TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
You won the league!!?? WTF??!!
Fantasy 2017 - Alpha Dynasty Discussion
- Thread starter manureid
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You won the league!!?? WTF??!!
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
TBH even 3-4 years may not be enough
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
What's 3-4 years?
Why 3-4 years?
How 3-4 years?
When there's only two aspects to change---the IDPs firstly, then the Off secondly.
How do you manage that over 3-4 years?
This league is already in it's 10th year fr cryin out loud.
About 5 years ago my scoring change pushing was meeting strong resistance.
But these days, TEN YEARS LATER, people are starting to come around. They want a less margin between Off and IDP. As I demonstrated above the position rankings all stay the same Off 1-4, IDP 5-7 still. This perception you're espousing that it's too drastic a change, my demonstration has shown is not a valid worry. There isnt a drastic change in anything. The 1-7 rankings are still maintained, the O's four positions still well above the D's three positions. No one notices a literal difference/change in their rosters. No positions or specific players rendered worse than what they're currently already ranked among themselves.
Why 3-4 years?
How 3-4 years?
When there's only two aspects to change---the IDPs firstly, then the Off secondly.
How do you manage that over 3-4 years?
This league is already in it's 10th year fr cryin out loud.
About 5 years ago my scoring change pushing was meeting strong resistance.
But these days, TEN YEARS LATER, people are starting to come around. They want a less margin between Off and IDP. As I demonstrated above the position rankings all stay the same Off 1-4, IDP 5-7 still. This perception you're espousing that it's too drastic a change, my demonstration has shown is not a valid worry. There isnt a drastic change in anything. The 1-7 rankings are still maintained, the O's four positions still well above the D's three positions. No one notices a literal difference/change in their rosters. No positions or specific players rendered worse than what they're currently already ranked among themselves.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 37,108
- 34,271
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Baltimore Ravens, Atletico
I'd be fine with changing IDP scoring whenever as IDP scores are more generally volatile, making it easier for the league to adapt to the change.
I'd be against changing the offensive scoring
I'd be against changing the offensive scoring
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Ok what about 8 years then?
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
If we were to leave Off alone, but just IDP, i'd probably then have to start off with CT and then tweak it more to make it try to bridge closer to the Off purely because the Off in Alpha is obscenely too much. Whereas if I was allowed to do both IDP and Off, then it would be perfect balance like CT already is.
I wouldn't even use CT exactly anyway for Off, because I'd want to tweak QB a little better so that it maintains it's #1 rank over RB.
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
I'm fine with adjusting the IDP scoring now, but uneasy rushing into changing the Off scoring just yet.
I wouldn't have sold my future picks to go and grab Carson Palmer + others had I known this might be on the table.
What I'd like to see instead is stricter roster numbers by position...
For example:
QBs from 5 down to 4
RBs from 8 down to 6 or 7
WRs from 8 down to 6 or 7
TEs from 5 down to 3 or 4
Would make draft time and cutting rosters down little more strategic, as well as more in play on the Waiver Wire.
Just my 2c worth.
I wouldn't have sold my future picks to go and grab Carson Palmer + others had I known this might be on the table.
What I'd like to see instead is stricter roster numbers by position...
For example:
QBs from 5 down to 4
RBs from 8 down to 6 or 7
WRs from 8 down to 6 or 7
TEs from 5 down to 3 or 4
Would make draft time and cutting rosters down little more strategic, as well as more in play on the Waiver Wire.
Just my 2c worth.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I'd also support a roster down sizing
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Cmon guys let's shake it up a little.
It's a great league (of owners) stuck around for ten years, let's put some zest back into the sex life by trying a few different things.
It's a great league (of owners) stuck around for ten years, let's put some zest back into the sex life by trying a few different things.
Wizard
Brownlow Medallist
Wizard
Brownlow Medallist
Squad sizes - really don't care, certainly wouldn't be opposed to seeing them drop by 4-5.
Defense - 100% change.
Offense - comfortable with either direction.
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
For me:
Squad Sizes don't need to be reduced as such, just reduce the maximum number of QBs, RBs and WRs by 1 in each position
Defense - Adjust now
Offense - Slight tweak
Squad Sizes don't need to be reduced as such, just reduce the maximum number of QBs, RBs and WRs by 1 in each position
Defense - Adjust now
Offense - Slight tweak
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So we have a majority for IDP score change. I'll wait for more yay voices then I'll implement.
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
If we reduce the maximum number of QB/RB/WR by 1 in each position that'll potentially put 12 extra QBs/RBs/WRs on the waiver wire.
Will also make it harder to decide which player you've been sitting on for X number of years waiting to see if he comes on stays to make way for your new draft selections, also means it won't be easy to handcuff a backup for a starter too.
Will make for a lot more strategic selections.
Will also make it harder to decide which player you've been sitting on for X number of years waiting to see if he comes on stays to make way for your new draft selections, also means it won't be easy to handcuff a backup for a starter too.
Will make for a lot more strategic selections.
manureid
Laziest Poster on Figbooty
- Thread starter
- #266
I am against dropping QB number because you usually have to have at least 2 rookie/backup QBs (sometimes 3) on your roster and hope they come good. Is good to have some speculative QBs (as you can carry them for 2/3 seasons). I think this then opens up more trade options and keeps the league active. Others will probably disagree though.
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
I understand where you're coming from, but if you reduce the number to 4 that still leaves the option of having 2 (sometimes 3 starters) and 2 (or 1 rookie potentials). Will make it interesting for those who fill their roster (like me this season) with 3 starters and have 2 rookies benched currently. Do I trade out a starter for draft picks or go with 1 less rookie/speculative QB? I'd suggest this would open up more trade options and would make the waiver wire more valuable for when a starter goes down as it would be filled with more backup QBs.
Wizard
Brownlow Medallist
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
I we reduce them what will i do with my wealth of QB depth including Savage, Brock and EJ?
Oh and Bridgewater, at least i can IR him.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Whatever changes we decide they will have to be approved by 8 members.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Vote yes or no to these separately...
1. IDP scoring up
2. Off Scoring down
3. Roster size down 1 qb, 2 wr, 2 rb
4. QB starters down 1
Eight votes needed per item to gain approval
1. IDP scoring up
2. Off Scoring down
3. Roster size down 1 qb, 2 wr, 2 rb
4. QB starters down 1
Eight votes needed per item to gain approval
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,063
- 94,918
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
manureid
Laziest Poster on Figbooty
- Thread starter
- #275
Really do not like the roster size drop ideas. Removes a lot of the fun around trying to build a deep list through drafting and trading. Start throwing good players in to the FA pool and saves people having to do as much scouting around the draft, planning for future draft picks etc. Most of the fun of this league is that.
