FF2012: GWJFFL Week 4

I think we should add bench spots!

FSeven wrote:

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.

This is by design. Good players are rewarded for drafting good, deep rosters, and identifying good players ahead of time. Fantasy football already has an incredibly high "luck" factor. Things like deep benches help reward good play.

Guys like Fitzpatrick, Hartline, Roberts, Chandler, Battle, Burleson, Celek, Daniels, Schaub, Crabtree, Gresham, etc. are all on the wire.

That sounds absolutely awful. I can't vote "no" to a league setup like that strongly enough.

A league where there's starting-level talent sitting on the waiver wire undermines the game. Talent is supposed to be rare and hard to get, that's the one and only piece of "gameplay" in this game.

I support the deep benches.

IMHO, I like watching FAAB activity as sort of a weird economic exercise so I would like to see more players available. As long as there is a limiting factor on how many pickups you can make (either through FAAB or limited num. of transactions) its fun to see how people use their limited resources to improved their team.

On the other hand I am a big believer in Legion's "Draft Better" mantra. I play in a league with 16 man rosters and 12 teams, and all of those players you mention are/were available and I've yet to make any changes to my roster. The teams that are leading in Points For haven't started any free agents they've picked up, and my team which is in the top 4 hasn't even picked one up. Outside of 3-4 players every year there aren't too many every week players that can impact the season, and those guys usually come from nowhere and were undrafted regardless if you were in a 16 or 20 round draft.

I despise leagues with arbitrary waiver wire pickups. My non-GWJ paid league is like that and every year I fight to the number increased. You can't control how many injuries you get and there's nothing worse than being screwed because of it. If the league wasn't filled with IRL friends ....

I'm fine with the deep benches. I dislike trading so the deep bench and waiver wire pick ups are for me.

Also, I doubt any player has a bunch of great players on their bench. Mostly RB3 and WR3s and maybe some 2s. Once injuries start to happen and more teams have byes you will see that the deep bench is both necessary and painful

'Draft better' is an apathetic bromide that reeks of poor sportsmanship.

Draft better doesn't take into account injuries and combined with a deep bench pretty much renders injuries irrelevant at least to those who are lucky enough not to get hit by injuries. It doesn't take into account the quarterback who gets injured which affects the points his WR put up since a backup QB is throwing to them now. So because I drafted a WR1 and his QB is out for the season and now my WR1 points get cut in half due to a crappy QB1, that means I should have drafted better? Seriously?

It doesn't make someone a better manager but in a way relies on the draft choices of other managers. Draft better with deep benches eliminates one of the best parts of fantasy football: trades and free agent bidding, since having such a deep bench assures that every manager has 2-3 backups per position.

I mean why even have a free agent budget if after the first 3 weeks or so, all the main starters and players that show increased roles are taken? Can anyone explain that to me? Why we have $100 budgets when after the first 3 weeks there's no talent left to spend it on? I've always seen the WW as a way for back of the pack owners to remain competitive as well as for late season pickups based on matchups to help a team try to eke out a win and get to the playoffs. To me, those leagues have always been the most fun whether I was playing catchup or near the top of the pack feeling the pressure from a middle of the road team that spent large on a key ww pickup and made a push to the playoffs.

Deep benches penalize managers who have unfortunate injuries or lose production say from a WR due to a quarterback injury. As we all know, fantasy football has a lot of "luck" involved, if there is such a thing, however isn't the idea to try and mitigate the luck factor? To allow managers to actually manage during the season instead of simply choosing who to start/sit? That's hard to do when there's no way to counter a bad turn of luck (injury, etc.) by picking up ww talent because they're all sitting on deep benches.

karmajay wrote:

Also, I doubt any player has a bunch of great players on their bench. Mostly RB3 and WR3s and maybe some 2s. Once injuries start to happen and more teams have byes you will see that the deep bench is both necessary and painful :)

See but that's where the whole "managing" thing comes in. Having to decide how much to bid on a FA that is in demand. Having to decide who to cut to make room for that FA.

With deep benches, the only managing that really gets done is choosing who to start/sit. It's the equivalent of Nerf brand fantasy football.

If we're trying to be more "simulation" than "arcade mode", simulate a GM whose RB1 goes down to a torn ACL week 1. Who are you getting off the waiver wire or the street to step in and make a difference? If any of the players available were difference makers, someone would have claimed them.

That's the idea of the deep bench. Drafting in FF is equivalent to the draft and early free agency in regular football. Once that's over, you're going to have a damn hard time picking up a difference maker. You have Undrafted Free Agents, the bottom of other teams' rosters, and washed up old guys. In FF, you have RB2s (or 3s or 4s depending on the team's RB situation), bad QB1s, WR4s, bad TE1s, bad defenses, and bad kickers.

Injuries are a part of the game, and you have to deal with it, but so is building a well rounded, deep team. I have some teams where I'm debating which 7 of the 12 good players I want to start. I have other teams where I'm hoping this last starter gets any points at all. Some leagues, I drafted well (nice to see you Stevan Ridley). Some leagues I drafted poorly (David Wilson as my RB3). Some leagues I kept well (Arian Foster). Some leagues I kept poorly (f*cking Chris Johnson).

Personally, I would rather feel good for drafting the diamond in the rough, than not to have to worry about it, because there is a sea full of diamonds to choose from.

If you want a league with plenty of available talent, I would recommend a smaller, 8 or 10 team league.

Neither of the mention solutions (Status Quo or lower bench limits) imply poor sportsmanship.
They are different mechanics concerning a game we all play about men who wear bright colors and hit each other for money or place ovoid balls within rectangles for money.
As this discussion cannot be relevant until the after the fantasy season has concluded, when rule changes are normally discussed, I would suggest shelving this discussion until then as it currently acts as a tangent to both the fantasy analysis and smack talk going on here.

With deep benches, the only managing that really gets done is choosing who to start/sit. It's the equivalent of Nerf brand fantasy football.

For starters, let's throw out there that these rules have run multiple competitive leagues here for many years.

These rules are also the basis of many highly-competitive money leagues, like the WCOFF.

There's a reason for that. Despite you calling this "Nerf brand fantasy football", what you're proposing is (IMO) a much more nerfed league.

That deep bench that you don't like is what separates the good teams from the bad ones, and good fantasy managers from bad ones. In a league with shallow benches, there is no capability for managers to target and hold onto players that they foresee as performers later in the season. What you call "stockpiling" is where fantasy knowledge really comes into play. That is where the cheat sheet drafters and the guys (and girls) who are really playing the game diverge.

For example, I'm sitting on Alex Green in numerous leagues. I think he has a chance to take over the starting job from Cedric Benson over the course of the season. If I am right, I will have generated a great return on that pickup. Your suggestion completely removes that kind of gameplay from the game. Instead, if Alex Green does become a starter, he gets bid on and taken by some owner who quite probably had never heard of Alex Green before that weekend. That is what I would call Nerf fantasy football.

Why am I trying to find potential late-blooming gems like Alex Green? To survive the kind of injuries and underperforming players you're talking about. Your suggestion seems to me to have managers be able to stroll to the Free Player Store to get capable replacement players when they need them, without much thought involved. The way we play is that you work that bench and try to find your replacements ahead of time. Knowledge and foresight is rewarded.

I mean why even have a free agent budget if after the first 3 weeks or so, all the main starters and players that show increased roles are taken? Can anyone explain that to me? Why we have $100 budgets when after the first 3 weeks there's no talent left to spend it on?

Injuries happen throughout the year, and suddenly players on the bench become "talent left to spend it on". I submit as Exhibit A: every GWJFFL season to date. There are players to bid on throughout the year.

Contrary to what you might suggest, players are grabbed from free agency and stuck into starting lineups frequently every year. Our benches are deep, but they're not that deep, and that is by design. We decided long ago where we wanted to be on the casual/hardcore spectrum, and given the steady increase in interest and solid stable of returning members, we're quite happy with where we settled.

If we're trying to be more "simulation" than "arcade mode", simulate a GM whose RB1 goes down to a torn ACL week 1. Who are you getting off the waiver wire or the street to step in and make a difference? If any of the players available were difference makers, someone would have claimed them.

That happened last year with Green Bay. Ryan Grant went down and people paid a pretty penny for James Starks on the waiver wire. Some people even blew their whole budget.

boogle wrote:

I would suggest shelving this discussion until then as it currently acts as a tangent to both the fantasy analysis and smack talk going on here.

When Boogle is the voice of reason, reason is truly f**ked.

*Legion* wrote:
With deep benches, the only managing that really gets done is choosing who to start/sit. It's the equivalent of Nerf brand fantasy football.

That deep bench that you don't like is what separates the good teams from the bad ones, and good fantasy managers from bad ones. In a league with shallow benches, there is no capability for managers to target and hold onto players that they foresee as performers later in the season. What you call "stockpiling" is where fantasy knowledge really comes into play. That is where the cheat sheet drafters and the guys (and girls) who are really playing the game diverge.

For example, I'm sitting on Alex Green in numerous leagues. I think he has a chance to take over the starting job from Cedric Benson over the course of the season. If I am right, I will have generated a great return on that pickup. Your suggestion completely removes that kind of gameplay from the game. Instead, if Alex Green does become a starter, he gets bid on and taken by some owner who quite probably had never heard of Alex Green before that weekend. That, good sir, is what I would call Nerf fantasy football.

I don't think you need big rosters for this. While having a good bench makes for bragging rights and you can call yourself visionary for picking Alex Green, unless he's starting for you he's not doing you any good.

As far as injuries go, a small roster can do this as well. In one of my leagues I sit on Mendenhall and Britt (and we only have 16 team rosters). Could I replace them with Battle or Roberts via FA? Yes (technically no, because I only get one move a week). But the question is what makes a good team: 1) The team that drafted Battle/Roberts because their big rosters allowed it? or 2) The team that decides to not only cut one of these potentially good players and burns either its FAAB or limited transactions and takes a chance on an FA.

Personally I like #2 because it offers more inter-season interest. We've all played Fantasy Football for way too long and I'm guessing none of us have seen a whole season change on an FA pickup. The only FA system I don't like is when there are plenty of good players available AND its an FA free for all every week so whoever reads rotoworld first and clicks the button faster gets the best FAs.

I like to say "Draft Better" because its exactly what you say FSeven.. its a snide remark that irks people Its my favorite thing to say whenever any of my leagues debates FA rules.

*EDIT* Boogie's post came in before I finished my endless text. I'm done now.

Carlbear95 wrote:

We've all played Fantasy Football for way too long and I'm guessing none of us have seen a whole season change on an FA pickup.

Kurt Warner, BAM.

ukickmydog wrote:
Carlbear95 wrote:

We've all played Fantasy Football for way too long and I'm guessing none of us have seen a whole season change on an FA pickup.

Kurt Warner, BAM.

Ryan Grant, BAM.

(In his breakout year I picked him up all over the place and he won me a bunch of games.)

Carlbear95 wrote:

*EDIT* Boogie's post came in before I finished my endless text. I'm done now.

Vendetta.

Heh.. i forgot about Warner.. Trent Green was injured in the pre-season so there's a chance he was drafted, but either way, yes esp. if you played in a 6-point per passing TD league, that was a pick that probably changed the season.

Honestly though, other than that, taking a team from worst to first on one player that was picked in FA is pretty rare.

You guys know that there's a post-season thread every year where I ask for feedback, right? That would be a more appropriate time for this discussion (because I'm old and will have forgotten it by January). That being said, if you find this entertaining, enjoy.

Edit: That being said, *Legion* (and others, like kaostheory) has already covered my talking points.

Edit 2: And it looks like Boogle has already mentioned the post-season thread. (Sorry, I'm just catching up.)

ukickmydog wrote:
Carlbear95 wrote:

We've all played Fantasy Football for way too long and I'm guessing none of us have seen a whole season change on an FA pickup.

Kurt Warner, BAM.

Me. GWJFFLK 2010. Michael Vick. FA pickup Week 2. Won it all.

Grumpicus wrote:

Edit 2: And it looks like Boogle has already mentioned the post-season thread. (Sorry, I'm just catching up.)

I think you mean Boogie.

Yeah, every year there are plenty of bidding wars when a starter goes down. Not sure if this is your 1st year in the GWJFFL...?

Legion

I hope Demarco Murray breaks his leg pulls a hammy on the first play of the game, just sayin.

Gumbie wrote:

Legion

I hope Demarco Murray breaks his leg pulls a hammy on the first play of the game, just sayin.

Make sure he takes out Miles Austin at the same time, please.

I am behind by 15.05 points in my matchup with iaintgotnopants.

Miles Austin has gotten 13.1 points in the first half.

GO COWBOYS!!

Gumbie wrote:

Legion

I hope Demarco Murray breaks his leg pulls a hammy on the first play of the game, just sayin.

I appreciate you at least reducing your wish to a short-term injury.

Holy crap, I for Boogling won!?!?

Romo! Damn. That was a close one Grumps.

tboon wrote:

Holy crap, I for Boogling won!?!?

Oh go for boogle yourself with a fire extinguisher.

garion333 wrote:

Romo! Damn. That was a close one Grumps.

Tell me about it. GG.

boogle wrote:
tboon wrote:

Holy crap, I for Boogling won!?!?

Oh go for boogle yourself with a fire extinguisher.

hahahaha