Fantasy Dynasty League 2008 - Discussion

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Did someone say Miller . . . TE?

hmmm, i know you think i bag your picks the whole time, but your reasons behind this one?

Just looking at it on paper, 31 years old, never a big stat guy, presence of Eric Johnson, given you drafted him in the other league i think it was you obviously think Shockey is a chance to arrive soon

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Personally I reckon the list sizes are big enough.

If we make the lists any bigger there won't be much waiver activity happening through the season.

TBH I reckon the lists are too big already.

Total roster would remain at 40, its just a change to how many LBs you can take if you want to, same level of FAs, does that clarification change your mind?

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

Why was only league one consulted, and properly enfranchised with the right to vote? Will this be the case on any future issues?

Dspeed in #1 thread is now suggesting a change to the max allowance for LBs from 5 to 8, as it's a position like WR where you need more depth. The roster size would stay at 40, and 2 max start. But he wants the 8 max allowance. He's suggesting now before people have filled up their 5th LB.

I asked him to discuss it with all MK I, II, and III. As you're all affected by whatever rules do change and therefore should be consulted.

So it wont happen again, the non-consulting of II and III people.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Billy Miller is a better TE than Eric Johnson and IMO will be ahead of him of the depth chart come week 1

Whether we bring in another TE ahead of him remains to be seen, but Miller is the best TE on our list atm.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Billy Miller is a better TE than Eric Johnson and IMO will be ahead of him of the depth chart come week 1

Whether we bring in another TE ahead of him remains to be seen, but Miller is the best TE on our list atm.

fair enough

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Total roster would remain at 40, its just a change to how many LBs you can take if you want to, same level of FAs, does that clarification change your mind?

Not really.

Let me think about it when the coffee's kicked in this morning.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Im not a YES or a NO. I dont think it's important is all. And good to have a list of viable FAs in certain positions that see a turnover rate thru the year....WR and LB ie.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Not really.

Let me think about it when the coffee's kicked in this morning.

Its because there is a clear inequality

You can have 10 DLs for 2 spots

You can have 10 DBs for 2 spots

You can have 8 WRs for 2 spots

You can have 8 RBs for 2 spots

BUT only 5 LBs for 2 spots

Why shouldnt the max be raised to 8, especially given more LBs are starters then at any other position on the field!

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

If you were allowed to have 8 max LB, you wont be able to have enough roster spots there for DE and DB or some other position. Eg...

Most everyone will fill out their offensive positions, 5, 8, 8, 5, and their kickers, 3. That's 29 positions from 40. You need another 7 def players to start. So that's now 36. Leaving only 4 entire slots open for back-ups to the DL and DB and LB spots.

If you took 8 LBs, you'd probably have to remove Croyle, your #4 and #5 TEs, maybe an 8th WR or RB, just so you could have 8 LBs, 4 DL and 4 DBs. Otherwise, with wanting 5 Qbs, 8 Rbs, 8 WRs, 5 TEs, 3 K's, and 8 LBs, it leaves you only 3 roster spots to put into the 2 DL and 2 DB and their backups.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

ST, play to win by all means, but play to play also.

gg aint trying to screw anyone over, he's simply trying to keep things balanced so people don't lose interest. Is there any point winning a comp where the other players have lost interest?

I understand why you're ticked, but I can assure you as far as FF commissioners go you won't find one more even handed than gg. He'll take a hit if it benefits the comp rather than making changes that suit him.

You're obviously prepared to do some homework on your selections and that will win out in the long run if you're in a well run comp (which is what gg is trying to achieve). If the draft determines the outcome of the comp then it's not a well run or competitive league.

Like I said, play to win by all means because that makes it a better comp. But the fun in fanatasy is winning comps where everyone is trying and that's what we want to see here.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

Dspeed in #1 thread is now suggesting a change to the max allowance for LBs from 5 to 8, as it's a position like WR where you need more depth. The roster size would stay at 40, and 2 max start. But he wants the 8 max allowance. He's suggesting now before people have filled up their 5th LB.

I asked him to discuss it with all MK I, II, and III. As you're all affected by whatever rules do change and therefore should be consulted.

So it wont happen again, the non-consulting of II and III people.

Well, thats something then.

I think much of this angst would have been avoided had i been allowed to be part of the decision making process, and argue the case then. Having it delegated down when it really wasnt a problem for our league only made things worse.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

After looking at those numbers there, I would vote NO.
Because it's just not do-able to have 8 LBs plus all those more important offensive positions max'd out. It leaves no room to properly equip 2 DL and 2 DB and probably another 4 of them for backup.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

ST, play to win by all means, but play to play also.

gg aint trying to screw anyone over, he's simply trying to keep things balanced so people don't lose interest. Is there any point winning a comp where the other players have lost interest?

I understand why you're ticked, but I can assure you as far as FF commissioners go you won't find one more even handed than gg. He'll take a hit if it benefits the comp rather than making changes that suit him.

You're obviously prepared to do some homework on your selections and that will win out in the long run if you're in a well run comp (which is what gg is trying to achieve). If the draft determines the outcome of the comp then it's not a well run or competitive league.

Like I said, play to win by all means because that makes it a better comp. But the fun in fanatasy is winning comps where everyone is trying and that's what we want to see here.

JD, considering you're the most disadvantaged, i think you're a top bloke for accepting it.

I just dont think you should have been put in that position.

I agree with you though, a better comp is one where people are all trying, and competitive, having done the proper research. Though, that does mean that we shouldnt undertake equalisation methods of someone finds a way to get an advantage. You deserve the advantage you gained by your great strategy. That you're willing to pass it off is a testiment to what a champ you are.

As far as GG goes, i dont blame him personally, im mad at the process, and the result, definetely not him.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

If you were allowed to have 8 max LB, you wont be able to have enough roster spots there for DE and DB or some other position. Eg...

Most everyone will fill out their offensive positions, 5, 8, 8, 5, and their kickers, 3. That's 29 positions from 40. You need another 7 def players to start. So that's now 36. Leaving only 4 entire slots open for back-ups to the DL and DB and LB spots.

If you took 8 LBs, you'd probably have to remove Croyle, your #4 and #5 TEs, maybe an 8th WR or RB, just so you could have 8 LBs, 4 DL and 4 DBs. Otherwise, with wanting 5 Qbs, 8 Rbs, 8 WRs, 5 TEs, 3 K's, and 8 LBs, it leaves you only 3 roster spots to put into the 2 DL and 2 DB and their backups.

personally, regardless of the LB maximum, i only plan to have 1 K and 3 TEs, having 3 Ks would be rediculous

Anyway, shouldnt people have that option, it is all about management as you like to say, people have to decide where they want their depth, i think it should be an option

As i said above, it is the one position where depth is not really allowed as it currently stands, given it is a must start 2 position, it should match the maximums of WR and RB

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Dynasty #2 - DISCUSSION

Oh yeah, and as far as DSpeeds proposal goes...

I dont like the rules being changed from what we've all agreed on to begin, however...

I dont see if having any effect on whats already been drafted, and it doesnt change what we're allowed to start, so wont actually change results of games. In addition, since youve made one change at this juncture, you're far better off ironing out all the inconsistencies now.

Provided that noone feels this would disadvantage them, i would support it.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

After looking at those numbers there, I would vote NO.
Because it's just not do-able to have 8 LBs plus all those more important offensive positions max'd out. It leaves no room to properly equip 2 DL and 2 DB and probably another 4 of them for backup.

its an option, not compulsory! of course it is doable, my general idea is 5 QB, 8 RB, 8 WR, 3 TE, 1 K, 4 DL, 7 LB, 4 DB, its certainly doable, it just means people have to decide, isnt that what you want in this league? some creativity? why should everyone go the same framework

i might want 7 or 8 LB, you might want one or two extra TEs

The fact that the max for TE and LB is the same is stupid as you have to start 2 LBs, you only have to start 1 TE

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Feel free to discuss it like i said. I think it's a valid request, but i dont think the numbers will work well because most everyone will focus on maxing out their offensive positions and that leaves less room in defense to fill properly enough to have sufficient depth in all 3 positions (DL, LB, DB).

Like you said, you'd have to start ridding the 4th and 5th TE, the 2nd and 3rd kicker, and maybe an 8th RB, just to have 4 or 5 DTs, 4 or 5 DBs, and 8 LBs.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Ie, it's DO-ABLE. (hence valid request). Just have to see how everyone else feels as well.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL 1 Discussion Thread

Feel free to discuss it like i said. I think it's a valid request, but i dont think the numbers will work well because most everyone will focus on maxing out their offensive positions and that leaves less room in defense to fill properly enough to have sufficient depth in all 3 positions (DL, LB, DB).

Like you said, you'd have to start ridding the 4th and 5th TE, the 2nd and 3rd kicker, and maybe an 8th RB, just to have 4 or 5 DTs, 4 or 5 DBs, and 8 LBs.

isnt that what you want? some creativity! not everyone will be the same

i dont want a 3rd kicker, why would i, a 5th TE doesnt interest me, might not even want a 8th RB, i think i should be allowed to look into the depth at LB a bit more if i want to, it just gives people options, changes nothing really, dont see why you are against it given you are always saying you want some management involved, decisions to be made, this does it

 

[dspeed]

Re: Dynasty #1 - DISCUSSION

If people want to max out on offensive players good on them, but if i want to invest more in LBs, why not, what makes one or the other better?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Dynasty #2 - DISCUSSION

Wait...

Having seen more details, specifically reducing the max of OPs allowed, i cant support that.

Far too much being changed mid draft.

 

[dspeed]

Re: Dynasty #2 - DISCUSSION

Wait...

Having seen more details, specifically reducing the max of OPs allowed, i cant support that.

Far too much being changed mid draft.

It changes nothing really, just makes the LB position more equal with all the other positions, i assume you have read the arguments i have made in the other thread

2 starting spots for LBs, only 5 roster spots, 2 roster spots for RB, WR, DL and DB but 8, 8, 10, 10 roster spots respectively, doesnt that strike anyone else as inequal

80-90 starting LBs, only 32 starting RBs, 64 starting WRs

IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE MAX OF OPs! THEY STAY THE SAME

Just means you have to decide where you want your depth and bench to be, more decisions to make rather than everyone following the same framework, max RB and WR would remain 8, TE would remain 5, K remain 3

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Dynasty #2 - DISCUSSION

It changes nothing really, just makes the LB position more equal with all the other positions, i assume you have read the arguments i have made in the other thread

2 starting spots for LBs, only 5 roster spots, 2 roster spots for RB, WR, DL and DB but 8, 8, 10, 10 roster spots respectively, doesnt that strike anyone else as inequal

80-90 starting LBs, only 32 starting RBs, 64 starting WRs

Ive read your arguements, and if this was pre draft, i would agree.

Problem is, at this stage, we'e already started drafting according to the settings which existed at the beginning of the draft (sound familiar).

If people have already stocked up on the positions which they are allowed to hold more of (especially the offensive positions), then changing it has an unfair effect on the value of their players.

TBH, it wouldnt change anything for me, so if noone at all objects, i wouldnt, but i cant in good faith now turn around and agree to the exact same thing ive been arguing against.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

I agree with you though, a better comp is one where people are all trying, and competitive, having done the proper research. Though, that does mean that we shouldnt undertake equalisation methods of someone finds a way to get an advantage. You deserve the advantage you gained by your great strategy. That you're willing to pass it off is a testiment to what a champ you are.

I do agree ST but sometimes you have to take one for the team.

In this case I can see the potential for people to become disenchanted with the league before it even gets going. That I guess is where I'm coming from.

If I thought someone was making the change to kneecap me and give someone else a leg up I'd be going ballistic, but in this case I can see the merit in the change and that it won't disadvantage me too much.

gg I'm sure will have learnt his lesson in not including everyone in the pre-change discussions and I agree people here should have been consulted. No doubt it would have saved some of the angst. gg's already put his hand up to accept that criticism and I'm sure that won't happen again in the future.

I agree though, enough with the changes.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFDL MKII Discussion Thread

I agree though, enough with the changes.

ST thought i was suggesting also reducing the max OPs, i wasnt

anyway, its really a minor change simply aimed at encouraging more choice and creativity, as it is, everyone will basically follow the same framework, max out on OPs, and go like 2 depth players at each of the 3 defensive positions, why not allow someone to take 7 or 8 LBs if they want

i think you guys are now just wary of changes in general and are not really seeing this for what it is, just opening up peoples options, it doesnt effect starters or points or the draft so far