more random chance making rosters deep to the point that everyone's owned whether the lotto tickets you drafted go off.

In the end, I'm a beggar and not a chooser in this league, and I still thoroughly enjoyed it last year. So I'd take it either way.

The current roster emphasizes nailing your draft, whereas a "standard" roster is geared for more in-season churn and activity.

The funny thing is my Commish in my friend league says the reason he keeps rosters small is because it makes drafts more important.

boogle wrote:

I oppose reduction in roster size.

Seconded. I don't want to change the roster size a bit.

I'd be happy with a smaller roster, but it's not a big deal to me either way. I agree that deep rosters make comebacks essentially impossible. At least for people as dumb as I am.

I think we talked about this last year. I'd be ok with 1-2 less roster spots if we also opened up a 1-2 spot Injured Reserve. That's how my ESPN league is. You can keep a guy who might only be injured for anywhere from 2-8 weeks, but still pickup someone else to play until then. That's how my ESPN league with friends is, and it's pretty convenient.

The system has to have them listed as "Out" for the upcoming week for you to keep them in that IR spot. So when they do play again you will have to drop someone to move them back active, but at least it gives you that band-aid fix sometimes without having to dump guys you know are coming back.

rabbit wrote:

I'd be happy with a smaller roster, but it's not a big deal to me either way. I agree that deep rosters make comebacks essentially impossible. At least for people as dumb as I am.

Btw, can you draft for me this year?

Stele wrote:

I think we talked about this last year. I'd be ok with 1-2 less roster spots if we also opened up a 1-2 spot Injured Reserve. That's how my ESPN league is. You can keep a guy who might only be injured for anywhere from 2-8 weeks, but still pickup someone else to play until then. That's how my ESPN league with friends is, and it's pretty convenient.

The system has to have them listed as "Out" for the upcoming week for you to keep them in that IR spot. So when they do play again you will have to drop someone to move them back active, but at least it gives you that band-aid fix sometimes without having to dump guys you know are coming back.

I like how this also solves at least at least a little bit of the damage that a lowered roster size would cause to the keeper / dynasty leagues, as there is almost always an injured player or two per team that's worth picking up and holding on the roster. It would actually drive their price up slightly in the draft in a way that will probably mirror their actual value slightly better when it comes to inflation prices for next year.

Not saying we should lower the roster size. But if we do I think we should do it this way.

Keeper and Dynasty leagues already have IR roster spots. 1 in Keeper, 3 in Dynasty.

And should any roster reduction be considered, those should be increased.

Again, not that I'm voting for a reduction.

edit: I didn't realize it was already at 3 for dynasty, which is already pretty crazy.

Landshrk83 wrote:
boogle wrote:

I oppose reduction in roster size.

Seconded. I don't want to change the roster size a bit.

Thirdided.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/uz6dhKW.jpg)

Who said anything about expansion?

We're done talking about GWJFFL here but that doesn't mean the thread has to die. Updated title to reflect general catch-all status.

So, LeVeon Bell and Legarret Blount got busted for marijuana posession and DUI. That's how you handcuff an RB, fellas.

(Joke credit goes to random internet person on Reddit)

Who wants to tell me how boned I am in my non-GWJ league?

STARTERS:

QB Philip Rivers, SD QB
RB Arian Foster, Hou RB
RB Giovani Bernard, Cin RB
RB/WR Pierre Thomas, NO RB
WR Julian Edelman, NE WR
WR DeAndre Hopkins, Hou WR
TE Dennis Pitta, Bal TE
D/ST Rams D/ST D/ST
K Stephen Gostkowski, NE K

BENCH:

Bench Matthew Stafford, Det QB
Bench Ben Tate, Cle RB
Bench Percy Harvin, Sea WR
Bench Justin Hunter, Ten WR
Bench Knile Davis, KC RB

Arian Foster
Percy Harvin

Riding that injury train, eh?

I don't know how anyone can feel good about drafting Foster. Famous last words.

Well, it would help if you took some of your starters off the bench.

STARTERS:

QB Matthew Stafford, Det QB
RB Arian Foster, Hou RB
RB Giovani Bernard, Cin RB
RB/WR Ben Tate, Cle RB
WR Percy Harvin, Sea WR
WR Julian Edelman, NE WR
TE Dennis Pitta, Bal TE
D/ST Rams D/ST D/ST
K Stephen Gostkowski, NE K

BENCH:

Bench Philip Rivers, SD QB
Bench Pierre Thomas, NO RB
Bench Justin Hunter, Ten WR
Bench DeAndre Hopkins, Hou WR
Bench Knile Davis, KC RB

There, now let's talk.

I'm guessing Gio Bernard was your 1st round pick and Foster your 2nd? In terms of ADP, these guys are 2nd and 3rd round picks, and I think I agree with ADP there. Tate is excellent for an RB3 and may very well end up the RB2 on this team down the line.

The WR position is a bit rough. There's no WR1 on this roster, and I'd consider Harvin a low WR2, and Edelman a WR3.

The next two are interesting, though. A lot of people this fantasy draft season have been saying that they are targeting 2nd year WRs over rookies, thinking that 2nd year players have better breakout chances, and for cheaper draft picks to boot. This is often true, and I think it may be very true of Justin Hunter. I have major doubts about DeAndre Hopkins, though, who I feel may very well be Just A Guy. Good hands, but we've yet to see any separation ability.

I would probably want a backup TE rather than a 5th RB.

Cripes, Legion, good writeup. Take a gander at this then:

QB Russell Wilson, Sea QB 7.91
RB Eddie Lacy, GB RB 1.7
RB Shane Vereen, NE RB 5.63
RB/WR Michael Floyd, Ari WR 4.50
WR Jordy Nelson, GB WR 2.22
WR Keenan Allen, SD WR 3.35
TE Kyle Rudolph, Min TE 6.78
D/ST Browns D/ST D/ST 15.203
K Greg Zuerlein, StL K 16.218

Bench Mark Ingram, NO RB 8.106
Bench Devonta Freeman, Atl RB 9.119
Bench Justin Hunter, Ten WR 10.134
Bench Jordan Matthews, Phi WR 11.147
Bench Knile Davis, KC RB 12.162
Bench Heath Miller, Pit TE 13.175
Bench Jake Locker, Ten QB 14.190

6 points per passing TD. Non-PPR. 14 teams (ugh).

I went with people who are likely to produce, if not lead the league necessarily.

I held off on QB until very late in the draft and settled on Wilson. Locker was not who I would want as a backup, but it's who I've got.

The Vereen pick was me taking a flyer that his catching ability will make up for his lack of running touches. In a non-PPR that might have been stupid, but I got him way after his ADP. Actually, let me put their draft spots in.

This is a league with my friend from Colorado and Peyton went 1.2 with Demaryius Thomas 1.3. Stupid. They don't normally go that crazy over Bronco players, but it helped me get Lacy (almost Jamaal Charles!), so I'm good with it.