FF13: Fantasy Football 2013 catch-all thread

*Legion* wrote:

I've been kind of thinking lately about how fantasy football scoring may need to adjust in the near future to more closely reflect NFL value.

It's weird for fantasy football to be so RB dominant as the league itself further and further devalues that position.

Exactly why I prefer PPR leagues.

Evo wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I've been kind of thinking lately about how fantasy football scoring may need to adjust in the near future to more closely reflect NFL value.

It's weird for fantasy football to be so RB dominant as the league itself further and further devalues that position.

Exactly why I prefer PPR leagues.

I think Legion is advocating for a scoring change beyond PPR.

*Legion* wrote:

I've been kind of thinking lately about how fantasy football scoring may need to adjust in the near future to more closely reflect NFL value.

It's weird for fantasy football to be so RB dominant as the league itself further and further devalues that position.

It's funny you should mention that...

Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I've been kind of thinking lately about how fantasy football scoring may need to adjust in the near future to more closely reflect NFL value.

It's weird for fantasy football to be so RB dominant as the league itself further and further devalues that position.

It's funny you should mention that...

IMAGE(http://www.dweebist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/suspicious.jpg)

boogle wrote:
Evo wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I've been kind of thinking lately about how fantasy football scoring may need to adjust in the near future to more closely reflect NFL value.

It's weird for fantasy football to be so RB dominant as the league itself further and further devalues that position.

Exactly why I prefer PPR leagues.

I think Legion is advocating for a scoring change beyond PPR.

I am. PPR helps, and I was a big advocate for PPR years ago before it really took off. (It blows my mind that PPR is still thought of in some circles as a non-standard thing).

Now I'm kind of feeling the same feeling I was when I jumped on PPR. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm just feeling fantasy football's RB dominance is getting further out of touch with the game itself. But I also don't want to jump on scoring that's far out of whack with the fantasy mainstream, either.

PPR was a really elegant solution to the problem, and I wonder if there's a similarly elegant solution. Maybe it's something like 2 points per reception. Maybe it's the 2QB style, to make QBs a scarcer commodity. Maybe convert 1 of the 2 starting RB spots into an extra flex to reduce RB scarcity. I don't know. I haven't thought it through. But we're now at the point where, according to ADP of current drafts, you draft Ryan Mathews, Eddie Lacy and Shane Vereen before you draft Tom Brady. It's always been a little out of whack, but I feel like we're now getting a lot out of whack. And I think the whole fantasy football community, not just this little corner where I get to beat my chest and argue for changes, needs to begin the process of rethinking fantasy scoring and adjusting to more closely mirror today's NFL. I wish the more run-heavy NFL that existed when fantasy football started was still the real NFL, but it's not.

I'm stupidly arguing against my own self interests here, as I'm sitting on a potential dynasty gold mine with Jamaal Charles and Doug Martin on the House Legion roster. So I don't know how strongly I want to make this point.

you draft Ryan Mathews,

Now that's just pure insanity!

Make QB yards count 10 for 1 point instead of 20.

I dunno, I kinda like the problem the RB scarcity problem presents. It forces you to have a team that sacrifices somewhere and PPR does accommodate that very elegantly by allowing players the flexibility to choose where they sacrifice by skewing the inconsistency of the WR position. I guess the biggest problem is the one or two people who hits the lottery at RB with a mid-round monster like Doug Martin or Alf Morris off the wire and rides them all season in addition to their elite first round RB and 2nd or 3rd round elite WR. But, then again, I might argue that's savvy research paying off.

Increasing the points QBs score doesn't help terribly much because there is less relative difference between the top 12 or so QBs compared with the top 30 WRs or top 15 RBs.

I like the 2 QB route. I vote for that.

ukickmydog wrote:

I like the 2 QB route. I vote for that.

The problem with that is, in a 12 team league, there aren't enough starters on the wire to cover during heavy bye weeks. It'd have to be a QB flex position. Here's a good, recent article from ESPN on the pros and cons of the 2 quarterback league.

Evo wrote:

I dunno, I kinda like the problem the RB scarcity problem presents. It forces you to have a team that sacrifices somewhere and PPR does accommodate that very elegantly by allowing players the flexibility to choose where they sacrifice by skewing the inconsistency of the WR position. I guess the biggest problem is the one or two people who hits the lottery at RB with a mid-round monster like Doug Martin or Alf Morris off the wire and rides them all season in addition to their elite first round RB and 2nd or 3rd round elite WR. But, then again, I might argue that's savvy research paying off.

It's not a problem in the gameplay department, it's a problem in the "resembles reality" department.

Taking the notion to the extreme, imagine if kickers were the scarcest and most valuable fantasy position. It could work from a game perspective, but is that really the football "fantasy" any one wants to play?

We're getting to that point with running backs. Like I said, ADP says people draft Ryan Mathews over Tom Brady (actually, ADP says Mathews is drafted above all but 3 QBs). That's a marker of a game becoming too separated from the reality it's based on. According to ADP, we start drafting backup NFL running backs before we draft all but the top 6 or so quarterbacks. Doesn't that seem flat out ridiculous?

*Legion* wrote:
Evo wrote:

I dunno, I kinda like the problem the RB scarcity problem presents. It forces you to have a team that sacrifices somewhere and PPR does accommodate that very elegantly by allowing players the flexibility to choose where they sacrifice by skewing the inconsistency of the WR position. I guess the biggest problem is the one or two people who hits the lottery at RB with a mid-round monster like Doug Martin or Alf Morris off the wire and rides them all season in addition to their elite first round RB and 2nd or 3rd round elite WR. But, then again, I might argue that's savvy research paying off.

It's not a problem in the gameplay department, it's a problem in the "resembles reality" department.

Taking the notion to the extreme, imagine if kickers were the scarcest and most valuable fantasy position. It could work from a game perspective, but is that really the football "fantasy" any one wants to play?

We're getting to that point with running backs. Like I said, ADP says people draft Ryan Mathews over Tom Brady (actually, ADP says Mathews is drafted above all but 3 QBs). That's a marker of a game becoming too separated from the reality it's based on. According to ADP, we start drafting backup NFL running backs before we draft all but the top 6 or so quarterbacks. Doesn't that seem flat out ridiculous?

Well, you have an incredible amount of depth at QB and relative parity between most QBs outside of the top 3 or so. There's no reason to waste an early round pick on Russel Wilson so you don't end up with Tony Romo or Eli Manning regardless of how you tinker with the scoring. Maybe it doesn't bother me so much because I have never really viewed fantasy football as a game that should resemble reality of the actual game.

ukickmydog wrote:

I like the 2 QB route. I vote for that.

Nope.

[size=8]Definitely not this year, anyway.[/size]

According to ADP, we start drafting backup NFL running backs before we draft all but the top 6 or so quarterbacks. Doesn't that seem flat out ridiculous?
Well, you have an incredible amount of depth at QB and relative parity between most QBs outside of the top 3 or so. There's no reason to waste an early round pick on Russel Wilson so you don't end up with Tony Romo or Eli Manning regardless of how you tinker with the scoring.

Yeah, I agree here. The difference is there a BIG disparity between the top 10 fantasy RBs (due to splitting carries, offense, etc) and not much difference between the QBs after the top 3 to 5. The only way to remedy that is the find a way to equalize RB scores more.

I think a way to do that is the experimental league we tried a couple of years ago where you pick TEAMS vs. individual players is an interesting one. That way you don't have people picking backup RBs for handcuff purposes in higher rounds.

karmajay wrote:

I think a way to do that is the experimental league we tried a couple of years ago where you draft TEAMS vs. individual players is an interesting one. That way you don't have people picking backup RBs for handcuff purposes in higher rounds.

Just a minor edit for clarity. After the draft, you were free to manage your team the same as any other.

Edit: Registration opens (no later than) tomorrow.

*Legion* wrote:

... Now I'm kind of feeling the same feeling I was when I jumped on PPR. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm just feeling fantasy football's RB dominance is getting further out of touch with the game itself. But I also don't want to jump on scoring that's far out of whack with the fantasy mainstream, either.

PPR was a really elegant solution to the problem, and I wonder if there's a similarly elegant solution. Maybe it's something like 2 points per reception. Maybe it's the 2QB style, to make QBs a scarcer commodity. Maybe convert 1 of the 2 starting RB spots into an extra flex to reduce RB scarcity. ...

Thanks for stealing my thunder.

Anyway, the signup thread is open.

For the dynasty folks: "Cool Rules"

I'm curious how people feel about changes to scoring between years for the dynasty / keeper leagues. I don't really have a problem with the rules changing, but if there's the potential to change the rules next year I'd like to know what concepts people are noodling THIS year so I can spend a few lower draft picks / $1 or $2 bids on good investments for next year. After all, the multi-year strategy is part of the game for those leagues and unannounced rules changes between years really takes away from that.

I don't have a problem with the rule change this year nor do I think it will change the value of current players THAT significantly, but anyone who had a couple good runningbacks last year (which I think includes me, haven't looked at the price sheet yet) just had their keeper advantage reduced by a few bucks compared to those who have multiple good receivers / TE's (which I think also includes me on the TE side).

Again, NOT opposing the rules change or trying to sow unrest. Mostly I'm just looking for a little preview before each draft of how rules might change for the following year if we're going to be doing that kind of thing.

The Viability of TE Streaming

What do you guys think of this? I streamed TEs based on matchups in one of my leagues part of last season to pretty good effect. Most everyone else in the league just stuck with their guy, but during the second half of the season I dropped Gates and started streaming.

If you don't end up with a top 4-ish TE in the draft, which is happening to me a lot in mocks because they go so early, you might as well wait til the end to get one. I'm finding that if there's a run on TEs in the 4th or 5th round, I'm foregoing a good flex RB or a WR2, which ends up really biting me in the rear later on in a 12 team draft.

Given our format change and the ability to start 2 or 3 TE's among many LESS reliable receivers may mean that it's not as viable a strategy in our leagues. Then again, maybe I'm biased since I had 2 of the top 10 TE's on most of my teams last year.

Edit: Or perhaps, viable but hotly contested by blind bids on the waiver wire!

Jolly Bill wrote:

... After all, the multi-year strategy is part of the game for those leagues and unannounced rules changes between years really takes away from that. ...

To provide a bit of counterpoint, dealing with NFL rule changes is part of the challenge for those teams. Even the article that Evo links refers to "NFL rule changes that have allowed teams to exploit the middle of the field with gusto" and its impact on tight ends. I don't view this as all that different. The league (both the NFL and the GWJFFL) announces tweaks to the rules and the teams adapt. It's all part of the strategy.

I assume you define "unannounced" as meaning less than a year's advanced notice. You know that the NFL announces rules changes for the following season at their spring meeting, right? I don't think it would have made much difference if I'd decided/announced these changes 4 months ago.

Edit: Did you notice that PPR was also cut in half? If you look at the top scorers for the flex positions (i.e. RB/WR/TE combined) last year, you'll notice that it's still dominated by RBs. So if you have two top RBs, that's probably still the way to go. This rule change simply gives coaches more options to try new strategies as well as more flexibility to try to adjust to in-season injuries.

Grumpicus wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

... After all, the multi-year strategy is part of the game for those leagues and unannounced rules changes between years really takes away from that. ...

To provide a bit of counterpoint, dealing with NFL rule changes is part of the challenge for those teams. Even the article that Evo links refers to "NFL rule changes that have allowed teams to exploit the middle of the field with gusto" and its impact on tight ends. I don't view this as all that different. The league (both the NFL and the GWJFFL) announces tweaks to the rules and the teams adapt. It's all part of the strategy.

I assume you define "unannounced" as meaning less than a year's advanced notice. You know that the NFL announces rules changes for the following season at their spring meeting, right? I don't think it would have made much difference if I'd decided/announced these changes 4 months ago.

Edit: Did you notice that PPR was also cut in half? If you look at the top scorers for the flex positions (i.e. RB/WR/TE combined) last year, you'll notice that it's still dominated by RBs. So if you have two top RBs, that's probably still the way to go. This rule change simply gives coaches more options to try new strategies as well as more flexibility to try to adjust to in-season injuries.

I did notice. And I don't mind. Still, I know Legion has commented about this in the past and I doubt this was a sudden change in your mind to make the change. To continue the comparison, it's not exactly like the NFL makes changes in a vacuum nor are the owners exactly unaware of the movement towards change or unable to lobby for changes they would like to see. They craft their strategies year to year knowing what's likely to be coming. I'd just like to have that same kind of conversation here.

So, in the spirit of that conversation... how's next year looking, commish? For the other 'owners': Anybody else thinking about lobbying for change in the future?

Jolly Bill wrote:

So, in the spirit of that conversation... how's next year looking, commish? For the other 'owners': Anybody else thinking about lobbying for change in the future?

My 2 QB 'lobbying' got shot down pretty quick

ukickmydog wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

So, in the spirit of that conversation... how's next year looking, commish? For the other 'owners': Anybody else thinking about lobbying for change in the future?

My 2 QB 'lobbying' got shot down pretty quick :)

But you know what? You keep it up and maybe it'll happen as league support swells! (NOTE: I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH 2 QB'S AND WILL SHOOT THAT DOWN IN A HEARTBEAT)

I was actually thinking of that when I was typing the post, though. At least, in terms that would reflect the league's movement towards... what was it? Polian-ball? Something like that.

I really like the changes this year. The change I could see happening next year is the removal of mandatory positions outside of QB, K, D. That would match the NFL even more but I think as we will find this year, RBs are still the most valuable position due to consistent workload.

ukickmydog wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

So, in the spirit of that conversation... how's next year looking, commish? For the other 'owners': Anybody else thinking about lobbying for change in the future?

My 2 QB 'lobbying' got shot down pretty quick :)

For this year. I'd already decided which changes I was making this year.

Jolly Bill wrote:

So, in the spirit of that conversation... how's next year looking, commish? For the other 'owners': Anybody else thinking about lobbying for change in the future?

Elliottx wrote:

The change I could see happening next year is the removal of mandatory positions outside of QB, K, D.

Although there's nothing to say these will happen or that things not yet on the list won't happen, changes that I'm already considering for next year include 1) reverting the PPR change back to a full point - depending on how this year plays out - and 2) converting one of the WR slots to flex as well. I can assure you that I'll never go "all flex" but 1 RB, 2WR, 1 TE seems to be a solid base from which a coach can add their own personal style.

Any other changes are totally open for consideration and discussion but ultimately, the decision will rest with the commissioner. If you guys want to issue a recall (or would it be an impeachment? ), I'm willing to turn over the reigns if you think someone else can do a better job. (And no, that doesn't mean I'm offended, butthurt, fishing for compliments, wanting to step down, or otherwise threatening abdication. I'm just willing to accept the will of the people in regards to their leadership. I think this is my seventh sixth year behind the podium so if you're ready for a change, power to the people.)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/sxHt2aI.jpg)

One idea that could be explored is having the league's owners elect a handful of people to form a "rules committee".

We have, what, 5 leagues now? Maybe each league picks one member for the committee?

These leagues have always been very casually run, but if more structure is something people want, there's an idea.

*Legion* wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/sxHt2aI.jpg)

Completely off topic, but is it me or is that woman in the top left holding an assault rifle over the ledge?

ukickmydog wrote:

Completely off topic, but is it me or is that woman in the top left holding an assault rifle over the ledge?

Spoilers!