SDMB Super League fantasy football 2011

[SenorBeef]

Every year I try something different with fantasy football. I've been wanting to try a league with few people but super deep rosters for a few years now but it never came to fruition. So this year I was more aggressive in getting it to happen.

Over the years I've learned who the best and most active SDMB players are, so I began talks with them about it. We kept the league discussion in PMs because I didn't want to offend anyone who might've wanted to get in. But we were going to have very limited size - either 4 or 6 players - so I looked at past participation and fantasy success to come up with a list.

The small league means that the participation rate can remain top notch - if you put together the most active players, you'll have the most active leagues - no one will be half-assing it. It also gives a different flavor to the strategy - you'll be drafting 20-30 players - not just targeting your favorites but having to draft a large number of players through all tiers, which gives you a greater chance to show your drafting prowess.

The first year of the league will feature myself, VarlosZ, Really Not All That Bright, Omniscient, Jules Andre, and Munch. So we're not recruiting for this year. But Jules (IIRC) came up with a cool idea: relegation. Every year we kick out either the bottom 1 or 2 worst performers and invite the player(s) who've had the best year in the SDMB fantasy football leagues to replace them. It gives real stakes to losing in the league, and it gives other people a way to get in. After a few years we'll have significant turnover - it will be a continually revolving league of the SDMB's best players, a prestigious/champion's league of sorts.

We haven't settled exactly how we'll decide who to invite each new year. I want to base it off of some sort of objective measure of average performance across several leagues. Jules wants it to be based off of winning certain leagues - either with a ranking of importance of the various leagues, or simply the person who won one of the SDMB leagues in the most dominant fashion, probably using the percentage of points they have more than the league average. Plenty of time to work that out anyway.

Please don't be offended that you weren't invited for the inaugural year. By its nature, the league had to remain small, and I couldn't invite everyone. The people I did invite are always going the extra fantasy mile - writing up draft reviews, posting recommendations, talking about trades, etc. You'll get a chance to get in next year if you make a good showing in the other SDMB leagues.

Now... we've had some discussion on the rules and settings but haven't come to a consensus on a lot of it. I'm hoping making this thread will get the discussion kickstarted again. I'll post my thoughts on some stuff later or tomorrow. But we'll need to figure out stuff like roster size, relegation details, scoring system, etc.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I fully plan on tanking a game or two to allow you peons to stay clear of relegation. For the right price, of course.

[Munch]

The thing I look forward to the most is not having to draft 11th.

[SenorBeef]

Speaking of the draft, since no one has objected to the date of Wed Sep 7 at 9:30 eastern, we're pretty much locked in to that now. Not many spots left open. But if there is a problem - speak up now.

As discussed in the league forums, I think the regular non-auction format is ok for this league. With only 6 of us, it'll never be that long between picks. One issue I mentioned though is that I don't like the idea of snake drafting in such a small league. I don't like how the corner double picks would be coming up constantly. I think it would actually be smoother if we just had a set order so everyone would be picking every 6 picks.

But then that's not balanced at all - the person first in the draft order gets a big advantage. My proposal to offset that: Use a certain order for the first 2 to 4 rounds (keeping in mind a round in our draft is only 6 picks), and then reverse it for the rest of the draft.

So the draft would go ABCDEF/ABCDEF/FEDCBA/FEDCBA/FEDCBA (with FEDCBA repeating until end of draft). As we discussed in previous threads about creating a balanced draft system, it's more important to be first in the order at the top than it is to be first in the order in round 5 or 10 or 15 - the importance of having first picks of a round decreases as the draft goes on. Hence the better position in the most important rounds being offset by being in a worse position in less important rounds, but many more times.

I think this would be reasonably balanced and more engaging than a snake draft. I can't objectively justify why it's better, but it feels a lot better to me.

Opinions? We'll set up a system before anyone knows what pick they are, of course, so just vote with whatever seems good to you.

[Munch]

I'm okay with switching up the draft order - but we should run the numbers through the draft pick value chart thing just to make sure it's fair. Getting #1 and #7 is way more valuable than getting #6 and #12.

[SenorBeef]

Right, but we're going to have like a 25+ round draft, so we're talking about offsetting the benefit of 1 and 6 with 23+ rounds where you flip. I will check out the fantasy value calculator, keeping in mind it's just someone else's idea rather than any sort of objective measurement.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I would prefer to stick with a snake draft. You can put me at the end if you like.

[Jules Andre]

And I'd prefer to go with an auction/keeper league - the truest test of skill! (Keeper isn't such a problem for a relegation league in this case because of the league size - even the last place team is guaranteed to have a few options at least) And auction/keeper is something not seen on the Dope so far, which is a big plus.

But if we're forced into snake drafting, I think it has to go as SenorBeef described. I really don't think it's a terribly significant advantage either way, though. It seems to me like a thing people argue about before the draft and and at the end of the season it matters not at all. So I'm on board for anything there.

I think relegation is best left to the bottom team. I don't think that person should get the benefit of sharing their misery with anyone. And I'm sticking with my ideas on how to determine who takes the vacated spot.

Did we discuss scoring? PPR? Return yardage? Performance bonuses? (I vote yes/yes/no)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am perfectly okay with an auction format. I'm not very good at them (minimal experience), but they're unquestionably fairer than standard formats.

Jules, what was your idea to determine who gets next year's spot? We vote? League winner selects?

[SenorBeef]

I don't think keepers are appropriate at all. It kind of sucks when someone needs to be replaced in a regular keeper league, when someone else leaves, and they're stuck with a roster they didn't create. To have that be a built in feature, where someone inherits the player list of the team that finished last, isn't fair at all.

I'd be willing to do an auction draft, I just find it relatively unnecesary. The smaller a league is, the less the fairness issue comes up - think of a conventional draft of a 2 man league where you pick every other pick - technically it's not as flexible as an auction where you could spend to land the #1 and #2 players on the board, but you'd have a ton of control over how you shaped your team. Compared to the big league first year, where the people at the ends of the snake had to wait for 38 selections between their picks. Just having a fewer amount of teams drafting makes the differences between snake and auction less significant.

And it seems more intuitive just to do a conventional draft (I won't say snake since I'm advocating not snaking). It would be fairly unintuitive to come up with a draft plan for spending your auction dollars on 25-30 players and drafting against only 6 teams. Which I suppose you could argue is a good thing - we're testing our ability to formulate and change strategy and not just our fantasy knowledge. Just drafting a player every 6 picks seems far more intuitive though. If we did go with an auction draft, we'd probably want to increase the amount of money the teams have to spend to allow us to appreciate subtle differences in values - there'd be a lot more relevance to who you get for $4 vs $5 vs $6 in this type of draft I would think, and having more money available increases the granularity of it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yeah, I don't see the point of keepers when we're going to have a new player or two each year. It pretty much puts them at a disadvantage as soon as they get in; after all, if the team had talent, it wouldn't be last.

And sure, an auction's not really necessary, but since the overriding goal of this league is to remove luck as far as possible, it does seem appropriate.

[Munch]

I'm wondering about the need for a playoff system. We only have 6 teams. If we go with a 15-week schedule, that means everyone plays each other 3 times. We could have a 4-team playoff at the end as an exhibition. In my experience, the best teams exhibit how great they are during the regular season - there's far too much luck involved in two individual games at the end of the season - especially with Thursday roster locks for some players, limited managers to what they can do.

Just a suggestion - I'm not adamant about it.

I also was tinkering around with the idea of (absurdly) splitting the league up into 2 divisions. You'd play each team in your division 3 times (6 games), play each team in the other division 2 times (6 games), and have each round of the playoffs take 2 weeks each (scrapping Week 17). That alleviates any huge deviation in performance any given week during the playoffs to some extent.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I agree with the no-playoff thing too.

[SenorBeef]

I generally agree with the sentiment. I think there's an over-emphasis on actually winning the championship of the league. To me, it's more impressive to win the points total. And in a purely competitive sense, I'd rather run every league as a points league to remove the randomness of the matchups and simply have it be a points competition. But I realize that the head to head format makes things a lot more fun and exciting from week to week.

We had some of that debate as far as figuring out who to invite to the league. Jules strongly prefers to invite champions in leagues. I wanted to devise some sort of formula where good performance in multiple leagues yielded a better score. My compromised proposal was to invite the person who most dominated one of the established SDMB leagues - the person who had the highest points over average (as a percentage to adjust for different league scoring/roster sizes). So you'd still have the champion, but scoring becomes the tiebreaker. I would still prefer my original proposal.

To give a concrete example, I absolutely dominated the auction league last year. The top 3 scores were 1745 (me), 1385, 1350. The average score by other players in the league was 1269. Yet I had an off week in the semifinals of the playoffs and lost by 6 points, only to finish third. Practically speaking I had clearly marshalled together the best fantasy team in that league - it's just that my loss in week 15 more than offset my 12 (often crushing) wins during the rest of the season just due to the random, arbitrary nature of having two head to head matchups determine the league winner.

To me, it would be silly to invite It's Not Rocket Surgery (the actual league winner), with his 1246 points, instead of me to join this league if our goal is to have the best SDMB FFers. But that's what a win based requirement would do.

I mean - I was the top scorer in all 3 leagues I drafted in last year, all pro, auction, and big league. I had the best fantasy year that any SDMBer has ever had, in total, and probably will ever have again. And yet with a champion-centric criteria, I probably wouldn't have even been invited to join this league, since I only won one of those leagues and it was the one I was least dominant in. Obviously I feel like that's a pretty huge flaw in that sort of criteria.

[Jules Andre]

There are six teams in this league. Six. Just because a team is last doesn't mean their team was bad. It means the other teams were better. With only six teams it would take a series of extremely unlikely misfortunes to have a roster devoid of one or two good keeper prospects. In a small league full of knowledgable owners it's inconceivable that such an apocalyptic team could exist.

You could cherry pick the worst possible (reasonable) roster based on 2010 and hindsight - all the busts, the injured players, the under performers, every. single. one. - and still have at least a few good prospects going into 2011. Keep in mind the last place team only has to move up one spot.

And what if the world ends and somebody manages to draft a team full of trash and waiver pickups. Dropping literally every player they drafted. So a new team comes in and they don't have a single keeper and everyone else has one or two. Is that such a massive disadvantage? In an auction league where 99% of the player pool is untouched and you can go after pretty much everyone you want?

The relegation/keeper inequality is being vastly overblown.

If you want the highest possible difficulty level auction is the way to go. An auction/keeper league makes it that much more interesting. BTW, as a relegation league, the concept becomes about continuity as much as anything else. "How long can you stay in the league?" Keepers develop that continuity theme and make it more interesting.

Playoffs: I think it has to be 2 week playoff rounds. Anything else leaves the potential for a playoff round screw job. But no playoffs? Might as well be a points league.

[Jules Andre]

There's a fundamental difference in philosophy between SenorBeef and I when it comes to determining who gets in. (BTW, I think the points over league average tie breaker was in my original proposal on the league page)

SenorBeef wants to have the "best players" in. But this is fantasy football. That seems like a fool's errand. Are we really going to try to reward "skill," in a game where the experts are no better than regular players, because someone finished third in every league they played in? That's an achievement?

At least winning a league has some measure of achievement. Just like in real sports, the best team doesn't always win. The most dominant doesn't always win. But we reward the eventual champions. I don't see why we need a paradigm shift in this particular arena. Reward the champions, challenge them to prove it twice. You'll get no praise from me because you averaged the best result over a bunch of leagues you didn't win. Participation awards and "hustle" trophies suck.

[Jules Andre]

Sorry for the spam, one more point. If we do go without playoffs, I think we should consider having a league (if possible) that extends into the NFL playoffs.

Too often the outcome of a league without playoffs is determined well in advance of the end of the season and interest wanes. Playoffs are the great equalizer, they keep interest intact. Using the real NFL playoffs would work as an equalizer too - if a team dominates early but doesn't have a core of players that are likely to go into the playoffs - they could end up being the hare to another team's tortoise. Sounds interesting to me.

[SenorBeef]

And what if the world ends and somebody manages to draft a team full of trash and waiver pickups. Dropping literally every player they drafted. So a new team comes in and they don't have a single keeper and everyone else has one or two. Is that such a massive disadvantage? In an auction league where 99% of the player pool is untouched and you can go after pretty much everyone you want?

The relegation/keeper inequality is being vastly overblown.


How many keepers would we have? Keeping 2 or 3 seems shallow in a league where we'll have rosters of 25+ people. So.. 5? If the best 25 players are off the board and the incoming player has none of them, yeah, that's a pretty huge disadvantage.

Even besides the disadvantage, people want to have control over their rosters. Even if a guy gets to keep good players, they're not players he drafted. It just strikes me as pointless to strive for continuity of rosters in a league where changing owners every year is in the design.


If you want the highest possible difficulty level auction is the way to go. An auction/keeper league makes it that much more interesting. BTW, as a relegation league, the concept becomes about continuity as much as anything else. "How long can you stay in the league?" Keepers develop that continuity theme and make it more interesting.


I think you're the only person at risk for not showing up next year. Do you require keepers to hold your interest?


Playoffs: I think it has to be 2 week playoff rounds. Anything else leaves the potential for a playoff round screw job. But no playoffs? Might as well be a points league.

I don't see how two weeks alleviates the playoff screwjob. You still can get screwed and on that first week and then even if you win the second game you're only going to get third place.

There's a fundamental difference in philosophy between SenorBeef and I when it comes to determining who gets in. (BTW, I think the points over league average tie breaker was in my original proposal on the league page)

SenorBeef wants to have the "best players" in. But this is fantasy football. That seems like a fool's errand. Are we really going to try to reward "skill," in a game where the experts are no better than regular players, because someone finished third in every league they played in? That's an achievement?


Yes, of course it is. I have no idea how you can mock that idea. I played in 4 leagues last year, with 10, 12, 12, and 20 people, and finished top 3 in all of them. That's a big achievement. How is it not?

If someone comes in 2nd place in 4 different leagues, and someone else comes in last place in 3 but wins the last one - you think the latter person is the better fantasy player?

You point out the randomness that can result in fantasy football - head to head matchups, injuries, etc. to indicate that it's not a purely skill based enterprise. But then you discount the idea of averaging a person's performance over multiple samples to try to examine their success outside of those random factors.

Or - actually - taking your post in the league forums - you seem to think fantasy football is a no skill enterprise, which is just odd to me, especially considering that you're pretty good and have some idea of what goes into it. What are we here for, if it's just a lottery ticket and not a way for us to show off our football knowledge and judgement?


At least winning a league has some measure of achievement. Just like in real sports, the best team doesn't always win. The most dominant doesn't always win. But we reward the eventual champions. I don't see why we need a paradigm shift in this particular arena. Reward the champions, challenge them to prove it twice. You'll get no praise from me because you averaged the best result over a bunch of leagues you didn't win. Participation awards and "hustle" trophies suck.


Really? Last year leading 3 leagues in scoring, finishing top 3 in all 4 - that's only worthy of a participation award to you? Nothing at all remarkable about it? Nothing that indicates that I might be good at fantasy football? (And this after a history of finishing top 3 across several leagues across several years). The only thing I accomplished last year was winning the big league, all that other stuff is irrelevant?

The only thing you actually have control over in fantasy football is how many points your team scores. You can have ridiculously unlucky streaks (like where I finished as the top scorer in the big league, but finished 15th place in win/loss, because I had the most points scored against me in the league by far - everyone had their lucky huge day against me). Everything but the scores is random noise. And in terms of competitiveness, I'd rather have every league be points based.

I get what H2H brings. Those monday night games where you're leading by 8 points but the opposing tight end is playing tonight. The trash talking that comes with defeating a specific opponent. The way I've beaten you in like our last 9 head to head matchups.

But in terms of actually determining who was best - points are clearly the way to go. As is a larger sample size if available. Looking at someone's fantasy performance across several leagues, and/or across several years is a better true indicator of their fantasy abilities than one flukey win where they barely squeaked into the playoffs and then had a decent run.

[Jules Andre]

How many keepers would we have? Keeping 2 or 3 seems shallow in a league where we'll have rosters of 25+ people. So.. 5? If the best 25 players are off the board and the incoming player has none of them, yeah, that's a pretty huge disadvantage.
You're making too many assumptions. You assume 2-3 is too shallow, I think it's fine. 5 is too many (that's potentially an entire standard starting roster). You assume that 5 owners keeping 5 players each automatically makes them the top 25 players in the league (completely ridiculous, contrary to every keeper league ever).

I understand there's a seeming contradiction between relegation and keepers. I don't think it's a significant disadvantage to even merit mentioning. But it sounds like I'm the only one interested, so we can move on.

I don't see how two weeks alleviates the playoff screwjob. You still can get screwed and on that first week and then even if you win the second game you're only going to get third place.
Uh, what? Two week playoff rounds completely eliminate a flukey screw job. 100%. Have you ever played a standard ESPN fantasy football league? Do you know how this works?

Each playoff round lasts two weeks. Best score over the two weeks advances. So if you lose the first and win the second, as long as you won overall, you advance. If you didn't beat an "inferior team" two weeks in a row, bitching about a screw job makes you look like a complete asshole.

Yes, of course it is. I have no idea how you can mock that idea. I played in 4 leagues last year, with 10, 12, 12, and 20 people, and finished top 3 in all of them. That's a big achievement. How is it not?

If someone comes in 2nd place in 4 different leagues, and someone else comes in last place in 3 but wins the last one - you think the latter person is the better fantasy player?
This is so contrary to everything that sports is supposed to be about that it's almost mind boggling. (I know this is fantasy, but it's loosely related to actual sports) We don't care at all who the top money earner in golf is, we care who wins the majors. We don't care that the Patriots went 18-0, we care who won the final game. Nobody gives a shit that Ben Roethlisberger is one of the worst quarterbacks in the history of the Super Bowl, we care that he (somehow) won two. The examples go on and on. 2001 Mariners. Up until this year, the Dallas Mavericks. What changed? They won.

The problem here is you've pumped your performance up so much you can't recognize how little of it you control. You're absolutely determined to have this mean something. And because that metric means something to you, you need for it to mean something to everyone else.

And fundamentally, it's a silly thing to reward.

Or - actually - taking your post in the league forums - you seem to think fantasy football is a no skill enterprise, which is just odd to me, especially considering that you're pretty good and have some idea of what goes into it. What are we here for, if it's just a lottery ticket and not a way for us to show off our football knowledge and judgement?
And as someone who happens to generally have good finishes in fantasy leagues, I can step back and recognize it's generally a skill-less enterprise. There is nothing you, or I, or anyone else, can do to make your team "better." You're playing a game that relies on the performances of others, which are generally unknowable. Skill is deviated only slightly, and only in two ways. One is that better players are always more informed, which isn't a skill but a function of available time and interest. And better players understand the simple ideas of value in making reasonable assumptions based on data. Also does not require a skill, really. Just a very simple education.

Do you realize what this game even is? You're making predictions about something you have zero control over. It's a game of Nostradamuses except we have a scoring system. Your football knowledge means jack shit, nobody's matters. Nobody knew anything about Peyton Hillis or Michael Vick or Brandon Lloyd last year.

Really? Last year leading 3 leagues in scoring, finishing top 3 in all 4 - that's only worthy of a participation award to you? Nothing at all remarkable about it? Nothing that indicates that I might be good at fantasy football? (And this after a history of finishing top 3 across several leagues across several years). The only thing I accomplished last year was winning the big league, all that other stuff is irrelevant?
Only the wins matter. You're the only person who cares about the rest. I'm not impressed by averages that factor out achievement.

The only thing you actually have control over in fantasy football is how many points your team scores.
You have zero control over this. There are many ways to eliminate variables in in the prediction. That's it.

The trash talking that comes with defeating a specific opponent. The way I've beaten you in like our last 9 head to head matchups.
Is this another Joe Montana vs. Dan Marino argument?

[SenorBeef]

You're making too many assumptions. You assume 2-3 is too shallow, I think it's fine. 5 is too many (that's potentially an entire standard starting roster). You assume that 5 owners keeping 5 players each automatically makes them the top 25 players in the league (completely ridiculous, contrary to every keeper league ever).


I guess it would depend on the keeper rules, true, and that's an extreme case, but yeah, having desirable players gone from the available pool certainly does put someone without those good players as a disadvantage.


I understand there's a seeming contradiction between relegation and keepers. I don't think it's a significant disadvantage to even merit mentioning. But it sounds like I'm the only one interested, so we can move on.


Alright. Well, just my opinion - I have a strong anti-keeper position, but as with everything I'd be persuaded by a consensus the other way.


Uh, what? Two week playoff rounds completely eliminate a flukey screw job. 100%. Have you ever played a standard ESPN fantasy football league? Do you know how this works?


I misunderstood what you were saying, I've never done a two week playoff system as you describe. Is it like a mini points race at the end of the year? How do the head to head matches come into play?


This is so contrary to everything that sports is supposed to be about that it's almost mind boggling. (I know this is fantasy, but it's loosely related to actual sports) We don't care at all who the top money earner in golf is, we care who wins the majors. We don't care that the Patriots went 18-0, we care who won the final game. Nobody gives a shit that Ben Roethlisberger is one of the worst quarterbacks in the history of the Super Bowl, we care that he (somehow) won two. The examples go on and on. 2001 Mariners. Up until this year, the Dallas Mavericks. What changed? They won.


I find this entirely unpersuasive. We're not playing sports, we're playing a strategy game that happens to use sports knowledge and that uses sporting events to resolve matches. Even within the context of head to head matchups, my guys aren't trying to stop your guys from scoring, and then scoring on your guys. Our team isn't really battling it out - we're not facing each other. We're having our own seperate little points race.

In real football, a scrappy team in the playoffs that makes a good run and wins the championship got there because they summoned up something inside them to face head to head with the other team and beat them. They stopped the other team, and the other team failed to stop them. Fantasy isn't comparable to that. Fantasy matchups are arbitrary, but evaluating the performance of the teams doesn't have to be. There's nothing arbitrary about a points league outside of the actual randomness that comes with predictions/injuries/etc.


The problem here is you've pumped your performance up so much you can't recognize how little of it you control. You're absolutely determined to have this mean something. And because that metric means something to you, you need for it to mean something to everyone else.


Throw out last year's performance. Here are the average finishes over 5 years of the all pro league (min 4 years)

2.8 SenorBeef 1/3/3/5/2
4.8 Petey 5/8/8/2/1
6 Kid_A 8/4/2/10/-
6.2 brianjedi 6/2/12/4/7
6.25 Frosted Lightning -/5/11/3/6
6.6 Tazmanian Devils 2/6/1/12/12
6.75 Kiros 4/7/5/11/-
7.5 Ellis Dee -/10/7/8/5
8 Chitwood 3/11/9/-/9
8.4 d_odds 7/9/6/9/11
9.8 Retrovertigo 11/12/10/6/10

I'm way ahead of the pack, having finished top 3 in 4/5 years, and that off year was still in the top half of the league.

I've never finished in the bottom half of the auction league.

I've played the big league two years, against 19 other players - and both years I was the leading scorer for the league.

Is this just random noise? I'm just trying to read something into the random noise to convince myself that I'm pretty good at fantasy football? For my two years in the big league - where I outscored every other person - in one year I was great because I won, and in the other year I was trash because a bizarre set of random circumstances knocked me into 15th, even though I accomplished the same feat in both years in terms of what I could actually control?

Any particular league-season can have flukes. Performance over a fairly large sample of league-seasons can be more indicative of fantasy skill over the competition.


And fundamentally, it's a silly thing to reward.


Being good at fantasy football is a silly thing to reward in terms of deciding who gets to get into our exclusive league that was designed in the first place to be a concentration of skillful fantasy players?


And as someone who happens to generally have good finishes in fantasy leagues, I can step back and recognize it's generally a skill-less enterprise. There is nothing you, or I, or anyone else, can do to make your team "better." You're playing a game that relies on the performances of others, which are generally unknowable. Skill is deviated only slightly, and only in two ways. One is that better players are always more informed, which isn't a skill but a function of available time and interest. And better players understand the simple ideas of value in making reasonable assumptions based on data. Also does not require a skill, really. Just a very simple education.


I guess. It depends on how you define skill. Is a doctor more "skilled" than me in medicine just because he's taken the time to learn a whole lot more about it? Think of the epic battles people have over sports trivia, for example - just proving your knowledge of football is greater than others is a competition within itself. And there's also a strategic factor. Do you think everyone is equally adept at adjusting their strategy for auction or conventional drafts? For deep rosters or shallow rosters? For redrafts or dynasty leagues? For different scoring systems?

Does it matter that I end up watching preseason football games for teams I care nothing about just because I want to evaluate what might be potential hot prospects in fantasy for that year? And not just in a "huh, he got 57 yards" sort of way - I know football in at least some depth, so I think I can critically analyze it fairly well. Do you just dismiss that as being time spent gathering knowledge, rathern than any sort of skill? How many competitive endeavours come down to who learns more about their craft and spends more time doing it? Are they all invalid as displays of skill?


Only the wins matter. You're the only person who cares about the rest. I'm not impressed by averages that factor out achievement.


So if hypothetically one year we ran a score only league, and I won, I'd be good, since I won. But if we went back in time and I ran the exact same year - I drafted the same players, started the same players, made the same roster moves, etc. - but because of some head to head fluke I finished 4th, despite again scoring the most points, I'm now not any good?


You have zero control over this. There are many ways to eliminate variables in in the prediction. That's it.


Do you not think that people can be better at fantasy football than others? Do you not think that anyone in this league would wreck the average public league for example?

[Munch]

I misunderstood what you were saying, I've never done a two week playoff system as you describe. Is it like a mini points race at the end of the year? How do the head to head matches come into play?

Let's say the playoffs are the top 4 teams. In Weeks 13 and 14, teams 1 & 4 play each other, as do teams 2 & 3. They score like this:

Team 1
Week 13: 50
Week 14: 75
Total: 125

Team 4
Week 13: 49
Week 14: 77
Total: 126

Team 4 (126) beats Team 1 (125).

Same thing happens for Teams 2 & 3, and you pit the winners against each other during Weeks 15 & 16.

[Justin_Bailey]

As an outside observer, I think picking the champions of other leagues is the way to go. Especially if you want to invoke the feel of a real relegation system. Any other arbitrary promotion system is just going to have people asking why they should care about this super league (doubly so because the big stat geeks are already involved). But people get championships.

Also, I think the second year should be an expansion to eight teams before the promotion/relegation system starts in the third year. Six seems way too small.

Obviously, as an outside observer, you're free to tell me to go to hell.

[Jules Andre]

Outsiders are always welcome when they agree with me!

And to SenorBeef, I'm not going to contribute to a multi-quote monstrosity and hijack this thread so we can have a reply war. I'll just put it simply and leave it at this; fantasy skill is not exclusive. It takes time (to keep up with updates, which is 95% of fantasy "skill"), and a basic understanding of value/risk. Absolutely anyone can do it. Other things that take skill require some innate talent as a baseline. Fantasy requires no talent. None.

As a quick side note, how come you decided to post the average results of the All-Pro league with a minimum of four seasons? Why not, I dunno, three? I wonder why you'd make that choice. Specifically four, for some reason. :D

[SenorBeef]

Ok, let's assume there's no skill involved. Clearly some people are more committed to it, and hence better at it, than others, right? However you want to break it down, some people have more success in fantasy football than others due to the knowledge they have and decisions they make.

The point of this league is to identify those players so that we have the highest level of competition. Maybe that just means the most dedicated, active players. That's fine. I've been stressing the skilled/active angle from the start. I like the active part probably better than the skilled part - I like to know that people will be up for talking in the league thread, that they'll be proposing trades and responding to mine, that they'll be writing draft reviews, etc.

Anyway, the point is - some people are better at fantasy football than others, whether they get there just from being football junkies or whatever. Fine. That's really a seperate factor from the issue at hand. The issue is - how do you tell who's the most committed and successful to fantasy? By their overall success at scoring points, and a larger sample size showing consistency is better.

Depending on the specifics of our criteria, usng a championship-based system, I probably wouldn't have been invited to this league based on my last year's performance. That's insane. To have the best fantasy season anyone is likely to have, by a large margin, over several leagues, but to not qualify for the league shows a pretty huge flaw in selection criteria. It's almost as arbitrary as saying "whoever scored the most points during week 7 will be declared the best in that league and invited into ours".

As far as the 4 year thing in the auction league - we've had the same core group for most of the league's history. I was going to make the list only for those who played all 5 years, to have the greatest sample size and the most fair comparison, but that would exclude 4 people who've been with us almost the entire time. So I compromised a bit and did minimum 4 seasons. I didn't want to compromise it a step further and reduce the sample size by an entire 2/5ths, especially if it was just to cater to people who weren't participating in the league anymore. I didn't design it to exclude you specifically.

And you don't want to respond to my entire post, fine, but please respond the part where I asked:

If we ran a points-only league, and someone won the league by a large margin, they'd be both the champion and have clearly the best fantasy team for the entire season. But if we hypothetically went back and time and switched the league to head to head format - and this same person drafted the same players, made the same roster moves, and did the same thing - excelled at the only thing he has control over, scoring a lot of points - and still scored the most points in the league by a large margin, but now because of having one off week, he finishes third instead of first, his accomplishment is no longer significant? He made the same decisions, dominated the league by the same amount, but in one case he's a clear winner, a great player, and in the other case he's just some unremarkable third place loser? Through absolutely no difference in anything he did, just because we've chosen to declare one particular semi-random result more significant than the combined sum of the other results?

[Jules Andre]

If we ran a points-only league, and someone won the league by a large margin, they'd be both the champion and have clearly the best fantasy team for the entire season. But if we hypothetically went back and time and switched the league to head to head format - and this same person drafted the same players, made the same roster moves, and did the same thing - excelled at the only thing he has control over, scoring a lot of points - and still scored the most points in the league by a large margin, but now because of having one off week, he finishes third instead of first, his accomplishment is no longer significant? He made the same decisions, dominated the league by the same amount, but in one case he's a clear winner, a great player, and in the other case he's just some unremarkable third place loser? Through absolutely no difference in anything he did, just because we've chosen to declare one particular semi-random result more significant than the combined sum of the other results?
Them's the breaks, kid. You can downplay the equivalency to real life sports if you want, but it's an apt comparison. You want to attribute a whole bunch of meaning to, and reward, relative success, I just want to reward success. We play this to win, not to construct moral victories out of tough losses.

I think we've spent exactly enough words to discover we'll be rehashing the same arguments over and over, and in typical Dope fashion, no one will ever change their mind. We have a perfectly good working compromise from the very beginning. You're the commish, you can overrule that compromise if you'd like.

There is one final point I'd like to make though. You seem driven to ensure this is a league full of the very best, the very most active. It seems counter-intuitive to me to then make this a relegation league and open up a spot for someone who may not meet the criteria you seem so desperate to maintain.

[SenorBeef]

Them's the breaks, kid. You can downplay the equivalency to real life sports if you want, but it's an apt comparison. You want to attribute a whole bunch of meaning to, and reward, relative success, I just want to reward success. We play this to win, not to construct moral victories out of tough losses.


I want to get the best, most active players on the SDMB in this league. When it comes to evaluating them through random arbitrary matchups it carries no weight with me. You're being arbitrary when you declare success, you're saying "the person who put together the team that scored the most points (which is the only thing any person has control of) is irrelevant, only the person who had the best week at the right time is successful". My model is actually in tune with the actual success based on the actions taken by the person making the decision, rather than random results.

Again you dodge my question about the guy who creates the best team, and dominatingly wins his points only league, only to hypothetically lose in a head to head/playoffs league.

And it is not at all an apt comparison to sports. I'm not out there covering you trying to keep you from making a catch. I'm not even starting my CB against your WR to see who can win that man to man battle - we're both starting our own WRs to see who can race independently for more points.


I think we've spent exactly enough words to discover we'll be rehashing the same arguments over and over, and in typical Dope fashion, no one will ever change their mind. We have a perfectly good working compromise from the very beginning. You're the commish, you can overrule that compromise if you'd like.


Upon further review, it really isn't a compromise. You'd be getting your way entirely. You want the league champion to win. So, ok, which league champion? Are you going to say "the auction league is more important than the all pro league which is more important than the keeper league" etc. so that we invite in that order? That's a hard decision to make and there's very unlikely to be a consensus, and you'll probably piss people off in the process. So you need some criterion in which to order the multiple champions we'll have. As you corrected me earlier in the thread, the tiebreaker being points scored over average was your idea in the first place.

So then you declare that your original proposal is a compromise (granted, I misremembered how exactly it went down so I called it that too), when it was really the original plan, but then frame the debate as if this issue were decided rather than still under discussion, and suggest that if I were to "overrule" this proposal, it would only be because I'd be using my commish power. That's clever in a political strategy sort of way.

Anyway, everything is still up for discussion, and I'm hoping the rest of the league will weigh in with how they want it to play out. We've both laid out our cases, so let's see how the consensus forms.


There is one final point I'd like to make though. You seem driven to ensure this is a league full of the very best, the very most active. It seems counter-intuitive to me to then make this a relegation league and open up a spot for someone who may not meet the criteria you seem so desperate to maintain.

That's true, and that's a risk. And I didn't have relegation in my initial proposal for the league. But the idea has grown on me. My thought is - if we're replacing the worst person in our league (and one league-year of results is small enough of a sample not to be at all conclusive) with the overall best player of the SDMB leagues that year, it probably wouldn't be much of a skill drop, if at all. But finding the best overall player to invite is a big part of that equation. We could very well invite a bad player who happened to luck into a barely making the playoffs and pulling out a good run. My proposed idea behind invitation criteria would mitigate that significantly. This is exactly why I'm so adamant about it - the level of competition in the league is my highest priority, especially over some arbitrary random results.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Ah, eff it. Let's just vote on who to give the relegation spot to. Since we can actually look at what they did in other leagues, we'll have the opportunity to eliminate people who did just get lucky.

[Munch]

Ah, eff it. Let's just vote on who to give the relegation spot to. Since we can actually look at what they did in other leagues, we'll have the opportunity to eliminate people who did just get lucky.
So what happens when I finish last in this league (likely) and utterly dominate and win the other three SDMB leagues I'm in (unlikely)?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I dunno but I'm tired of watching Beef and Jules' pissing match.

[Munch]

Agreed. Voting isn't that bad of an idea - it's no different than how this league was formed.

[SenorBeef]

How is it a pissing match? It's a debate about how to proceed. I only bring up my success as a counter-example to the idea that fantasy football performance is random and unskilled.

Voting could work I suppose. Maybe we could have everyone privately submit their preferences with 5 players in order? And then we give the 1st preference 5 points, second preference 4 points, etc. and the highest combined score gets in.

[SenorBeef]

We've got other issues to work out too. Rosters for one.

The default position is to essentially double rosters that you'd find in a 12 man league. Since we'll have 6 teams, that ends up having basically the same group of players started and drafted, just doubled on each roster. So something like

QBx2, RBx4, WRx6, TEx2, Kx2, DEFx2, and 14 bench slots.

This will make our league essentially like a 12 man league with half the teams in terms of quality of starters. But there's no reason we need to be tied to that idea, that's just sort of a default starting point.

Yahoo has a maximum nmber of players you can have per position, but you can mix pure and flex slots to get us any combination we really need. These are the limitations, the maximum of these positions possible:

QB 5
WR 7
RB 7
TE 5
WR/T 5
WR/RB 5
W/R/T 5
QB/WR/RB/TE 5
K 3
Def 3
Bench 20

The total size of the rosters can't exceed 30 players.

Now there are two takes on this. Jules thinks we should have a ton of flex spots so we should be able to try to implement any strategy we'd like. Omni (I think?) thinks that we should minimize the number of flex spots to make the starting decisions harder and more meaningful.

I have no strong opinion on this and I'd be ok with either position or some combination.

My proposals are: Let's give 3 QBs a try. In a normal 12 man league, going to 2 QBs is fairly drastic - you'd be starting 24 QBs. In a 6 man league, 3 QBs is somewhat less drastic - you'd be starting 18, which leaves some room for backups. I've wanted to try a league that has more QBs than typical for a while and this is a good chance to do it. We could make the third QB slot a QB/RB/WR flex spot so that if someone had an unlucky run and lost 2 QBs they wouldn't be totally screwed, but you'd pretty much always want to start a QB if you could.

I also would like to eliminate kickers. I feel like they're too far towards the random noise end of things. Some people already expressed a sentimental desire to keep them. Let's at least keep it reasonable and not ramp it up and keep them down to 1 maybe? Keeping in mind that since we'll likely be at max roster size, each kicker we add removes a bench slot.

I would like to maximize our roster sizes so that we'd all draft 30 players no matter what, whatever our starting roster count is, you could subtract it by 30 and get our number of bench slots so it equals 30.

My initial proposal would be something like

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx6
WR/RBx1
WR/TEx1
TEx2
Kx0
Defx2
Benchx11

What do you guys think?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I vastly prefer adding a bunch of flex spots over a bunch of fixed position spots. One of the problems with FF is that while predicting the success of players over a season takes skill, predicting success in any specific game is at least half crapshoot.

Short-term predictive ability is already reflected in in-season roster movement.

Of course, there's no reason we can't have a bit of both, although I'm inclined to restrict the flex positions to WR/RB/TE as long as we're already starting 2 quarterbacks.

[Really Not All That Bright]

3 quarterbacks is too many. From Week 5 to Week 8, there are six teams per week on a bye. That means we'll be starting 18 quarterbacks out of 26 playing. Trying to draft backups with different byes from your starters is one thing, but trying to make sure you have one of the 8 who won't be starting for someone else in each of those weeks and who doesn't share your starters' bye is going to be damn near impossible.

It's going to be difficult to do that with running backs, tight ends and wideouts too, of course, but backup running backs and wideouts actually get to play. There's a 99% chance that a quarterback who doesn't start a game won't appear in it, except for guys who get trotted out for gimmick packages (and Josh Johnson is the only wildcat QB I can think of who is actually listed as a quarterback).

[SenorBeef]

I don't think it'll be a big problem. That's why I suggested the third slot be a QB/WR/RB flex spot. To those people who plan out their draft better (and get lucky on injuries) they'll get to start 3 QBs all year. People that don't will have to start a RB or WR in that third slot every once in a while. But it's not as if they'll get a 0 - they'll just get RB numbers instead of QB numbers.

I think it'd be interesting having to have different QBs from different tiers, and also the draft strategies around drafting multiple QBs. In a standard draft your big decisions tend to be when to go RB and when to go WR - but if you need 3 QBs, it makes the draft more interesting, with more possible drafting strategies, because QB stays in the running with RB and WR for quite a while.

3 QBs in our league is less drastic than 2 QBs in a 12 man league, yet the latter is considered viable if unusual.

[Munch]

I think 2 QBs is enough to worry about, and I prefer to have fewer flex spots.

[SenorBeef]

2 QBs is the default amount of players to worry about for a league this size, it's the equivelant of having 4 RB slots (double a 12 man league). In general I was hoping we'd run all positions a little deeper than just doubling roster sizes from a 12 man league. I want to see what drafting strategies people come up with, and how we end up going after the lower tiered guys. I want depth to be more rewarded.

At 12 we'd expect to start the same amount of players and have roughly the same distribution of quality as a twelve man league (halved, of course). RNATB posted in the league forum about wanting to give a 2QB league a try for a while, and I'm saying while technically having 2QBs makes this a 2QB league, in practice it doesn't - it doesn't make you dig deeper down the tiers or anything, and you wouldn't change your QB drafting value. We'll have the same 12 QBs starting as a regular 12 man league.

Much more interesting to increase the QB depth and see what people do with more flexible QB drafting strategy and having to choose between lower tier QBs. This league affords us a unique opportunity to ease into it with 18 starters rather than having to go with a more drastic 24 as you would if you were to go with 2 QBs in a 12 man league. It's exactly in the middle of 12 team/1qb and 12 team/2qb.

Anyway, listing your preference is good and I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm just trying to lay out a case because the 3QB thing is the only thing I actually feel strongly about at all with the roster settings. Everything else - kicker or no kicker, lots of flex spots or few - I don't care about strongly.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I can live with the 3rd QB spot being a flex, I suppose.

[Jules Andre]

Not a lot of movement here, so it's worth bumping to get some progress going. Not a lot of time left to make decisions. And we haven't even really decided the most basic concepts.

So let's start ironing some things out. I'm pretty adamant about an auction draft. I know a smaller league would make a snake draft pretty doable, but there are enough caveats there that it isn't worth the debate. Auction is better anyway.

I'd prefer a PPR league. 2QB vs 2QB+1Flex doesn't matter too much to me, but I'd prefer the flex option for the sake of interest. It's a cool idea. I like having kickers even if they're mostly random noise just because it's weird without them. I actually kinda like the idea of having a large roster but not a ton of starting spots so the choices between players matters more (especially since with only six teams we're choosing between very good options instead of waiver fodder). So I guess in that regard, I'm okay not having a lot of flex positions.

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx3
WRx4
WR/TEx1
TEx2
Kx1
Defx2
Benchx14

Looks best to me. I made a couple conscious choices here. Eliminating the WR/RB flex makes the QB/RB/WR/TE flex MUCH more interesting because now it's the only flex you can stick a RB in and it doesn't automatically become a QB spot. Fewer starters overall to make the choices more meaningful.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm good with all of that, although I'd like to have five WR spots. I don't really see the point of starting two defenses; all the other stuff can theoretically happen in a real game, but two defenses can't play in a real game, so it feels... wrong.

[Jules Andre]

After thinking about it, I think SenorBeef's original number of starters is better. Having fewer starters seemed more interesting to me at first because it forces you to choose between good options, but that's not much of a choice, really. I'm still sold on removing the WR/RB flex, but the 4/6 RB:WR ratio is probably best.

[SenorBeef]

Alright, let me try to lay out some of the undecided issues and have people vote so we can get a clear idea of where the league stands.

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive? If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed? Details on the latter (how many picks before it flips) can still be worked out.

2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?

2c. Discard having kickers?

2d. Propose your preferred rosters.

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it?

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else? Yahoo doesn't have a lot of options, but we could manually do a custom implementation of our own system, like some sort of two week system listed above, or some other idea ourselves. I considered posting a question as to whether we should do a head to head or points league here, but I doubt anyone would support the latter. If you would, though, mention it here.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?

5a. If you want one of those first two choices but with minor tweaking, post those tweaks here. If you want to use a radically different and new scoring system, explain it here.

You may indicate if you wish if you feel strongly for or against any of these issues. We can use those feelings as tiebreakers. I may have left something out, if so, mention it here.

[SenorBeef]

My answers:

1. Standard
1a. Some sort of non-snake draft that reverses once. We'll try to figure out exactly where the ideal flip point is to keep the draft as balanced as possible.

2. Deeper. Strong preference. While fewer starters would put a greater emphasis on who you pick from week to week, more likely it means you could always just plug your studs in. More starters means you get more chance to compare more of you strength of your entire roster against other players, and assembling a better, deeper team is a more determinate factor of fantasy skill than being able to pick your matchups week to week, especially if the latter means you'll just always be starting your studs. In fact, you could argue that you have more meaningful matchup decisions in a deeper league - if you have to start 3 RBs and they're Peterson/McCoy/Blount, you're pretty much always going to start your studs. But as it gets deeper, you may have a harder decision picking between Knowshon Moreno and Ryan Mathews for that last slot.

2a. Yes, strong preference. An above-default level of QB depth would be very interesting and make more draft strategies viable.

2b. Somewhere in the middle. Mostly fixed starters with 1-3 flex spots.

2c. Yes, discard kickers. We're going to be maximizing the roster sizes (30) that yahoo allows, so keeping a kicker eliminates a player at a less assy position.

2d. QBx2, QB/RB/WR/TEx1, RBx4, WRx6, RB/WRx1, WR/TEx1, TEx2, Kx0, DEFx2, Benchx11 Could be persuaded to lower the amount of startable RBs by eliminating the flex slot, but I'd want to add another starter to replace it if so. Maybe another WR/TE slot.

3. Drop 1 player

3a. Drop player with lowest score is my general preference. Could lead to perverse results if the player with the lowest score makes the playoffs due to fluke h2h matchups - we could potentially drop our champion which I realize makes it unviable. Maybe drop our lowest scorer if he's amongst the people who miss the playoffs, otherwise drop the lowest seed? No strong preference here.

3b. Some sort of overall multi-league evaluation, strong preference. We could start from using Ellis Dee's app that calculated your overall win rate if you were to hypothetically match up against every team in your leagues every week. Weighting results towards people who are successful in more leagues for a larger sample size. (also indicates greater sdmb FF participation/interest)

4. The two week system would end our regular season fairly early (as we'd need an extra two weeks of playoffs), but since 4/6 of our players would make the playoffs, it only ends the season early for the two worst players. So I'd be cool with manually implementing a two week playoff system as discussed earlier in the thread.

5. Use the all-pro scoring system. We've tweaked it to be a very good overall system and I don't think this league needs anything radically different in the scoring department to be different enough.

I'm going to have very spotty internet access for a few days so don't expect much from me. But I'm laying this down so we can focus the discussion and get things done. So please everyone register your preferences here.

[Really Not All That Bright]

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft? Auction.

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive? If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed? Details on the latter (how many picks before it flips) can still be worked out. Whatever the standard amount is increased proportionately to the final roster size versus standard Yahoo rosters? Don't feel strongly about this. If standard, I prefer to stick with a snake format, and I do feel strongly about that.

2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right? Slightly shallower. Don't feel strongly about this.

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot? Yes. Don't feel strongly about this either.

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle? Three - one QB/RB/WR/TE, one RB/WR/TE, and one WR/TE.

2c. Discard having kickers? No. Do feel strongly about this.

2d. Propose your preferred rosters. I'm pretty good with the one you posted above.

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it? Drop 2 if the worst record and worst score are different teams. Drop one if the same team has the worst record and worst score. Feel strongly about this.

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio? Both.

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league? Champion only with voting - the winners of the five SDMB leagues* are the only ones eligible, and we select the new team (or teams) by vote. Feel strongly about this.

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else? Yahoo doesn't have a lot of options, but we could manually do a custom implementation of our own system, like some sort of two week system listed above, or some other idea ourselves. I considered posting a question as to whether we should do a head to head or points league here, but I doubt anyone would support the latter. If you would, though, mention it here. Don't really see the point of a four team playoff when there are only 6 of us. I really, really like the 2-week championship game idea. I would actually be pretty okay with a points league- takes some of the luck out of it- but I do think those are less fun.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves? I'm in favor of keeping things as standard as possible.

5a. If you want one of those first two choices but with minor tweaking, post those tweaks here. If you want to use a radically different and new scoring system, explain it here. How does the modifier system work? I like the 1/2 point per reception the Dynasty league uses.

*HHM, All-Pro, Big, Dynasty, Auction

[Jules Andre]

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?
-- Auction, definitely. Feel very strongly about this.

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive?
-- Doesn't matter. But since we want to avoid strange outcomes or further minutiae debate, the total number of players drafted is roughly equal to a 12 team league. 12 teams at $200 each = $2400 total. Half the teams means $1200 total, so double the money to start ($400 per team). That way every player retains the same starting values. (It also means my dream of entering the draft with $200 budgets and the first players going for $50 before anyone realizes is now shot. Damn.)

1a (cont.)If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking...?
-- Too many details to iron out for not enough upside. I understand why a standard snake could work here. The real question is why it's better. And it isn't. So there isn't any reason to finagle the Snake draft format to fit a square peg into a round hole.

2. Rosters. ... Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?
-- Thought about it and I'll vote for any outcome except fewer starters. More or same is okay with me.

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?
-- Like the idea.

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?
-- As long as the only flex that allows a RB is the above flex with the QB, any number of other flexes/combinations is fine. I feel very strongly about the QB/RB/WR/TE flex being the only one for a RB.

2c. Discard having kickers?
-- Disagree

2d. Propose your preferred rosters.
-- Any combination is okay with me so long as 2b is adhered to.

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season ... ?
-- 1 player. Feel strongly about this.

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?
-- The solution here is built into the league. If the objective is to win and determined by win/loss record, relegation must be so as well. If the league is a points league, then points can be used to decide. Any other solution is moving the goalposts. Points are used as a tie break and so can be used as a tie break.

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?
-- I would vote champions-only, but I'd also allow the option for the winner to choose from a pre-determined list as well. I feel strongly about not using any evaluation of performance other than winning because those evaluations always rate me poorly. I'm the guy who takes average teams and overachieves. I've never had the highest points. I micromanage like hell to get in the playoffs and make the choices there that earn championships.

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else?
-- (H2H of course) -- 2 weeks per playoff round with adjusted trade deadlines to match. 4 teams is preferable to 2.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?
-- Standard scoring +PPR, +return yards, with 4pts for a passing TD so as QBs don't go for $100 each. No benchmarks/bonuses.

Other options:
--FAAB with carry over from auction draft funds. What would happen if we only allowed the carried over funds (no starting $100). You'd have to make a conscious choice to spend all your money on the draft (better starting team) or save money for potential waiver additions. But what happens if you have $0 at the end of the draft, could you still make a waiver claim? I really like this idea.

Will we use any sort of waiver system where we message the commish our choices? Is that required in a FAAB system? (I can't remember)

I would also very much like a keeper league with concessions made to an incoming player if at all possible. Extra $ for the draft/FAAB if they keep no one, ability to "keep" someone else's unkept players like an expansion draft, etc.. I really, really want this. It would be very fun.

[Munch]

1. Standard

1a. Snake

2. Slightly deeper

2a. No

2b. Middle

2c. No

2d. Can't right now.

3. 1. Dropping 1/3 of the league seems excessive.

3a. Seeding. It's possible for a team with the lowest score to make the playoffs - I don't think it'd be fair to kick a playoff team out.

3b. List based off of performance.

4. 4 weeks of playoffs (2 rounds of 2 weeks each). I'd consider a points-only league, or a no-playoffs league that ends at Week 15.

5. Mostly standard scoring. Too much tinkering becomes tinkering for tinkering's sake.

5a. I'd prefer PPR (or at least .5/reception), but can live without.

[Really Not All That Bright]

--FAAB with carry over from auction draft funds. What would happen if we only allowed the carried over funds (no starting $100). You'd have to make a conscious choice to spend all your money on the draft (better starting team) or save money for potential waiver additions. But what happens if you have $0 at the end of the draft, could you still make a waiver claim? I really like this idea.
I also really like this idea. Certainly much better than the idea of paying $10 for Nate Burleson because my roster is already full and, hey, might as well spend it.

No money left? No waiver pickups for you. I'm assuming post-waiver free agent pickups will still be free.
3. 1. Dropping 1/3 of the league seems excessive.

Put this way, I agree. Changing my vote to only one drop, based on record, and on head-to-head results if records are tied.

[VarlosZ]

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?
Standard draft, and I feel moderately strongly about it. A big part of the appeal of auction drafts is that you're not sitting out doing nothing for long stretches while you wait for your turn to come around, but that's not an issue with a 6-team draft; we'll be constantly updating the queue and making plans, and there will be interesting strategic decisions about choosing the player you most want versus the player you want somewhat less but who is also less likely to be available at your next pick (in a 12-team league, this is usually only a concern for teams picking near the turn each round). Just feels right.

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive?
Don't care -- anywhere from $200 to $400 is fine, makes no difference.

1a (cont.) If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed?
Ambivalent. Snaking is fine, I think (it makes less of a difference where you are than it would in a 12-teamer), but if we can find a way to do non-snaking that doesn't yield an appreciable advantage to any one draft slot, that would also be good. We just can't flip the draft order more than a couple or three times during the draft, or else it will be confusing and people's picks will sneak up on them.

2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?
A little bit deeper.

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?
I would tend to prefer fewer flex spots -- 2 or maybe 3 RB/WR/TE slots -- but if the league decides otherwise that would at least be different and potentially interesting.

I don't like the idea of making a flex spot that includes QBs.

2c. Discard having kickers?
YES!!! It's the least interesting, most randomness-infusing part of every league.

2d. Propose your preferred rosters.
QBx3
RBx4
WRx6
RB/WRx2
TEx2
DEFx3
Kx0 (and please no more than 1).
Bench = 10

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it?

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?
I like RNATB's suggestion: drop the worst record and the lowest point total, whether or not they're the same person. If not that, then I have a minor preference for dropping 2 instead of 1, and a very minor preference for using W/L record instead of points.

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?
Commissioner's discretion, with the counsel of the rest of the league. Failing that, preference voting. Keep it informal, since there will always be factors either for or against each candidate that no formula is going to reflect.

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else?
No playoffs per se, just a one-off championship game between the top two teams. If we thought we could manage it, making this championship game 2 weeks long would also be ok.

I really don't like the idea of 2/3 of the league of making the playoffs.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?
Mostly standard, except we halve the value of Touchdowns: 2 for passing TDs, 3 for all others. If you want to weed out randomness, a yardage-intensive system is the way to go.

Also: sacks should incur a penalty for QBs, fumbles that aren't lost should incur a penalty for the fumbler, return yards = "yes" in moderation (at least 30 yards per point, preferably a bit more), ppr at no more than .5, and a slight bump to DEF scoring for points allowed.

FAAB$ being solely made up of unused draft money is fine if go auction (which, again, I hope we don't).

[Really Not All That Bright]

I like the 2/3 point touchdown idea, and a 1 point penalty for non-lost fumbles.

[Jules Andre]

Standard draft, and I feel moderately strongly about it. A big part of the appeal of auction drafts is that you're not sitting out doing nothing for long stretches while you wait for your turn to come around, but that's not an issue with a 6-team draft; we'll be constantly updating the queue and making plans, and there will be interesting strategic decisions about choosing the player you most want versus the player you want somewhat less but who is also less likely to be available at your next pick (in a 12-team league, this is usually only a concern for teams picking near the turn each round). Just feels right.

I don't want to start a barrage of comments regarding others' preferences, but I thought this was worthy of a one-off. I have never heard of this rationale for an auction before. Honestly. The far and away biggest appeal of auction is ultimate control of your team and access to every player. If you don't land the first pick in a standard draft you have no chance of getting that top player. If you end up last, you can't possibly try out an ADP/Foster combo.

The most frustrating thing in all of fantasy is either injuries or Mike Shanahan. Closely followed by getting your sleeper darling sniped the pick before yours. I'm surprised at the support for a standard draft in today's fantasy environment. :confused: To each their own, I guess!

[Really Not All That Bright]

*shrug* People like what they know. I've been playing fantasy football since 2000 or so, and in that time I've done 2 auction drafts (in Beef's SDMB league) and probably 50 standard drafts.

[furt]

nm

[SenorBeef]

I've been the one pushing auction drafts in the SDMB for years, so if I thought auction drafts would be best here I'd certainly be pushing that idea.

The main issue here is - do we want the draft to be comfortable and intuitive so that football knowledge is the dominant factor, or should we add a strong element to figuring out who's the best at devising draft strategy? Both are valid so there's no right answer here.

Auction drafts tend to be counterintuitive the first time you try it in a certain format. The big league last year was a weird auction because there were so many teams chasing after the players - people were trying to figure out how to value players in the middle of the draft. A lot of people probably left the draft thinking "I really didn't know what I was doing there, but next year I'll have some idea" - but any downside like that is outweighed in the big league by how much auction brings to the draft. You could go 40 picks between your picks in a league that huge. You didn't feel like you had much control over building your team. Auction pretty hugely improved it.

But with 6 players, we have much more control in a standard format than you would in larger leagues. You get to make a pick every 6 picks on average and so you have a lot of opportunities to get the guys you really want. You don't go entire tiers through the draft without being involved. Essentially, the more players involved, the more appealing auction becomes.

Standard is more intuitive, so we can focus more on just drafting the best players rather than coming up with the ideal auction adjustments. Again, this is just a value judgement - you may think such strategizing is a valuable part of the skills of FF and I don't really disagree. I just thought that having so few teams would give us enough control that the advantages of auction aren't that important.

Anyway, we'll need to hear from Omni then I'll try to come up with the consensus results and address any last minute tweaks we need.

[Omniscient]

Alright, let me try to lay out some of the undecided issues and have people vote so we can get a clear idea of where the league stands.

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive? If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed? Details on the latter (how many picks before it flips) can still be worked out.

2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?

2c. Discard having kickers?

2d. Propose your preferred rosters.

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it?

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else? Yahoo doesn't have a lot of options, but we could manually do a custom implementation of our own system, like some sort of two week system listed above, or some other idea ourselves. I considered posting a question as to whether we should do a head to head or points league here, but I doubt anyone would support the latter. If you would, though, mention it here.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?

5a. If you want one of those first two choices but with minor tweaking, post those tweaks here. If you want to use a radically different and new scoring system, explain it here.

You may indicate if you wish if you feel strongly for or against any of these issues. We can use those feelings as tiebreakers. I may have left something out, if so, mention it here.

I'll reply tomorrow. I don't have time to give this proper consideration tonight.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Okay, I'm withdrawing my vote for auction format. On consideration, I don't think it's necessary with only 6 teams.

[SenorBeef]

I'm not dead set on standard, so I'd be ok if we did auction. Snake standard vs auction is actually a lot closer to me, I'd strongly prefer my ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... proposal and no one else seems interested in that.

Anyway, during the all pro draft we were talking about that first auction league draft we did, before yahoo had auction drafts, where I had to try to be the auctioneer on voice chat, and that it was an interesting experience. I was thinking we should all hop on voice chat this year for this draft to make the experience more interesting.

Grab a mic, they're like $8-12, but even if you won't, at least hop on the voice chat with us so you can hear the rest of us and type back at us. Grab ventrilo (http://www.ventrilo.com/download.php). It's free, easy to set up, and we've already got an SDMB server.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I've got a mic. And cam! I'm playing drinking draft, though, so you might not hear anything over me chugging every time somebody says, "you stole my pick!"

I don't like the rejiggered standard draft idea at all.

[VarlosZ]

I'm down for a ventrillo draft if every one else is, obviously -- it was huge fun before. If we do go that way and everyone else either already has or is going to get a microphone, I'd be happy to get one myself. OTOH, it did work well before having everyone typing except for the auctioneer/commissioner. Possibly that makes it easier to run things without confusion? Could be wrong, don't have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

Snake standard vs auction is actually a lot closer to me, I'd strongly prefer my ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... proposal and no one else seems interested in that.
In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, that kind of order would be fine with me.

[SenorBeef]

Well I won't really be running things since we'll have a proper draft and yahoo's application will handle the actual details. I just thought it might be fun to get us on voice chat so we could do more free flowing and frequent commentary on picks as they come.

With only 6 of us, it's relatively easy to get everyone on board, and I think the draft will take on a more intimate feel because of that too.

[Omniscient]

I'm working my way through the back and forths of the debates and will give responses to each point separately.

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?
I vote against Auction. I'm open to either a custom or serpentine standard draft. I think the arguments against a serpentine draft are pretty thin and I see little reason to fight against it. In a league this small the wait between picks at the corners is pretty trivial. If the consensus is that a custom, balanced draft order which does away with the sandwich picks I have no real issue with that, it just strikes me a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If a non-serpentine draft is preferred, I'd suggest that we create a draft lottery process. We draw names out of a hat 5 times, 10 times or 25 times, whatever. Let luck determine where we draft in each round. We draw names out of a hat for the first round order, then repeat the process for the second round and then again for the third and so on. Once we get to a certain point, 5 rounds or 10, we stop drawing just recycle the results for the previous lotteries until all the rounds are full. Having the draft lottery could be a fun little event in and of itself. Sure, this could end up in an unbalanced result but I'm fine with that, it'd be fun enough to justify it and in a 6 team league the difference between 6 picks isn't crippling.

If this has the potential to be too unbalanced, you could simply inverse all the even rounds. Have a first round lottery and then have 1 round serpentine based off that result. Repeat the lottery for the 3rd round and then make that serpentine in the 4th. This is fundamentally balanced, at least as much as a standard serpentine is.


1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive? If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed? Details on the latter (how many picks before it flips) can still be worked out.
See above for the standard proposal. As for the auction, I don't know. With such a small league and such deep rosters I haven't a clue how to strategize a auction. This is fundamentally why I'm opposed to it. I hear the argument that auctions are inherently more challenging and fair, but in this wildly unconventional league messing up an auction has too much potential to undermine the league entirely. I'm sure we can come up with a workable solution if the vote is for auction, but I'll save my brainpower for when that determination is made.

[Omniscient]

3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it?

I think we should drop 1 player. There's only 6 teams, a 33% replacement rate is too high. There'd be too little continuity, and I want there to be a playoff consolation game for all the marbles. That'd be some serious excitement. I dislike the idea of basing it solely off of win-loss or points, yes that's less luck effected but I see no point in trying to avoid luck, we'd just be shifting luck from one place to another.

If the vote is for no playoffs (and therefore no consolation bracket) then I say we boot just one player based off of win-loss. I think win-loss is far more important than points. Sometimes I don't start the roster that earns me the highest point total, I start the roster with the least risk if that's what I think gives me the best chance to win a given week. If points are the end all just make the league a pure roto league. Wins and losses are the measure in the NFL and I think that should be our measure too, points make a nice tie breaker, but nothing more.

3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?
I said this above, but win-loss. I prefer basing it off a consolation game, but if there's no playoff make it win-loss.

3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?
I think we should have a lottery or a poll. Take the owner who wins every SDMB league and the owner who has the highest point total for every league. That means that every league can enter 2 people into the running, which equal merits. If we go with a poll, we can each choose our own basis for voting. If SenorBeef want to value total points, he can spend his vote that way, and Jules Andre can vote for a league winner. It's democratic.

If we go with a lottery, my ideal method, we let the fates decide. If you win 1 league you get one lottery ball. If you win 3 leagues you get 3 lottery balls. If you win 3 leagues with the highest point total in 2 of them you get 5 lottery balls. This rewards people who score points and people who win equally and it rewards people for being very active in multiple leagues. Obviously if one of the 6 of us win a league, that's one less lottery ball in the mix.

I think this idea is fantastic. The lottery drawing could be it's own little event. Might be a lot of excitement. Plus it removes any risk of someone getting their feelings hurt or any of us having bias in our voting based off a on-board shouting match.

[Omniscient]

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else? Yahoo doesn't have a lot of options, but we could manually do a custom implementation of our own system, like some sort of two week system listed above, or some other idea ourselves. I considered posting a question as to whether we should do a head to head or points league here, but I doubt anyone would support the latter. If you would, though, mention it here.
It absolutely must be head-to-head. Points leagues are for baseball and those are boring as shit.

I think a week 15-16 playoff is fine. All other options are a bit too gimmicky for my liking and don't belong in this "elite" league. Save the wildly unconventional stuff for other leagues. If we want to change next year that's fine, but we should test it elsewhere first.

Also, as mentioned above a Week 15 consolation game is a must. In week 14 there'd be a bunch of dramatic games, battles for playoff seeding and battles to stay out of the bottom 2. In week 15 there's the semi finals, but more importantly there's the make-or-break consolation game which decides who get relegated. Yeah, it might not be fair, but it also isn't fair when your 1st and 3rd round picks go down with town ACLs. It's exciting and climactic, that's what's important.

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?
Let's use a custom setting. We need to determine rosters first, but I'm almost certain that some tweaking will be required. I vote for making the scoring a little more yardage intensive. Lets be sure to add bonuses for yardage thresholds or something or diminish the value of TDs. Yards are a bit more predictable and therefore a slightly better indication of good roster management.

5a. If you want one of those first two choices but with minor tweaking, post those tweaks here. If you want to use a radically different and new scoring system, explain it here.
See above. Boost yardage relative to TDs. Boost yardage for RBs and WRs, boost TDs for QBs. I made this case in the Yahoo message board. I really think it's an excellent idea. A QB who throws for 350 yards and 1 TD probably didn't win a game, a QB who throws for 220 yards and 3 TDs probably did win. Conversely a RB with a 125 yard game probably does more to win a game than a RB with 15 yards and 2 TDs. Let's make the players who carry their teams valuable and lessen the TD vulture impact and let's lessen the QB on a crappy team playing from behind boost.

The other scoring options, PPR, Sacks and defensive/return stats are contingent on what our rosters end up looking like.

[Omniscient]

This wasn't in Beefs itemized agenda, but I had a comment about Keepers. I'm strongly against them in this league. It's less about the fairness to the incoming promoted player, and more about keeping this skill based. Keepers are a lot of fun in their own way and they add a degree of continuity that's cool, but in a relegation system continuity is a bit of an oxymoron. Most importantly, a player hitting the lottery with a round 12 RB who turns into Chris Johnson does WAY too much to influence the outcome of the league, especially in a league this small. Each year should be a self contained battle of the fittest. You shouldn't be rewarded for what you did in the previous year. We all start with a blank slate every year and fight it out, best man wins. Keepers undermine that.

Honestly I'd be more in favor of having a NFL style parity system in which the championship team picks last in a non-snake draft. Pick last like the Super Bowl champs and if you can go back to back then you've really proved something. I don't want people benefiting in 2012 from what they did in 2011.

Though, a case could be made for combining keepers and a parity system. You get to keep players but you also must draft last in every round. That way if you win the championship on the back of a couple break out stars, kudos, but you are starting the following year at a sizable disadvantage.

Again, I dislike any of these ideas and vote against them. However, if everyone else wants keepers I really think this last idea should accompany it.

[Omniscient]

Ah, eff it. Let's just vote on who to give the relegation spot to. Since we can actually look at what they did in other leagues, we'll have the opportunity to eliminate people who did just get lucky.

So what happens when I finish last in this league (likely) and utterly dominate and win the other three SDMB leagues I'm in (unlikely)?

Agreed. Voting isn't that bad of an idea - it's no different than how this league was formed.

How is it a pissing match? It's a debate about how to proceed. I only bring up my success as a counter-example to the idea that fantasy football performance is random and unskilled.

Voting could work I suppose. Maybe we could have everyone privately submit their preferences with 5 players in order? And then we give the 1st preference 5 points, second preference 4 points, etc. and the highest combined score gets in.

I covered this in my responses above but I hope you'll all give my lottery ball solution some consideration. Take the voting out of it. Let the football gods decide and you can earn as many lottery balls as you can by winning AND scoring. It gives the two opposing views equal merit. It does open up the potentiality that someone could get really lucky by winning a league as the 6th seed and getting in on the back of one lottery ball, but I'm fine with that. If this league does develop into something people aspire to like we're hoping, then let that carrot dangle out there. I'm cool with playing against a Cinderella next year and putting them back in their place.

[Omniscient]

2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?


Doubling is a good place to start but I think we should cut down from there. Balancing starters versus bench depth is key, do we want people to be forced to drop and add players during bye weeks? I think having too many starters puts us in a real risk of someone being stuck without having enough people to start in some bye weeks.

Initially my preference was to have:

QB
QB
RB
RB
RB
RB
WR
WR
WR
WR
TE
TE
RB/WR
WR/TE

This means that we could theoretically have 30 starting RBs, that's kind of ridiculous but it's not too different from the HHM league. I dislike the idea of having too many flex spots unless we're very careful to balance RBs with WRs in scoring. A player starting 6 RBs could be potentially dominant and I don't want that to happen, marginalizing TDs in my earlier proposal would help that. It's difficult to determine a roster without first figuring out scoring.

2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?
I'm very strongly against having 3 QB spots. I'm willing to discuss having QB worked into a flex spot, but that will decide how the scoring is sorted out. I've talked to a handful of people in 2 QB + a QB flex spot leagues and basically the couple players that manage to have 3 good starting QBs are nearly unbeatable. Granted those are typically standard scoring leagues with 10 to 12 teams making it more lopsided, but it's a very risky proposition. If QBs regularly score 20-25 points like in most leagues I think it's insanity to have 3 of them in a lineup.

2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?
I think we should lean towards fewer, but not none. Having one is key in bye weeks, especially with this many starters. I wouldn't do something nutty like having 2 RBs, 2 WRs and 6 flex spots though. That's potentially 8 RBs, way too many if RBs are scored traditionally. Having lots of Flex spots could be a dealbreaker making a mockery of the league.

2c. Discard having kickers?
I'm cool with ditching kickers. I've always wanted a solution that merges kicking and defense into one. Make returns, defense and PAT/FGs all the same bucket. Failing that, make the return game and kicking into it's own category. I don't think Yahoo allows this though. Absent that, ditching kickers is probably a reasonable idea.

2d. Propose your preferred rosters.
See above, but it's pending adjustment once we hammer out scoring. If RBs or QBs are favored by the scoring I'm going to argue to have fewer of them started.

I think we should have reasonably sparse benches. I don't want a player to be able to corner the market on a position by stashing them on their bench. Make bench spots a valuable commodity and make smart bye week roster management important. The more flex spots the shorter the bench.

[Omniscient]

4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else?
No playoffs per se, just a one-off championship game between the top two teams. If we thought we could manage it, making this championship game 2 weeks long would also be ok.

I really don't like the idea of 2/3 of the league of making the playoffs.


After consideration, I agree with this. No two round playoffs. Have a 1 round playoff, 1 vs 2 for the title, 3 vs 4 for bragging rights, 5 vs 6 for the relegation spot.

I'm cool with some type of two week combined playoff system. I'm not sure how to structure it really, but it might lessen the fluke factor that could make the title and relegation too luck driven. I also think that rosters should be fixed if it's a two week playoff, make the managers pick players who'll score best over 2 games instead of allowing them to cherry pick across two weeks. Make it a strategic process with exemptions for injury.

[SenorBeef]

To summarize the responses on the issues. I'm not addressing scoring details yet, that can be worked out in detail later.

1. Should we do a standard or auction draft?

SenorBeef: Standard
RNATB: Standard (first said auction, later retracted)
Jules: Auction, strong
Munch: Standard
Varlos: Standard, strong
Omni: Standard

1a. If auction, how much starting money should each team receive? If standard, do you want a normal snake or some sort of non-snaking ABCD ABCD DCBA DCBA DCBA... type draft as I proposed? Details on the latter (how many picks before it flips) can still be worked out.

SenorBeef: Non-snake reverse once
RNATB: Snake
Jules: $400
Munch: Snake
Varlos: Either
Omni: either, lottery proposal


2. Rosters. The default number of players for our league would be to basically double the amount of starters from a 12 man league - this would ensure roughly the same spread and quality levels of players. Should we try to run deeper (more starters) than this, shallower, or is that about right?

SenorBeef: Deeper, strong preference.
RNATB: Slightly shallower, no strong preference
Jules: Same or deeper
Munch: slightly deeper
Varlos: slightly deeper
Omni:


2a. Should we add a 3rd QB slot in a QB/RB/WR/TE flex spot?

SenorBeef: Yes, strong preference
RNATB: Yes, weak preference
Jules: Yes
Munch: No
Varlos: Wants 3rd QB slot, rather than than QB/WR/RB flex spot. Counting as a yes vote for 3rd qb slot.
Omni: Against 3 QBs, strong


2b. Should we lean towards lots of flex spots, few flex spots, or somewhere in the middle?

SenorBeef: No strong opinion, 1-2 flex spots
RNATB: Three flex
Jules: Only 1 flex for RB, the QB/RB/WR slot
Munch: Middle
Varlos: 2, maybe 3 slots
Omni: Fewer


2c. Discard having kickers?

SenorBeef: Yes
RNATB: No, strong
Jules: No
Munch: No
Varlos: Yes, very strong
Omni: Yes


2d. Propose your preferred rosters.

SenorBeef: QBx2, QB/RB/WR/TEx1, RBx4, WRx6, RB/WRx1, WR/TEx1, TEx2, Kx0, DEFx2, Benchx11
RNATB: agree with above
Jules: No pref
Munch: No pref
Varlos: QBx3, RBx4, WRx6, RB/WRx2, TEx2, DEFx3, Kx0, Benchx10
Omni: QBx2, RBx4, WRx4, TEx2, RB/WR, WR/TE


3. Relegation. Should we drop 1 or 2 players at the end of the season, or should it depend on some sort of results from the season? If so, how do we determine it?

SenorBeef: 1
RNATB: Drop 2 if the worst record and worst score are different teams. Drop one if the same team has the worst record and worst score. Feel strongly about this.
Jules: 1, strong
Munch: 1
Varlos: 2, weak preference
Omni: 1


3a. Should the player chosen be dropped based on having the lowest score for the year, or based on the lowest seeding due to win/loss ratio?

SenorBeef: relegation bowl between bottom two seeds, two week format
RNATB: lowest point total and lowest seed
Jules: seeding
Munch: seeding
Varlos: lowest point total and lowest seed
Omni: seeding


3b. Should the player(s) invited to the league next year be based off some sort of champion-only system, an overall evaluation of performance across several SDMB leagues (exact details can be figured out later), or a list of candidates in preferred order submitted by the members of the league?

SenorBeef: Multi-league overall performance, strong preference. Voting preference system would be ok.
RNATB: Champion only, voting
Jules: Champion only, but allow league winner to choose from preapproved list
Munch: List based off performance
Varlos: Comissioner's discretion
Omni: Lottery or poll


4. Should we do a standard week 15-16 playoff with our top 4 teams, or something else? Yahoo doesn't have a lot of options, but we could manually do a custom implementation of our own system, like some sort of two week system listed above, or some other idea ourselves. I considered posting a question as to whether we should do a head to head or points league here, but I doubt anyone would support the latter. If you would, though, mention it here.

SenorBeef: Two week championship (15-16) between top 2 seeds, relegation bowl between 5-6
RNATB: two week championship top 2 seeds
Jules: Two week format, 4 teams preferable
Munch: 4 week playoffs with 2 rounds of 2 weeks each
Varlos: One championship game between top 2 teams, strongly against 4 team playoffs
Omni: standard week 15-16 playoff

5. Scoring - should we use a default yahoo scoring system, a modifier system like the all-pro league uses, or something new we create ourselves?

SenorBeef: All pro
RNATB: Standard, Half ppr
Jules: Standard scoring +PPR, +return yards, with 4pts for a passing TD so as QBs don't go for $100 each. No benchmarks/bonuses.
Munch: PPR (at least .5/rec)
Varlos: Yardage weighted
Omni: Yardage weighted

[SenorBeef]

The most contentious issue is how to select who gets invited to the league. I think the best way to compromise here is a voting system. I'm thinking we all submit 5 names in order of preference - the top pick gets 5 points, next 4, and so on. Then we add up the point totals from everyone and that becomes the invite list. Keep in mind that there's no guarantee that the invitees will accept - some people are already at as many leagues as they can handle, etc. Anyway, this way everyone gets an equal say and can use whatever method they want for determining who's best to invite.

As far as deciding who to drop from the league, there was a late proposal to have a playoff between the two bottom teams and the loser gets booted. That seems like the way to go and I suspect people might change their vote now that that's an option, so chime in if you support that.

I would say that a two week playoff (weeks 15-16) between the 1-2 seeds for the league championship, and between the 5-6 seeds with the loser getting booted would be the way to go.

Standard draft wins, with only one voting auction. Two snake preferences, one strong non-snake (reversing once), and two that can go with either.

Everyone agrees that the league should be a little deeper than just double a 12 man league. Slight differences in exact preferences.

The vote is 4 to 2 on having a third QB slot, but one of the yes votes wants it in a dedicated QB slot rather than a flex slot. I'm fine with that idea, I just thought the flex spot would be easier to swallow since if you end up with no QBs you could at least start someone there.

We'll be dropping one player, hopefully the loser of the relegation bowl if we can all agree on that.

We can discuss the details of the scoring system now. I'm crunched for time and can't go into it.

I'll say more later, been crazy busy this week.

[Omniscient]

The most contentious issue is how to select who gets invited to the league. I think the best way to compromise here is a voting system. I'm thinking we all submit 5 names in order of preference - the top pick gets 5 points, next 4, and so on. Then we add up the point totals from everyone and that becomes the invite list. Keep in mind that there's no guarantee that the invitees will accept - some people are already at as many leagues as they can handle, etc. Anyway, this way everyone gets an equal say and can use whatever method they want for determining who's best to invite.

I still prefer my lottery approach, but this would be acceptable. I think preferencing 5 players might be a little much, there's only what, 5 or 6 leagues out there and I suspect that this group will make up more than a couple of the winners/points leaders. Submitting a top 3 would probably be sufficient.

As far as deciding who to drop from the league, there was a late proposal to have a playoff between the two bottom teams and the loser gets booted. That seems like the way to go and I suspect people might change their vote now that that's an option, so chime in if you support that.

I would say that a two week playoff (weeks 15-16) between the 1-2 seeds for the league championship, and between the 5-6 seeds with the loser getting booted would be the way to go.

Agreed. I like the 2 week playoff with championship/relegation bowl matchups concurrent.

Standard draft wins, with only one voting auction. Two snake preferences, one strong non-snake (reversing once), and two that can go with either.

Standard is good. We'll hammer out the order/snake thing next. I think a re-randmonizing 2 round snake pattern would be best. I think the reversing once idea is very unfair.

Everyone agrees that the league should be a little deeper than just double a 12 man league. Slight differences in exact preferences.

I vote for shallower than double. I REALLY want to avoid a situation where teams can stockpile RBs and start 6 or more and run away with the league. If a deeper roster is chosen it'll be critical to adjust scoring to not favor one position.

Remember there are 4 weeks in which there are 6 teams on bye and 2 weeks with 4 on bye. That means for almost a third of the season we'll be potentially starting 36 RBs when only 26 teams are playing. Seems a little nuts. It'd be very possible that a player would be stuck starting inactive RBs in those RB spots during bye weeks, it could be common if benches are deep.

The vote is 4 to 2 on having a third QB slot, but one of the yes votes wants it in a dedicated QB slot rather than a flex slot. I'm fine with that idea, I just thought the flex spot would be easier to swallow since if you end up with no QBs you could at least start someone there.


A dedicated 3rd QB spot is lunacy. As noted above, during those bye weeks there's only 26 available QBs. You're proposing a situation where 18 of them are starting, and most teams will have backups. That means Cam Newton, Alex Smith and Tarvaris Jackson will almost definitely be starting multiple times for someone. That's not how fantasy football is supposed to work.

We'll be dropping one player, hopefully the loser of the relegation bowl if we can all agree on that.

I vote yes on both.

We can discuss the details of the scoring system now. I'm crunched for time and can't go into it.

I'll say more later, been crazy busy this week.

Time is short but it's a holiday weekend. I suggest we lock down the rosters before we debate scoring. One impacts the other greatly.

[Munch]

Guys,

I just received a phone call from two very good friends of mine, who will be flying in this week from Alaska. I very rarely get to see them, and the only night they're available is Wednesday, the night of the draft.

So I'm going to have to pull out of the league. I'll certainly give it a shot on trying to earn my way in next year, as I really do want to participate - but not being able to be part of the draft, especially with just 6 teams, is entirely unfair to anyone interested in being part of this. Once you find a replacement, I'll delete the league from my Yahoo lineup so they can join (unless the commish can do that) - I don't want to pull out until there's a replacement available so's I don't screw everyone over.

[SenorBeef]

Yahoo opened a few more slots. I'd like to keep you in, if you're still interested in doing the league - we can move the draft to Thursday, Friday, or Saturday... or just wait to start scoring in week 2 and draft sometime next week.

Edit: With the thursday opener, I guess anytime we draft after wednesday would mean a week 2 start. No rush then, we could draft next Tuesday or Wednesday if people can do that.

[SenorBeef]

I still prefer my lottery approach, but this would be acceptable. I think preferencing 5 players might be a little much, there's only what, 5 or 6 leagues out there and I suspect that this group will make up more than a couple of the winners/points leaders. Submitting a top 3 would probably be sufficient.


The lottery idea is interesting, but I'm not sure how many people who aren't already in the league are going to earn tickets. My concern is that we'll end up having like 8 people with 1 ticket each, in which case it ends up being just random. I'd rather do a vote with everyone submitting their own criteria.

Top 3 could work, but top 5 gives us a bigger list to draw from. I'm not sure how many people would turn us down if we invited them based on not wanting to take on more leagues and such.


Standard is good. We'll hammer out the order/snake thing next. I think a re-randmonizing 2 round snake pattern would be best. I think the reversing once idea is very unfair.


Unfair why? I mean, if we run the numbers through a fantasy calculator and come up with the exact point to swap where everything evens out, it seems like the most fair approach to me. Snake is unfair IMO because the first pick gets a significant advantage over the last pick even accounting for snaking. We discussed this in detail in a thread last year - not sure which one.


I vote for shallower than double. I REALLY want to avoid a situation where teams can stockpile RBs and start 6 or more and run away with the league. If a deeper roster is chosen it'll be critical to adjust scoring to not favor one position.


Well that's an RB issue rather than a general roster issue I think. Your roster proposal says you want 4 RB slots, 4 WR slots, RB/WR and WR/TE slot. Effectively that will usually end up adding up to 5 RBs and 5 WRs, which is an odd proposal for someone concerned about starting too many RBs. I think we'd be ok if we had fewer RBs and more WRs.


A dedicated 3rd QB spot is lunacy. As noted above, during those bye weeks there's only 26 available QBs. You're proposing a situation where 18 of them are starting, and most teams will have backups. That means Cam Newton, Alex Smith and Tarvaris Jackson will almost definitely be starting multiple times for someone. That's not how fantasy football is supposed to work.


"How fantasy football is supposed to work" is arbitrary. The big league ends up starting second string tight ends in their flex spot, which is certainly not how fantasy football is supposed to work by conventional wisdom, but it works, since that's the design of the league, and it makes it interesting and different. Same thing here - adjusting your strategy to have a lot of QBs will make it a different challenge.

18 isn't that bad anyway, I don't think - some 12 man leagues draft 2, which is 24. Making it a flex slot makes it even less severe a change - you can always start another WR or RB over Cam Newton if you don't have much QB depth.


Time is short but it's a holiday weekend. I suggest we lock down the rosters before we debate scoring. One impacts the other greatly.

Fair enough, let's get that resolved in the next 12-16 hours or so.

[Munch]

Yahoo opened a few more slots. I'd like to keep you in, if you're still interested in doing the league - we can move the draft to Thursday, Friday, or Saturday... or just wait to start scoring in week 2 and draft sometime next week.

Edit: With the thursday opener, I guess anytime we draft after wednesday would mean a week 2 start. No rush then, we could draft next Tuesday or Wednesday if people can do that.

I'll leave that up to the rest of the league. I don't think I'm in a position to hold the rest of the league hostage for a week.

[Jules Andre]

I can't draft any other day than Wednesday. It was a stroke of luck it happened to land on that day anyway. I won't have another shot to draft until the next Wednesday.

[SenorBeef]

I'm fine with moving it up to next wednesday. That gives us longer to iron out any settings issue anyway. Can anyone not do next wednesday at the normal time? It'll be a little weird drafting after week 1, but add that to the unique features of the league.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I can do that. I would rather we had kept it where it is, though. :(

[SenorBeef]

I'm not sure if I can round up a replacement by Wednesday. It might be interesting to draft after week 1 too, when you see some actual performance out of players. Could the rest of the league chime in (soon) about whether you'd like to put the draft off until next wednesday, or try to get a replacement for Munch and continue it for this Wednesday?

[Jules Andre]

Drafting after week one takes a whole lot of the fun out of it for me. It's like opening a pack of cards and knowing what's in the pack beforehand.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That. Plus we lose a game.

[Munch]

Might I suggest a quick vote? We should:

a. Find a replacement.
b. Wait a week.
c. Have Munch autodraft.

Again, I have no preference. Options B & C keep me in the league, but at a cost to 5 other managers, so I'm voting A. Beyond that is entirely up to you. Again, I'm sorry this happened, as I don't want to put anyone in a bind. Please feel free to vote me out - absolutely no hard feelings.

[SenorBeef]

My preference is to keep munch and draft next week, but if there's significant objection I'll go with a replacement. I sent out some feeler PMs that probably won't get responded to until tomorrow.

[Omniscient]

C or A.

Really don't want to wait a week.

[SenorBeef]

Ok, we won't wait, half the league objects. I'll see how strong the interest is to replace him on short notice, but if we can't find a replacement, can you autorank extensively Munch? Would you be willing to stick it out with an autodrafted team?

It's significantly easier to auto-rank for standard than auction, so you can do some re-ordering and do a pretty good custom draft.

[SenorBeef]

Ok, I'm not going to be around most of the day. Sorry I can't resolve this stuff quicker but I've been crazy busy.

The league is split down the middle on kickers, and on a tie, I'm inclined to go with what's traditional even though I think it's a waste of a roster slot. Kickers are in.

Three want a 3rd QB in a flex spot. One wants a 3rd QB in a strictly 3rd QB slot. Two want 2 QBs. I think that's a clear win for having a third QB, unless Varlos objects to the idea of having the third QB in a flex spot. The flex spot is actually designed to make it easier to swallow having 3 QBs - if your QBs are hurt or on bye and you simply can't field one in that slot, rather than it go empty you can stick some other position in there.

People are concerned about the RBs, but the two people who laid out the proposals for specific rosters actually went more RB heavy (relative to WRs at least) than me.

I propose 4 RB, 1 RB/WR, and then 1 QB/RB/WR flex spot that will generally be a QB. Varlos suggested 4 RB and 2 WR/RB allowing one more RB than me potentially and Omni proposed 4 RB 1 RB/WR, same as me, but he only has 4 starting WRs too, making the RB to WR ratio rather steep.

I'm personally not concerned with RBs running away with the league. There just aren't as many stud RBs these days that you could stockpile, and there are consistent and high scoring WRs that you can neglect with an RB-centric strategy. I think the RB/WR ratio should be somewhere around 1:1.8, and I'm not overly concerned with the actual raw numbers of RBs.

But as far as roster proposals go, we're not that far apart unless Omni is dead set on having so few WRs start. Varlos' is like mine except an extra flex and def slot, which I'd be ok with, but adding kickers would shorten our benches a lot (9). I don't think many people would like Omni's setup where many/most people would be starting 5 RBs and 5 WRs.

So my adjusted proposal:

QB x 2
QB/RB/WR/TE x 1
RB x 4
WR x 6
RB/WR x 1
WR/TE x 1
TE x 2
K x 1
Def x 2
Bench x 10

Any big problems with that?

I think we should start with the all-pro scoring and go from there, possibly using omni's yardage/TD ratio.

All pro settings that differ from default:

QB 20 yards/point
-2 for int
-.4 for sack
.5 ppr
returns 25 yards/point
fumbles -1 fumbles lost -1 (so a fumble that gets recovered by a teammate is punished half)

Kicking - one more point per FG, but penalties for misses. 0-29 FG 3, 30-39 4, 40-49 5, 50+ 6, missed 0-19 -3, missed 20-29 -2, missed 30-39 -1, missed PAT -3

Safety 4
Points allowed 0 16
Points allowed 1-6 11
Points allowed 7-13 7
Points allowed 14-20 3
Points allowed 21-27 -1
Points allowed 28-34 -6
Points allowed 35+ -11

I think that scoring system is pretty good. As I said, we can tweak it to be more yardage based, just throwing that out there as a baseline.

As I said, I won't be around much to handle this today, so go ahead and discuss it and I'll catch up later.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Are we bumping passing TDs down to 4 points?

[SenorBeef]

Passing TDs have been 4 by default on yahoo (and most other sites) since 2005, the year after Peyton went crazy. I didn't list it there since I didn't list any default values.

Default QB scoring for yahoo is 25 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -1 int. We changed it in the all pro league to 20 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -2 int, -.4 sack. Giving greater punishments for bad plays, somewhat offsetting it by more points for yardage. It generally results in better outcomes IMO.

[Omniscient]

I think there's 1 too many WR spots in your proposal. I'd be inclined to ditch the WR/TE flex. I like the idea of having 1 super flex and one traditional flex spot only. Too many flexes makes roster management a little too marginalized.

A typical starting lineup would be

QB, QB, QB
RB, RB, RB, RB, RB
WR, WR, WR, WR, WR, WR
TE, TE
K
DEF, DEF
and room for 2 backup QBs, 2 backup RBs, 4 backup WRs, a backup TE and a backup DEF.

In bye weeks it'll be challenging to flex both a QB and a RB so the odds are good that there'll be 7 starting WRs pretty often and 8 on occasion.

[SenorBeef]

No real problem with that but how would you feel about just turning it into an extra WR slot so we have 7 WRs? Or do you just think that's too many? I'd like to keep the RB/WR ratio greater than 5:6, which is what we've potentially got if we keep the one RB/WR slot. Of course we can alter that at the other end and remove an RB slot, or a flex spot, but I tend to want to go deeper. I'd much rather have 4/7 than potentially 5/6. If we're starting 2 TEs, the WR/TE flex is unlikely to ever be a TE, but I figured it'd be inconsequential to have that added flexibility.


I may not be as busy as I suspected today so I may be around to talk this out.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I would rather have INTs at -2.

[Omniscient]

Passing TDs have been 4 by default on yahoo (and most other sites) since 2005, the year after Peyton went crazy. I didn't list it there since I didn't list any default values.

Default QB scoring for yahoo is 25 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -1 int. We changed it in the all pro league to 20 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -2 int, -.4 sack. Giving greater punishments for bad plays, somewhat offsetting it by more points for yardage. It generally results in better outcomes IMO.

I like punishing for sacks and turnovers pretty harshly. I think the -1 for fumbles not lost is a little silly. You don't give QBs -1 for interceptions dropped. I'd prefer to just go with -2 for both fumbles lost and Ints and could be persuaded to up that to -3 for both, though if TDs are kept at 4 pts that's a little tougher to justify.

I still want to argue for my tweaked yardage/TD stats. To reiterate the logic, I think that QB yardage is often overvalued in fantasy and that QBs on crappy teams playing catch up benefit too much. To fix that, QB TDs should be boosted while QB yardage softened. In contrast, RBs TDs are over valued relative to worth, I'd like to make sure that TD vultures are the fantasy role players they belong as. For WRs a 100 yard game with 10 catches is more important than a 2 catch game with a TD.

Proposed scoring:
Passing
TD: 5
Yards: 50 yards/pt
Sacks: -.4
Ints: -2
Bonus: 2 pts for 300 yards, 2 pts for 400 yards.

Rushing
TD: 5
Yards: 8 yards/pt
Fumbles: -2
Bonus: 1 pt for 100 yards

Receiving
TD: 5
Yards: 8 yards/pt
PPR: .5
Bonus: 1 pt for 100 yards

I just pulled these out of my ass and haven't crunched the numbers to see where this would leave us, but that's where my head was at. The scoring is fairly standard but the balance between yardage and scoring is shifted just one notch. I'm not married to the idea of bonuses. I understand why they are a little illogical but I think that in the QB's case it slightly offsets the reduced yardage scoring to not be too one sided.

[SenorBeef]

I like bonuses and I don't really get why no one else does, but not a big deal either way.

I'm ok with your general ideas and I'm willing to give it a try. Your initial numbers seem too extreme for the QB (cutting yardage points in half, or by 66% of all pro standards) is pretty drastic (if we were going to cut it that much, 6 point TDs seem more appropriate), whereas the RB/WR numbers may not go quite far enough - I'd consider 4 point TDs there.

[Omniscient]

No real problem with that but how would you feel about just turning it into an extra WR slot so we have 7 WRs? Or do you just think that's too many? I'd like to keep the RB/WR ratio greater than 5:6, which is what we've potentially got if we keep the one RB/WR slot. Of course we can alter that at the other end and remove an RB slot, or a flex spot, but I tend to want to go deeper. I'd much rather have 4/7 than potentially 5/6. If we're starting 2 TEs, the WR/TE flex is unlikely to ever be a TE, but I figured it'd be inconsequential to have that added flexibility.


I may not be as busy as I suspected today so I may be around to talk this out.

I would not be strongly opposed to 7 WRs. I understand the argument that making that extra spot a WR/TE flex is potentially trivial, but something about 3 flexes feels a little excessive.

In a typical fantasy league you usually see WR/WR/RB/RB/Flex or WR/WR/WR/RB/RB. WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/Flex is just too many starters. I think when you're looking at the 45th WR it becomes far to much of a lottery ticket, it's a shallower position than people seem to think. Yes teams start 3 of them most times, but they rotate 4 guys into the bottom 2 more often than not. You're proposing doubling the last choice AND adding a super flex. Too much IMO.

[SenorBeef]

I was thinking maybe 3 RB, 6 WR, one flex (that would usually be a RB), that would maintain a decent ratio. But that seems a little bit short to me.

If we are going to go with your proposal to TD-weight QBs and yardage-weight WRs/RBs, what do you think about

QB
50 passing yards = 1 point
TD = 6
INT = -3
sack -.4

1 point bonus at 250, 300, 350

RB
TD = 4
7 yards = 1 point

1 point bonus at 80, 110, 130

WR
TD = 4
7 yards = 1 point

1 point bonus at 65, 100, 120

Just throwing out proposals. I know some people don't like bonuses, but I like them so I figured I'd include them. At that ratio, a receiving or rushing TD equals 28 yards of production, which may be too dramatic for some people. But I figured I'd throw it out there.

I kept the int penalty high because I like to match higher scoring with higher penalties to really make the efficient QBs stand out.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think that QB yardage is often overvalued in fantasy and that QBs on crappy teams playing catch up benefit too much.
Really? Have a look at the stats for last season and tell me which of the top 15 quarterbacks had their fantasy points inflated by playing catch up a lot.

[Jules Andre]

This is an awful lot of proposed change for a league set to draft tomorrow. It's bizarre to me that people who essentially said "auction isn't necessary because it's a difficult format to figure out" are now willing to completely readjust the way players are fundamentally valued.

If you want to make sweeping changes to a scoring system, the day before is probably too late.

[SenorBeef]

I don't see the dichotomy you're trying to draw. Auction not being necesary or advantageous is a seperate issue from the scoring system. If you simply don't want to introduce a drastically different scoring system this late in the game, I understand and that's a valid concern. I'd be fine with just going with the all-pro system we're all used to, or just the plain old standard scoring. I don't feel that unusual scoring is necesary to keep this league interesting.

As far as doing all of this at the last minute - I've only had occasional internet access for the last few weeks so I simply couldn't do more to hash this out faster.

I'm inclined to agree that we might be fine with a standard or familiar modified (all-pro) system for this year and maybe rework something unusual next year. We do need to get the roster size issue hammered out though.

[Omniscient]

I like bonuses and I don't really get why no one else does, but not a big deal either way.

I'm ok with your general ideas and I'm willing to give it a try. Your initial numbers seem too extreme for the QB (cutting yardage points in half, or by 66% of all pro standards) is pretty drastic (if we were going to cut it that much, 6 point TDs seem more appropriate), whereas the RB/WR numbers may not go quite far enough - I'd consider 4 point TDs there.

I considered those points and and open to discussing them. The reason I chose the more middle of the road numbers is to guard against the impact of a Tom Brady like 50 TD season from a QB. Honestly, my extreme solution for QB scoring is to remove yardage points altogether. Give them 6 points per TD and bonuses for 50 yards, 100 yards, 150 yards and so on. That would essentially remove partial points from the QB scoring and round everything down to the nearest threshold for yardage. I figured that might be a little too radical for this league though.

This brings me to another point that I had been meaning to bring up, and I confess that it might undermine my case for these scoring tweaks.

We should be somewhat conventional with this league if it's to be considered an "elite" league. In the discussions of roster sizes, we've referenced the player depth and roster sizes in the Big League and HHM. Those leagues are a little bit gimmicky. They are loads of fun and gimmicks are fine to create interest, but I think both leagues are somewhat more luck driven due to the depth of the players and rosters. Scarcity of resources creates an unnatural concentration of power.

If we want this league to be a fair measure of FF skill we should probably do our best to eliminate those wildcard elements as best we can. If teams that aren't wildly mismanaged are forced to start the likes of Cam Newton, Anthony Fasno and Anthony Dixon due to the lack of available options we've failed in our goal. Those scenarios are fun in their own way, but they don't reward skill, they reward luck.

[SenorBeef]

Alright, how about we just go ahead and use the all-pro system, which I believe we're all familiar with and suits our preferences better than the default system? I didn't have as much time as I'd have liked to work the details out, so we can make major scoring system changes next year.

And for rosters, how does

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx7
TEx2
Kx1
DEFx2
BENCHx11

Good? If I add a flex spot, the ratio changes from 5/7 RB to WRs, which I'm not a fan of. We could do 4RB/6WR, and that's alright ratio wise, but it seems a little shallow overall. I guess I could do 3RB, 6WR, and RB/WR flex. Still a little shallow but doable.

Any major objections?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not familiar with it. Quick primer, s'il vous plait?

ETA: I'm fine with using it either way, because in general I don't really give a shit about scoring systems and they don't affect my strategy much.

[SenorBeef]

The differences from standard yahoo scoring are in post 84.

Half PPR, more points for QB yardage but bigger punishments for sacks/ints, defenses score more points - allowing fewer points scores more, allowing lots of points loses more. FGs are worth a bit more, but kickers are punished for missing. Return yards. Some other tweaks.

[Omniscient]

Alright, how about we just go ahead and use the all-pro system, which I believe we're all familiar with and suits our preferences better than the default system? I didn't have as much time as I'd have liked to work the details out, so we can make major scoring system changes next year.

And for rosters, how does

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx7
TEx2
Kx1
DEFx2
BENCHx11

Good? If I add a flex spot, the ratio changes from 5/7 RB to WRs, which I'm not a fan of. We could do 4RB/6WR, and that's alright ratio wise, but it seems a little shallow overall. I guess I could do 3RB, 6WR, and RB/WR flex. Still a little shallow but doable.

Any major objections?

Sounds good. Why make the bench bigger? 30 man rosters is pretty deep, still shallower than HHM and the same as All-Pro but just curious if you had a rationale beyond it being a round number.

[SenorBeef]

30 is the max total roster size allowable for yahoo and I figured we should use it. Standard 12 man league roster size is 15 IIRC, so it's double.

[SenorBeef]

RetroVertigo/No Use For A Name is going to take Munch's place in the draft tomorrow. He wasn't as accomplished last year, but he's a reliable and good player. I'd strongly prefer to have everyone live draft, both for the experience and because the auto drafter does weird things even if you pre-rank, and I wouldn't want weird results to lead to a dud team.

Munch can win his way into the league next year.

Don't forget to install ventrilo. To get on the sdmb server, go to create new server, and use

Hostname: vent3.gamespeak.com
Port: 4303
Password: D*******s

1930s style password. Hiding it in case there are bots that look for vent account info.

Anyway ventrilo is easy to set up, but make sure you get it working before the draft starts. Post if you need help getting it to work. Even if you don't have a mic, download it and hop on with us so you can listen in.

[RetroVertigo]

Will a Blu-tooth PS3 Mic work? Its all I have.

[SenorBeef]

If you have some sort of blutooth receiver on your pc I think.

[Munch]

I would like to now recommend that we* kick out the non-playoff teams and allow players in with the longest longevity!

:)

Seriously - glad you guys have an active player from the get-go, rather than an autodraft. It'll be much better that way, even if it takes me 5 years to get back in.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Just think: now you can peer over RetroVertigo's shoulder all season muttering about what you would have done. :)

[RetroVertigo]

You'll have to get behind my wife.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not going near that one.

[Jules Andre]

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx7
TEx2
Kx1
DEFx2
BENCHx11

Looks great to me. Also fine with using All-Pro scoring settings (though I've never been a fan of penalizing QBs for sacks).

I can't come to a decision regarding which method of the standard draft is best. If only there was a non-standard draft type where this wouldn't be an issue at all... :D I think I'd prefer the lottery idea and randomize each odd round's order just for the fun and uniqueness of it. Plus it can become a fun mini event in the future that would help generate interest in the league before draft day. I'm just not sure that with a 30 round draft that it would be doable before the draft tomorrow.

[Omniscient]

I'm just not sure that with a 30 round draft that it would be doable before the draft tomorrow.

I'm thinking we could just come up with 5 random orders and repeat them 3 times. We'd use the 1st and 2nd round serpentine for the 11th and 12th and 21st and 22nd rounds respectively and so on. That's just drawing 6 names out of a hat 5 times, easy peasy.

[SenorBeef]

Sorry, haven't been able to get internet access until now, so I'm going to be cramming settings at the last minute.

QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx7
TEx2
Kx1
DEFx2
BENCHx11

Seems to work for people. I could go 6 WR to make it more standard if you want, not a huge deal either way.

We'll go with the all-pro scoring, I think it's a good system. We can work out more exotic systems for next year, I just didn't have the time this year to get it sorted out. Or at least I missed my window a few weeks ago.

If you want, I'll come up with a random draft through that lottery, if you trust me to come up with results from random.org or whatever. I have to get the custom draft order in soon, so I'm not going to wait on the normal 3 person random result generator we typically do. If that isn't cool then we can just do snake.

[Justin_Bailey]

If you want, I'll come up with a random draft through that lottery, if you trust me to come up with results from random.org or whatever. I have to get the custom draft order in soon, so I'm not going to wait on the normal 3 person random result generator we typically do. If that isn't cool then we can just do snake.

If you want an outsider to run the randomness, I can.

[SenorBeef]

Let's just do a randomly selected (automatic) snake draft for tonight. Snake is sort of interesting in that you get a chance to yank one of the players from someone, and then a few picks later they do it to you. Varlos and I did that all throughout the dynasty league inaugural draft.

[SenorBeef]

If you guys need help with ventrilo to see if your mics are working and such, hop on now and I'll help you. If you can't get connected, post it here or PM me and I'll try to help you.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Is that supposed to say 1920's style password?

[SenorBeef]

The password is deathrays. I didn't want to put it all in one post in case there was a bot looking for vent server info/password combos.

[Omniscient]

I'm not going to be able to use ventrillo. I'll be in the draft room.

[SenorBeef]

You can listen even if you don't have a mic. It'll be kind of awkward carrying on two entirely seperate conversations - you could always listen and respond via typing.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Never owned AP in a league before. Never had the first pick before.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Nine Inch Neils
1. (1) Adrian Peterson
(Min - RB)
2. (12) Roddy White
(Atl - WR)
3. (13) Calvin Johnson
(Det - WR)
4. (24) Michael Turner
(Atl - RB)
5. (25) Tony Romo
(Dal - QB)
6. (36) LeGarrette Blount
(TB - RB)
7. (37) Brandon Lloyd
(Den - WR)
8. (48) DeAngelo Williams
(Car - RB)
9. (49) Eli Manning
(NYG - QB)
10. (60) Jason Witten
(Dal - TE)
11. (61) Kevin Kolb
(Ari - QB)
12. (72) Mike Thomas
(Jac - WR)
13. (73) Sidney Rice
(Sea - WR)
14. (84) Steve Smith
(Car - WR)
15. (85) Mike Sims-Walker
(StL - WR)
16. (96) Jonathan Stewart
(Car - RB)
17. (97) Ryan Fitzpatrick
(Buf - QB)
18. (108) Ryan Grant
(GB - RB)
19. (109) Joseph Addai
(Ind - RB)
20. (120) Austin Collie
(Ind - WR)
21. (121) Marcedes Lewis
(Jac - TE)
22. (132) New England
(NE - DEF)
23. (133) Jason Snelling
(Atl - RB)
24. (144) Robert Meachem
(NO - WR)
25. (145) Bernard Berrian
(Min - WR)
26. (156) Devin Hester
(Chi - WR)
27. (157) Pierre Thomas
(NO - RB)
28. (168) Tampa Bay
(TB - DEF)
29. (169) Matt Bryant
(Atl - K)
30. (180) Tarvaris Jackson
(Sea - QB)

Exploding Pancakes
1. (2) Jamaal Charles
(KC - RB)
2. (11) Larry Fitzgerald
(Ari - WR)
3. (14) Darren McFadden
(Oak - RB)
4. (23) Mike Wallace
(Pit - WR)
5. (26) Vincent Jackson
(SD - WR)
6. (35) Matt Schaub
(Hou - QB)
7. (38) Matt Ryan
(Atl - QB)
8. (47) Jermichael Finley
(GB - TE)
9. (50) Jeremy Maclin
(Phi - WR)
10. (59) Mario Manningham
(NYG - WR)
11. (62) Santonio Holmes
(NYJ - WR)
12. (71) Ryan Mathews
(SD - RB)
13. (74) Cedric Benson
(Cin - RB)
14. (83) Green Bay
(GB - DEF)
15. (86) BenJarvus Green-Ellis
(NE - RB)
16. (95) Kyle Orton
(Den - QB)
17. (98) Daniel Thomas
(Mia - RB)
18. (107) Jerome Harrison
(Det - RB)
19. (110) Ben Tate
(Hou - RB)
20. (119) Greg Olsen
(Car - TE)
21. (122) Michael Crabtree
(SF - WR)
22. (131) Jared Cook
(Ten - TE)
23. (134) Delone Carter
(Ind - RB)
24. (143) Chicago
(Chi - DEF)
25. (146) Mark Sanchez
(NYJ - QB)
26. (155) Lance Kendricks
(StL - TE)
27. (158) Roy Williams
(Chi - WR)
28. (167) Dallas
(Dal - DEF)
29. (170) Mason Crosby
(GB - K)
30. (179) Cam Newton
(Car - QB)

Sold! For $156
1. (3) Arian Foster
(Hou - RB)
2. (10) LeSean McCoy
(Phi - RB)
3. (15) Drew Brees
(NO - QB)
4. (22) Steven Jackson
(StL - RB)
5. (27) Greg Jennings
(GB - WR)
6. (34) DeSean Jackson
(Phi - WR)
7. (39) Dez Bryant
(Dal - WR)
8. (46) Ahmad Bradshaw
(NYG - RB)
9. (51) Matthew Stafford
(Det - QB)
10. (58) Vernon Davis
(SF - TE)
11. (63) Percy Harvin
(Min - WR)
12. (70) Chad Ochocinco
(NE - WR)
13. (75) Tim Hightower
(Was - RB)
14. (82) Santana Moss
(Was - WR)
15. (87) Fred Jackson
(Buf - RB)
16. (94) Kellen Winslow
(TB - TE)
17. (99) Marshawn Lynch
(Sea - RB)
18. (106) Colt McCoy
(Cle - QB)
19. (111) A.J. Green
(Cin - WR)
20. (118) Baltimore
(Bal - DEF)
21. (123) Jordy Nelson
(GB - WR)
22. (130) Brandon Pettigrew
(Det - TE)
23. (135) Pierre Garcon
(Ind - WR)
24. (142) Ronnie Brown
(Phi - RB)
25. (147) Detroit
(Det - DEF)
26. (154) James Jones
(GB - WR)
27. (159) Jacoby Jones
(Hou - WR)
28. (166) LaDainian Tomlinson
(NYJ - RB)
29. (171) Neil Rackers
(Hou - K)
30. (178) San Francisco
(SF - DEF)

Omni's Omnipotents
1. (4) Chris Johnson
(Ten - RB)
2. (9) Andre Johnson
(Hou - WR)
3. (16) Philip Rivers
(SD - QB)
4. (21) Frank Gore
(SF - RB)
5. (28) Miles Austin
(Dal - WR)
6. (33) Brandon Marshall
(Mia - WR)
7. (40) Dwayne Bowe
(KC - WR)
8. (45) Peyton Manning
(Ind - QB)
9. (52) Sam Bradford
(StL - QB)
10. (57) Kenny Britt
(Ten - WR)
11. (64) Knowshon Moreno
(Den - RB)
12. (69) Owen Daniels
(Hou - TE)
13. (76) Jimmy Graham
(NO - TE)
14. (81) Reggie Bush
(Mia - RB)
15. (88) Jay Cutler
(Chi - QB)
16. (93) Braylon Edwards
(SF - WR)
17. (100) Michael Bush
(Oak - RB)
18. (105) Willis McGahee
(Den - RB)
19. (112) Plaxico Burress
(NYJ - WR)
20. (117) San Diego
(SD - DEF)
21. (124) New Orleans
(NO - DEF)
22. (129) Roy Helu
(Was - RB)
23. (136) Nate Burleson
(Det - WR)
24. (141) Earl Bennett
(Chi - WR)
25. (148) Mike Williams
(Sea - WR)
26. (153) Kendall Hunter
(SF - RB)
27. (160) Marion Barber
(Chi - RB)
28. (165) Zach Miller
(Sea - TE)
29. (172) Nate Kaeding
(SD - K)
30. (177) Rob Gronkowski
(NE - TE)

HungryHungryHaruspex
1. (5) Ray Rice
(Bal - RB)
2. (8) Aaron Rodgers
(GB - QB)
3. (17) Tom Brady
(NE - QB)
4. (20) Peyton Hillis
(Cle - RB)
5. (29) Matt Forte
(Chi - RB)
6. (32) Felix Jones
(Dal - RB)
7. (41) Reggie Wayne
(Ind - WR)
8. (44) Antonio Gates
(SD - TE)
9. (53) Josh Freeman
(TB - QB)
10. (56) Wes Welker
(NE - WR)
11. (65) Anquan Boldin
(Bal - WR)
12. (68) Jahvid Best
(Det - RB)
13. (77) Danny Amendola
(StL - WR)
14. (80) Mark Ingram
(NO - RB)
15. (89) Lance Moore
(NO - WR)
16. (92) Mike Tolbert
(SD - RB)
17. (101) Lee Evans
(Bal - WR)
18. (104) Davone Bess
(Mia - WR)
19. (113) Philadelphia
(Phi - DEF)
20. (116) New York
(NYJ - DEF)
21. (125) Hines Ward
(Pit - WR)
22. (128) Jacoby Ford
(Oak - WR)
23. (137) Donovan McNabb
(Min - QB)
24. (140) Steve Smith
(Phi - WR)
25. (149) Tony Gonzalez
(Atl - TE)
26. (152) Antonio Brown
(Pit - WR)
27. (161) Montario Hardesty
(Cle - RB)
28. (164) Todd Heap
(Ari - TE)
29. (173) Alex Henery
(Phi - K)
30. (176) Brandon Gibson
(StL - WR)

Varlos' Zzzzzzz
1. (6) Rashard Mendenhall
(Pit - RB)
2. (7) Michael Vick
(Phi - QB)
3. (18) Hakeem Nicks
(NYG - WR)
4. (19) Maurice Jones-Drew
(Jac - RB)
5. (30) Mike Williams
(TB - WR)
6. (31) Ben Roethlisberger
(Pit - QB)
7. (42) Shonn Greene
(NYJ - RB)
8. (43) Stevie Johnson
(Buf - WR)
9. (54) Beanie Wells
(Ari - RB)
10. (55) Marques Colston
(NO - WR)
11. (66) Joe Flacco
(Bal - QB)
12. (67) Dallas Clark
(Ind - TE)
13. (78) Aaron Hernandez
(NE - TE)
14. (79) Julio Jones
(Atl - WR)
15. (90) Brandon Jacobs
(NYG - RB)
16. (91) Malcom Floyd
(SD - WR)
17. (102) Matt Cassel
(KC - QB)
18. (103) Johnny Knox
(Chi - WR)
19. (114) James Starks
(GB - RB)
20. (115) Pittsburgh
(Pit - DEF)
21. (126) C.J. Spiller
(Buf - RB)
22. (127) Emmanuel Sanders
(Pit - WR)
23. (138) Thomas Jones
(KC - RB)
24. (139) Deion Branch
(NE - WR)
25. (150) Kansas City
(KC - DEF)
26. (151) Greg Little
(Cle - WR)
27. (162) Jason Campbell
(Oak - QB)
28. (163) Dustin Keller
(NYJ - TE)
29. (174) New York
(NYG - DEF)
30. (175) Isaac Redman

[Really Not All That Bright]

Nine Inch Neils
1. (1) Adrian Peterson
2. (12) Roddy White
3. (13) Calvin Johnson
4. (24) Michael Turner
5. (25) Tony Romo
6. (36) LeGarrette Blount
7. (37) Brandon Lloyd
8. (48) DeAngelo Williams
9. (49) Eli Manning
10. (60) Jason Witten
11. (61) Kevin Kolb
12. (72) Mike Thomas
13. (73) Sidney Rice
14. (84) Steve Smith
15. (85) Mike Sims-Walker
16. (96) Jonathan Stewart
17. (97) Ryan Fitzpatrick
18. (108) Ryan Grant
19. (109) Joseph Addai
20. (120) Austin Collie
21. (121) Marcedes Lewis
22. (132) New England
23. (133) Jason Snelling
24. (144) Robert Meachem
25. (145) Bernard Berrian
26. (156) Devin Hester
27. (157) Pierre Thomas
28. (168) Tampa Bay
29. (169) Matt Bryant
30. (180) Tarvaris Jackson

Exploding Pancakes
1. (2) Jamaal Charles
2. (11) Larry Fitzgerald
3. (14) Darren McFadden
4. (23) Mike Wallace
5. (26) Vincent Jackson
6. (35) Matt Schaub
7. (38) Matt Ryan
8. (47) Jermichael Finley
9. (50) Jeremy Maclin
10. (59) Mario Manningham
11. (62) Santonio Holmes
12. (71) Ryan Mathews
13. (74) Cedric Benson
14. (83) Green Bay
15. (86) BenJarvus Green-Ellis
16. (95) Kyle Orton
17. (98) Daniel Thomas
18. (107) Jerome Harrison
19. (110) Ben Tate
20. (119) Greg Olsen
21. (122) Michael Crabtree
22. (131) Jared Cook
23. (134) Delone Carter
24. (143) Chicago
25. (146) Mark Sanchez
26. (155) Lance Kendricks
27. (158) Roy Williams
28. (167) Dallas
29. (170) Mason Crosby
30. (179) Cam Newton

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sold! For $156
1. (3) Arian Foster
2. (10) LeSean McCoy
3. (15) Drew Brees
4. (22) Steven Jackson
5. (27) Greg Jennings
6. (34) DeSean Jackson
7. (39) Dez Bryant
8. (46) Ahmad Bradshaw
9. (51) Matthew Stafford
10. (58) Vernon Davis
11. (63) Percy Harvin
12. (70) Chad Ochocinco
13. (75) Tim Hightower
14. (82) Santana Moss
15. (87) Fred Jackson
16. (94) Kellen Winslow
17. (99) Marshawn Lynch
18. (106) Colt McCoy
19. (111) A.J. Green
20. (118) Baltimore
21. (123) Jordy Nelson
22. (130) Brandon Pettigrew
23. (135) Pierre Garcon
24. (142) Ronnie Brown
25. (147) Detroit
26. (154) James Jones
27. (159) Jacoby Jones
28. (166) LaDainian Tomlinson
29. (171) Neil Rackers
30. (178) San Francisco

Omni's Omnipotents
1. (4) Chris Johnson
2. (9) Andre Johnson
3. (16) Philip Rivers
4. (21) Frank Gore
5. (28) Miles Austin
6. (33) Brandon Marshall
7. (40) Dwayne Bowe
8. (45) Peyton Manning
9. (52) Sam Bradford
10. (57) Kenny Britt
11. (64) Knowshon Moreno
12. (69) Owen Daniels
13. (76) Jimmy Graham
14. (81) Reggie Bush
15. (88) Jay Cutler
16. (93) Braylon Edwards
17. (100) Michael Bush
18. (105) Willis McGahee
19. (112) Plaxico Burress
20. (117) San Diego
21. (124) New Orleans
22. (129) Roy Helu
23. (136) Nate Burleson
24. (141) Earl Bennett
25. (148) Mike Williams
26. (153) Kendall Hunter
27. (160) Marion Barber
28. (165) Zach Miller
29. (172) Nate Kaeding
30. (177) Rob Gronkowski

HungryHungryHaruspex
1. (5) Ray Rice
2. (8) Aaron Rodgers
3. (17) Tom Brady
4. (20) Peyton Hillis
5. (29) Matt Forte
6. (32) Felix Jones
7. (41) Reggie Wayne
8. (44) Antonio Gates
9. (53) Josh Freeman
10. (56) Wes Welker
11. (65) Anquan Boldin
12. (68) Jahvid Best
13. (77) Danny Amendola
14. (80) Mark Ingram
15. (89) Lance Moore
16. (92) Mike Tolbert
17. (101) Lee Evans
18. (104) Davone Bess
19. (113) Philadelphia
20. (116) New York
21. (125) Hines Ward
22. (128) Jacoby Ford
23. (137) Donovan McNabb
24. (140) Steve Smith (PHI)
25. (149) Tony Gonzalez
26. (152) Antonio Brown
27. (161) Montario Hardesty
28. (164) Todd Heap
29. (173) Alex Henery
30. (176) Brandon Gibson

[SenorBeef]

I reported the first cluttered post for deletion since you ended up reposting the same info.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Varlos' Zzzzzzz
1. (6) Rashard Mendenhall
2. (7) Michael Vick
3. (18) Hakeem Nicks
4. (19) Maurice Jones-Drew
5. (30) Mike Williams
6. (31) Ben Roethlisberger
7. (42) Shonn Greene
8. (43) Stevie Johnson
9. (54) Beanie Wells
10. (55) Marques Colston
11. (66) Joe Flacco
12. (67) Dallas Clark
13. (78) Aaron Hernandez
14. (79) Julio Jones
15. (90) Brandon Jacobs
16. (91) Malcom Floyd
17. (102) Matt Cassel
18. (103) Johnny Knox
19. (114) James Starks
20. (115) Pittsburgh
21. (126) C.J. Spiller
22. (127) Emmanuel Sanders
23. (138) Thomas Jones
24. (139) Deion Branch
25. (150) Kansas City
26. (151) Greg Little
27. (162) Jason Campbell
28. (163) Dustin Keller
29. (174) New York
30. (175) Isaac Redman

ETA: Thanks!

[VarlosZ]

That was fun. I did mean to go and get a microphone before the draft, but the cat kinda monopolized my time. Thanks to everybody for waiting for me.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No biggie. Good luck to you and the cat.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'll do full reviews tomorrow. For now, I'm going to compare my team's draft positions with their Yahoo! ADP. Not sure how useful this information is, considering the relative increase and decrease in starters at each position, but what the hell.

1. (1) Adrian Peterson - 2.1
2. (12) Roddy White - 15.6
3. (13) Calvin Johnson - 14.5
4. (24) Michael Turner - 9.8
5. (25) Tony Romo - 34.6
6. (36) LeGarrette Blount - 44.5
7. (37) Brandon Lloyd - 41.3
8. (48) DeAngelo Williams - 60.4
9. (49) Eli Manning - 91.3
10. (60) Jason Witten - 51.4
11. (61) Kevin Kolb - 106.5
12. (72) Mike Thomas - 109.7
13. (73) Sidney Rice - 79.3
14. (84) Steve Smith - 89.7
15. (85) Mike Sims-Walker - 103.3
16. (96) Jonathan Stewart - 101.5
17. (97) Ryan Fitzpatrick - 128.7
18. (108) Ryan Grant - 84.9
19. (109) Joseph Addai - 104.6
20. (120) Austin Collie - 67.4
21. (121) Marcedes Lewis - 115.2
22. (132) New England - 85.3
23. (133) Jason Snelling - not listed
24. (144) Robert Meachem - 131.5
25. (145) Bernard Berrian - not listed
26. (156) Devin Hester - 119.1
27. (157) Pierre Thomas - 119.8
28. (168) Tampa Bay - 137.1
29. (169) Matt Bryant - 98.4
30. (180) Tarvaris Jackson - not listed

So, essentially it appears that I more or less tracked the average draft position for the first few rounds, hugely overvalued a bunch of upper echelon WRs, RBs and QBs in the middle, and tracked the ADP again towards the end. I generally followed a best player available strategy in the first half of the draft, with an emphasis on running backs.

My fantasy super power is finding startable wide receivers on waivers, and my fantasy weakness is finding startable running backs on waivers, so I tend to overdraft running backs knowing I can't fix the position later and underdraft wideouts knowing I can.

Here, with the 0.5 PPR, I bumped receivers slightly, and I seriously considered taking Brandon Marshall with my fourth pick.

Considering that most leagues have 14-16 roster spots, it makes sense that kickers, defenses and tight ends appear to be drafted well below their ADP here.

[Jules Andre]

I'll start with a review of my team to start and try to get to the others before Sunday.

I went into this draft a little unsure of the format. 2QB is a game changer, even if it's the equivalent of a regular league's caliber of drafted players. PPR was another game changer and a major focus for me. After some review of ADP in PPR leagues, I decided the major choice was between going QB heavy early or WR heavy. With PPR and return yards I figured that the middle round and late round WRs became more comparatively useful and so the gap between the top guys and possession type guys was closed enough to wait on WR. It turns out the entire league went the opposite, and I had my pick of the best players for my strategy - Double QB early, PPR RB studs, and a boatload of possession WR to take advantage of PPR.

QB - (bold denotes starters)
Aaron Rodgers, GB / Tom Brady, NE / Josh Freeman, TB / Donovan McNabb, Min
•My quick math helped me decide that going top heavy QB was too vital an advantage to ignore and offered the best value above competition. I was really fortunate to have Ray Rice fall to me for my first pick and Aaron Rodgers for my second, which was such a dream scenario I didn't expect it. I wanted Rivers for my #2 and he went right before me. Tom Brady is an excellent second choice and I have a significant advantage at arguably the most crucial position in the league. I chose Freeman for my all-important Flex spot (QB/RB/WR/TE) and I think my trio of QBs gives me a tremendous leg up on everyone else to start. I wouldn't have drafted McNabb except that I realized I accidentally drafted two QBs who share a bye. I needed someone else competent to start that week. I screwed up the byes a lot, actually.

RB -
Ray Rice, Bal / Peyton Hillis, Cle / Matt Forte, Chi / Felix Jones, Dal / Jahvid Best, Det / Mark Ingram, NO / Mike Tolbert, SD / Montario Hardesty, Cle
•Rice, Hillis, Forte, and Jones is a dream foursome for a PPR league. Every single one caught 50 passes last season (Jones caught 48, so close enough). Every single one is a lone back without a real threat of a time share. Thrilled with this group and I think it's in the top one or two best RB groups in the league. Jahvid Best is a perfect complement as the 5th RB 1st Flex option, and he's another guy who caught over 50 passes. I count eight RBs who caught 50 passes last season and I have four of them. Five if you count Jones, who was the closest to 50 without hitting it.
•The problem with this group is that three of my starters have a week 5 bye, so I had to fill up on bench backs who could start in a pinch and be counted on to score points at all. So while I'm really happy with a replacement group of Best, Ingram, and Tolbert... I had to sacrifice even more at WR to get that depth.

WR -
Reggie Wayne, Ind / Wes Welker, NE / Anquan Boldin, Bal / Danny Amendola, StL / Lance Moore, NO / Lee Evans, Bal / Davone Bess, Mia / Hines Ward, Pit / Jacoby Ford, Oak / Steve Smith, Phi / Antonio Brown, Pit / Brandon Gibson, StL
•Ouch. Any gains I make at QB and RB against this league are lost at WR. It's a tough group to look at, but it's one I actually like quite a bit, considering. When you go heavy QB and heavy RB, this is pretty much the perfect group to have at WR in a PPR league. The idea here is to just get steady production. Nobody here will score two TDs in a single game, but hopefully every one will catch 4-5 passes every week. The validity of the strategy aside, it worked out perfectly. Wayne will be down, but he's still a crisp enough route runner to catch a lot of passes. Welker, Amendola, and Bess are all PPR heroes. Boldin and Moore are high volume guys too. Yeah, this is probably the weakest unit in the league, but it'll be very consistent and give me a high floor of production from which my QBs and RBs can blast off.
•The bye weeks are an issue here again for me. Three of my starting WRs are on bye in week 5 and another two are on bye in week 11. This alone isn't so much of a problem, but of my bench WRs one more is on bye week 5 and another two on week 11. It'll be a real struggle to manage the byes in those two weeks. I inadvertently carried out the strategy to stack your team's byes to maximize the roster's effectiveness every other week. Not sure that's a good strategy in a league like this where missing one player doesn't change the starting roster much.
•My bench guys are a strange mix. Hines Ward and Steve Smith are both volume guys and so they fit right in, but both are major question marks. Jacoby Ford is going to surprise a lot of people with how many points he puts up between receiving, returning, and running... but he's on Oakland. And while Brown and Gibson are both exciting up and comers, each is likely going to be supplanted by mid season.

TE -
Antonio Gates, SD / Tony Gonzalez, Atl / Todd Heap, Ari
•I don't think I've ever drafted a top three TE in my entire decade plus fantasy football history. So Gates is a significant advantage if he plays enough games. Gonzalez and Heap are not who I envisioned drafting, neither are exciting or interesting (I wanted higher upside guys but they all got sniped before I could take them). I'm just hoping each can give one more year of heavy work, and I think both can. There aren't very many TEs who can catch 60 passes (only eight did so last year) but I think all three of my guys can.

DEF -
Philadelphia / New York Jets
•I took both early after discovering halfway through the draft that we start two defenses. I thought this was a really good place to gain an advantage over the other teams by taking two of the top five. I never draft defenses early, so this was a departure, but the opportunity for a leg up was too good to pass up.

K -
Alex Henery, Phi
•This is probably a bad choice, but it's always fun to have the homer pick. The league penalizes misses so even though he's the most accurate kicker in NCAA history, he's had trouble in preseason and likely won't finish top 6. Then again, with 18 other starters per team, I could bench the kicker each week and not suffer much of a disadvantage.

I really love my team's construction. I just so happened to go left when everyone else in the league went right (I was the only person to draft two QBs with the first three picks, and everyone else went WR early where I waited longer than anyone). You can absolutely say that I overvalued the PPR aspect of the league, but it was really nice to formulate a plan and stick to it all the way through. I've got a really good shot with this team.

[Munch]

Jules - nice write-up. That was pretty much my exact strategy before I had to bow out, so I'll root for you from afar.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Review #1 - Me.

1. (1) Adrian Peterson - 2.1
If I’m not strongest at running back I’d say I’m pretty close. Considering Foster’s injury questionmark and the fact that he’s only produced for one year, and Chris Johnson’s holdout and the Titans’ general suckiness, AP was really a no-brainer.

2. (12) Roddy White - 15.6
3. (13) Calvin Johnson - 14.5
With such a wideout-heavy starting lineup, I wanted to make sure I at least got a couple of guys who I can plug in and forget. White and Megatron (barring injury) are virtual locks for 1,300 yards and 8 scores, and White is also a lock for 100+ receptions.

4. (24) Michael Turner - 9.8
I was shocked that Turner fell all the way to the end of the fourth round despite his stone hands- he’s done rather well for me in the 0.5 PPR dynasty league- and I was very happy to make him my #2 back

5. (25) Tony Romo - 34.6
I’m all in on Phillip Rivers this season, so I was disappointed he didn’t last to pick #24. Still, I think Romo is in line for a huge year - especially considering that he doesn’t have to try to feed Roy Williams anymore.

6. (36) LeGarrette Blount - 44.5
I’m a Bucs fan, but I’m somewhat iffy on Blount thanks to an ineffective preseason. Still, he’s flashed some surprising pass catching ability in the preseason, he has almost unique athletic ability, and he’s the unquestioned #1 on what should be a solid offense.

7. (37) Brandon Lloyd - 41.3
Brandon Lloyd has inexplicably been overlooked to a degree in almost every draft I’ve been in, possibly because of the Orton/Tebow drama. I don’t understand that at all, since Lloyd had 295 yards and 2 touchdowns in the 4 games Tebow started last year. I don’t see him coming back to earth either; he’s always made highlight reel catches - particularly when he was with the 49ers. His problem was catching short throws over the middle, which he obviously figured out last year. Suffice it to say that I’d be just fine with Lloyd as my #1.

8. (48) DeAngelo Williams - 60.4
I think Newton’s mobility will really help DeAngelo Williams this year, the same way the threat of Vick running the bootleg helped Warrick Dunn in Atlanta.

9. (49) Eli Manning - 91.3
I’ve always said Eli Manning is my ideal quarterback, and so let it be. I quite often draft him as a backup, especially when my #1 is a guy with injury questionmarks or who only has one big year. I think Manning has to have a huge year because the Giants’ secondary is going to be torched all season.

10. (60) Jason Witten - 51.4
I’ve noticed in full-size leagues that Witten is going about two rounds after Antonio Gates. Gates is really the only tight end I’ll spend big on, but Witten gives you 90% of the production for 60% of the cost. My only worry is how many of his touches Dez Bryant will steal, but I think that gets offset by the Cowboys’ shallow backfield.

11. (61) Kevin Kolb - 106.5
I’m not big on Kolb, but hey, Fitz. How bad could he be?

12. (72) Mike Thomas - 109.7
The Jags appear determined to make Thomas a true #1; they’ve moved him all over the field in preseason, and let’s face it, who else are they going to throw to? He also gets a slight boost in this format as the Jags’ primary punt returner (1 TD in 2010).

13. (73) Sidney Rice - 79.3
I might regret this pick, but Mike Williams is obviously not a #1 and Tarvaris is not that bad. There’s a chance that Rice puts up big numbers in Seattle’s loosey-goosey offense.

14. (84) Steve Smith - 89.7
First, Cam Newton is hardly going to suck worse than Clausen. Second, the Panthers’ offensive line won’t be missing three starters this season, so Newton might actually have time to throw. Smith had over 900 yards in 2009, and I expect him to give me about that much this year.

15. (85) Mike Sims-Walker - 103.3
Sam Bradford put up strong numbers with a whole bunch of who-dats last year. Sims-Walker isn’t really a #1 wideout- he struggles in press coverage- but he could put up some big numbers with Bradford.

16. (96) Jonathan Stewart - 101.5
I feel like I reached a bit for J-Stew. Williams is my #4 back so handcuffing doesn’t make that much sense, but he’s one of the rare backups who produces like a starter regardless of whether the #1 guy is playing or not.

17. (97) Ryan Fitzpatrick - 128.7
If Fitzpatrick gives me the same numbers he produced last year, I see no reason why I can’t platoon him with Kolb as my flex. Losing Lee Evans isn’t likely to hurt because Evans hardly caught any passes last season, although other than Stevie Johnson and Jackson/Spiller the Bills have zero offensive talent.

18. (108) Ryan Grant - 84.9
19. (109) Joseph Addai - 104.6
My options with Grant and Addai were to draft each of them, or to draft one of them and his handcuff (since one or the other will probably lose his job this year). There were essentially no other true starters left on the board. On reflection, it occurred to me that the odds of both losing their jobs are low, and this way I can potentially have two starters as backups all year. Addai’s ceiling is lower, but he’s less likely to get benched (since Grant has to contend with James Starks, who has already demonstrated that he can produce).

20. (120) Austin Collie - 67.4
I don’t want any Colts this year, but Collie had dropped a mile and this was too good a value to pass up. I figure he and Clark are the least likely to suffer a serious drop in production if Manning is gone for a while, since Collins has always thrown the short/intermediate pass over the middle well. On the other hand, Wayne is now a #3 at best at Garcon is worthless.

21. (121) Marcedes Lewis - 115.2
My guy. Lewis was kind of a poor man’s Vernon Davis last year - supreme athlete, took a while to put it all together. Unlike Davis, Lewis’ productivity has increased gradually, rather than going from zero to 100 in two games, and I think the yardage and scoring are both sustainable. Regardless of the quarterback, I think he maintains at least last year’s level of production, especially now that Sims-Walker is gone because the Jags now have no big bodied wideouts.

22. (132) New England - 85.3
I refused to participate in the round 19 run on defenses, but the Pats were too promising to pass up here. They never have a bad fantasy defense and Belichick is sure to find a way to turn Al Haynesworth into gold.

23. (133) Jason Snelling - not listed
Snelling, like Stewart, is one of those guys who produces as well as his starter. After 3 straight 300-carry seasons, I think the Falcons will probably try to reduce Turner’s workload slightly, too.

24. (144) Robert Meachem - 131.5
Always on the verge of stardom. Never quite gets there. Like all Saints receivers Meachem is capable of scoring 3 touchdowns on 3 catches in 3 minutes and then disappearing for half a season. Unlike Devery Henderson, though, Meachem has the tools to be more than just a deep threat. Sooner or later he’s going to put it all together.

25. (145) Bernard Berrian - not listed
Berrian is good for one thing: catching deep balls. Assuming he can stay healthy, he could do very well with McNabb, who got 800-plus yards out of Anthony Armstrong last year (mostly in 50 yard increments).

26. (156) Devin Hester - 119.1
He’s still learning to play wide receiver. Maybe he’ll figure it out this year. More importantly, he did remember how to return punts last year. His return yardage last year was worth the equivalent of 400 receiving yards, and he scored 7 combined touchdowns. Obviously he won’t be returning many kickoffs this season (since Lovie Smith isn’t smart enough to let him bring the ball out of the endzone*) but he’ll probably offset that with more receptions.

27. (157) Pierre Thomas - 119.8
Pierre Thomas was strictly a value pick; maybe Ingram busts, maybe it’s a 50/50 time share, either way I’ve got a back who never sees 8 man fronts.

28. (168) Tampa Bay - 137.1

The Bucs were a middle of the road fantasy defense last year with zero pass rush. They got the two best defensive ends in the draft, and the secondary will be much healthier.

29. (169) Matt Bryant - 98.4
Hyper-accurate, kicks in a dome, and is on a strong offensive team that struggles slightly in the red zone. What’s not to like?

30. (180) Tarvaris Jackson - not listed
I think Tarvaris Jackson is much, much better than people give him credit for - he does have a positive TD/INT ratio - and I needed a fifth quarterback so hey, why not? It’s not like he doesn’t have weapons.

[Omniscient]

Here's my personal draft break down. It got a little out of control.


Omni's Omnipotents
QB - 3. (16) Philip Rivers, 8. (45) Peyton Manning, 9. (52) Sam Bradford, 15. (88) Jay Cutler

I think we all came into this draft with some well-defined strategies. When you break down the rosters it’s pretty clear where each strategy each user was implementing. I ranked my priorities like this: Stud WRs, QBs, RBs who catch balls. Considering that I’m really happy with how my team panned out. QB is the prime example. I knew that the teams that were able to start 3 upper teir QBs would have the potential to run away with this league. There are 6 teams and by my count there’s only 12 upper echelon QBs available, meaning that quite a few of you are going to be struggling at the position. I waited on QB a little bit in favor of stud WR and RBs, which frankly was a break from strategy, but I still got a top QB in the third round. I think Rivers, Brees and Rodgers are all equivalent players this year, I’m thrilled to have waited the longest and gotten the last of the group. After getting Rivers I relaxed on QB and shifted gears to focus on WR, more on that in a bit. Manning is like the plague at this point and I’m unsure of how to feel about it. Up until the last few days I was skeptical of all the talk of him missing time and figured he’d still be Mr Reliable. Now that he’s out at least a game or two his stock is plummeting. I think he’s a hell of a value here in the 8th round of a 3 QB league. Of course that relies on him getting back under center and performing close to his potential by week 3 or 4, but I’m optimistic on that. Manning could make or break this team.

Behind Manning I needed to be sure and get another star quickly and I got that in the next round in Bradford. If I’m able to start Rivers, a healthy Manning and Bradford running a McDaniels system for 12 weeks this year I’m going to be pretty tough to beat. I was the second to last person to take a 2nd QB but the first to take a third. This of course all hinges on Bradford continuing his growth and becoming a fantasy stud. His WRs aren’t great but QBs tend to make great strides in year 2 and McDaniels had a hell of an effect on Kyle Orton last year. I think that repeats itself in spades this year. I’m very happy to have Bradford and suspect that he might even outperform a healthy Manning this year. Again, I was the first player to take a 4th QB. This is partly strategy, since getting quality QBs is crucial, but is also a reflection of worry about Manning. Cutler will start for me in week 1. It’s possible I may end up wishing I had Cassel here but I think Cutler has more upside and less injury risk. Plus I’ll have a hometown guy to cheer for. Cutler can be maddening but I trust him way more than anyone else’s 4th QB and he might be the only one you can say definitively won’t get benched at any point.

WR - 2. (9) Andre Johnson, 5. (28) Miles Austin, 6. (33) Brandon Marshall, 7. (40) Dwayne Bowe, 10. (57) Kenny Britt, 16. (93) Braylon Edwards, 19. (112) Plaxico Burress, 23. (136) Nate Burleson, 24. (141) Earl Bennett, 25. (148) Mike Williams

Here’s the meat of my team. The PPR aspect coupled with the incredibly shallow and unpredictable crop of WRs out there this year made it imperative for me to get a crop of stars at this position. The league decided to go with 7 WRs and I really think most of you will feel the pain of that decision when you’re comparing your 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th WRs against mine every week. I knew I wanted reliable guys who catch a lot of balls and score. I avoided the homerun guys like Wallace and DeSean Jackson in favor of reliable #1s with a track record, plus it’s a reasonably healthy and durable group to boot. AJ is the best WR in the league and that Texans offense should be dominant, I have way more faith in it than I do the Cardinals or Lions. This pick was a no brainer, in a PPR format I perhaps should have considered McCoy more seriously but the depth at RB later is better than WR. I’m a bit worried about Dez Bryant’s year 2 effect on Austin’s production but with Romo Austin seems to be the favored guy, so long as there’s no sign of Kitna I should be rock solid here in another very prolific offense. Marshall and Bowe are basically the same guy and they are very undervalued this year across most fantasy leagues. I kept considering going back to the RB well but these guys were too valuable within my strategy to pass up. At this point it became clear that I was going to have the league’s most dominant WR corps. Catches and TDs will come in droves.

After taking a sabbatical to focus on QB I went back to the well with perhaps my favorite pick of the entire draft. Kenny Britt is without question one of “my guys” this year. I have him across almost all of my leagues and I really believe in his ability to contend for the crown of #1 FF WR this year. I was a little shocked that he lasted this long since there’s been considerable buzz around him. Luckily everyone else went a bit QB crazy at the same time I did so he slid. Braylon Edwards is a guy I’ve always disliked but I really believe his situation improved dramatically this offseason. He’ll be the primary guy in San Fran (save the Crabtree garbage please) and I expect the offense to become much more consistent under Harbaugh. As a 6th WR Edwards is bordering on ridiculous. I like him quite a lot more than Boldin, Ochocinco and Mike Thomas, guys taken several rounds ahead of him. I was a little pissed that Malcolm Floyd came off the board ahead of that pick, but it’s very possible that Edwards is the safer and higher upside pick. My last starter is Plaxico, he’s a total roll of the dice. It’s possible he’s the Jets primary target in the red zone, it’s also possible that he tears a hammy or plays like a guy who’s been in jail for 20 months. Whatever, he’s my 7th WR and could very well post the same numbers that Braylon Edwards did last year, if he does that my 7th WR is better than most people’s 4th.

The backups are all solid. Normally I’d have wanted a couple more than this considering bye week issues, but I’m so strong up top that I am OK giving something away in favor of RB fishing. Burleson might finally become a steady and explosive option if that Detroit offense lives up to the hype. Bennett is going to be the most reliable WR in Chicago and will probably get 7 catches a guy moving the chains. Big fat Mike Williams was a big surprise last season and could be improve even more this one, who knows if Tarvaris will get him the ball and how Sidney Rice will steal his touches but just by virtue of his size he’ll be a major redzone option should the Seahawks actually find the endzone. Plus, as I’ve said before, I suspect Whitehurst gets the gig sooner or later and his familiarity with Williams won’t hurt. I’ll stack this group, top to bottom, against any team in the league. I should get major production from 7 or 8 roster spots every week.

RB - 1. (4) Chris Johnson, 4. (21) Frank Gore, 11. (64) Knowshon Moreno, 14. (81) Reggie Bush, 17. (100) Michael Bush, 18. (105) Willis McGahee, 22. (129) Roy Helu, 26. (153) Kendall Hunter, 27. (160) Marion Barber

Going WR and QB early meant I was going to have to give a little on RB. I revised my strategy quite a bit as a result. Typically I try and insure that I have a RB to flex and a backup every week, drafting up to 4 starting quality RBs before addressing WR2 or QB. In this PPR league that divergence was exaggerated even more. The end result is one I’m still pretty happy with. CJ2K should be his old self in Tennessee. I gave some serious thought to Ray Rice here and I do buy the hype around him, he’s justifiably going first overall in some leagues. I like CJ2K far more than Foster or Charles and the potential for another 2000+ yard season is just too much to deny. Rice’s pass catching ability is a value but the TD upside of CJ outweighs that. In the end I feel I got the ideal pick for me in the first round, I want home runs from my RBs, I’ll get the doubles from my WRs. Gore too has the potential to be a monster, there’s risk for certain but the Niners offense is going to lean on him heavily. He had 46 catches in 9 games last year, he might have 80 this year. Gore is a guy on whom the hate has gone too far and I think I’ll benefit from it. The only guy that I might regret passing on is Turner, because if Gore misses time Turner’s consistency could be missed.

Knowshon, like Britt, is another one of “my guys”. I’ve got him in a ton of leagues and I’m putting a ton of stock in the John Fox system. Moreno put up sneaky good numbers last year and as he’s matured I suspect his durability will improve somewhat. Under Fox he’s got 2008 DeAngelo Williams upside. He might fall on his face, but again I’m swinging for the fences here. For an 11th round RB Knowshon is a hell of a value as one of the few guys getting the lion’s share of the carries, I don’t believe for a second that McGahee is going to be the J-Stew to his DeAngelo. Reggie Bush is an enigma, he’s on a new team in a new system. Either he’s going to collapse under the load and we’ll learn that he was a product of the Saints system or he’ll blossom and we’ll learn he was a victim of it. I like the Dolphins offensive line and this team is going to have to run the ball. Daniel Thomas has been disappointing in preseason meaning Bush will look more like a feature back than a gimmick back. If he gets 18 carries a game he could be a stud…for about 7 weeks. I’ll take it.

When I started looking at backups I decided early that I wasn’t going to farm for breakout rookies. I picked a lot of high risk/high rewards backs as starters and I want reliable production from their backups. There were two ways to accomplish that, grab handcuffs or grab guys on the weak end of timeshares. It went swimmingly. Michael Bush has crazy ability and managed 850 yards last year even with a healthy McFadden and he gets a bunch of goal line touches. He’s basically Jonathan Stewart for half the cost with twice the upside this year. If one of my top guys goes down I can be sure to get something from his replacement. I’d have probably preferred Marshawn Lynch if he’d have lasted, but Bush might outscore him anyways…he did last year. Marion Barber later was similar in logic to Bush, he’ll get a lot of touches and TD carries even if the starter stays healthy. Plus if called on to start, he’s proven it before.
I employed the other strategy in Kendall Hunter and Willis McGahee. Handcuffs. I’m relying on Gore and Moreno a lot and if they go down, even if for a couple games, I’ll be assured of productive replacements. If I’m wrong about McGahee and he does steal touches from Knowshon I’m covered. I have to say, I’m fired up about how this worked out. Roy Helu is the only guy I speculated on and he’s another one of “my guys”. If I’m right about him being the handpicked Shanahan special, he’ll supplant one of my starters quickly. The Redskins have run the ball surprisingly well in the preseason and I’m not a believer in Tim Hightower at all.

TE - 12. (69) Owen Daniels, 13. (76) Jimmy Graham, 28. (165) Zach Miller, 30. (177) Rob Gronkowski

Tight end was a tough position to evaluate for this league. It’s a generally deep position this year but the deep benches mean that people could stock up on them and the scarcity of WRs led to exactly that. With PPR TEs value gets a little boost so I decided I’d better plan to have a couple really good ones in good pass happy offenses. Mission accomplished. Owen Daniels is always a guy who I pass on because I always assumed the previous season was a fluke. He’s proven me wrong often enough, I’m on board now. We’ll see if this jinxes him. If he’s healthy I think 80 catches are a lock without a reliable option opposite AJ. Graham is the flavor of the month in fantasy and I think he lasted surprisingly long in this league. A drafted back to back TEs here because I wanted to set it and forget it at that position. I might have over drafted Graham a little as an unproven guy but if the hype is true he too could be a 65+ catch guy.

I’d considered ignoring backup TE altogether but I realized that both my TEs have the same bye week. That was motivation to take a pair of backups and in the late rounds I didn’t like the RB or WR options to dramatically improve my team. I love Zach Miller in Seattle, the QB situation is a big question mark but he’ll be the only guy catching balls at the position and I suspect both Jackson and Whitehurst will lean on TEs a lot when things break down, as they often will. Gronk was something of a surprise, I didn’t expect to see him still available at the end of the draft. He had 11 TDs last year…I like this pick a lot. If Hernandez gets hurt he might be a starter for me.

DEF - 20. (117) San Diego, 21. (124) New Orleans

Picking up a pair of defenses back to back is a major diversion for me. Starting 2 with boosted scoring makes them more valuable. However it doesn’t make them more predictable. Time will tell if taking these two 9 rounds before, say, Dallas and NYG was smart, I suspect it wasn’t. Nevertheless I really am high on both these units, San Diego especially. I won’t go too deep into it, but San Diego has a really soft schedule and a division they might clean up in and New Orleans could be a turnover and sack machine.

K - 29. (172) Nate Kaeding

Hey, I got a kicker. He’s a good one but with just 6 teams that’s not exactly going to set me apart. For ever Philip Rivers and SD DEF touchdown I’ll get a little boost, so there’s that.

[Omniscient]

Well, I'm suddenly feeling a lot less excited about that Peyton pick.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6944302/indianapolis-colts-peyton-manning-more-surgery-neck

[Really Not All That Bright]

He'll be on IR soon. Nobody recovers from a cervical fusion in less than 6 months.

[Jules Andre]

You'd be sunk if you didn't pick up Cutler just in case. Smart pick there.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He's still kind of sunk anyway without a #4, though I do see a couple of borderline startable guys on waivers.

[VarlosZ]

Ok, I thought I'd do this by ranking the teams by position. At first glance, my impression is that most teams seem very close to each other at most positions. Probably this is because we each have so many players that the differences are smoothed out; it's easier to immediately grasp the difference between two groups of 4 than two groups of 9. The point is that I imagine there will be relatively more disagreement with my ratings than there would be in a standard league. But we'll see.

Rosters are colored according to the fandom of the owner. Had to compromise a bit on RNATB; the SDMB just doesn't have "Pewter" as an option (and orange is out since Beef needs it for Cleveland) so "Sienna" will have to do. Retro is a Niners fan, if you're curious (I had to do a search).

Quarterback
1) Jules Andre: Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Josh Freeman, Donovan McNabb
2) VarlosZ: Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Cassel, Jason Campbell
3) RNATB: Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Kevin Kolb, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tarvaris Jackson
4) Senor Beef: Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Kyle Orton, Mark Sanchez, Cam Newton
5) Omniscient: Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning?, Sam Bradford, Jay Cutler
6) RetroVertigo: Drew Brees, Matthew Stafford, Colt McCoy

With so many starters it's not the case that any one player or slot will determine the championship, but I do think that the single biggest factor will be the ability or inability to field a Top-15 or better QB in the flex spot. So, depth is almost as important as having a really good top 2.

Jules clearly has the best group, I think; a strong case could be made that he has the best player at each of QB1, QB2, and QB3, and his QB4 (McNabb) is not bad at all IMO.

I like my group quite a bit. Vick is high variance, no doubt, but unless he's frequently injured AND performing at a level significantly below last year when healthy, he's nonetheless a good pick, since 12 games of 2010 Vick + 4 games of [a decent backup] might still be better than any other single QB; I'm pretty confident that Roethlisberger will be an above average QB2, and also that at least one of Flacco, Cassel, and Campbell will be a very good QB3.

RNATB presents an unspectacular group that is nonetheless quite solid and sufficiently deep (not that Tarvaris is going to be more than an emergency plug-in). Romo's receiving corps has lots of talent, Kolb has my confidence, and Eli should be forced to throw the ball a ton with the injuries to the defense.

It's hard to ding Beef too much for his group, since I think both Schaub and Orton are better than their ADPs would suggest, but it's nonetheless a collection without a lot of firepower on top (Ryan's a better real-world QB than fantasy QB), and then he has potentially no depth with Sanchez and Cam Newton both being legitimate threats to provide replacement-level fantasy stats.

It goes without saying that Omni's group would rank higher (either 2nd or 3rd) if Peyton was actually going to miss only a couple games. As is, though, he might contribute nothing or close to it, and Rivers/Bradford/Cutler is, for our purposes, a pretty sorry group.

RetroVertigo brings up the rear, though he's merely a tick behind Omni. He'll likely need to pick up a warm body to serve as QB4, because it'll be tough sledding with only three of them, two of whom are decidedly non-premium (I'm not nearly as confident in Stafford as many others, but even if we assume I'm wrong he's still a huge injury risk, which needs to be factored in).

[Really Not All That Bright]

This method of reviewing makes a lot of sense with so few teams, actually. I think I will comment on yours once you're done rather than do a full review of my own.

[VarlosZ]

Running Back
1) RetroVertigo - Arian Foster, LeSean McCoy, Steven Jackson, Ahmad Bradshaw, Tim Hightower, Fred Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, Ronnie Brown, LaDainian Tomlinson
2) Jules Andre - Ray Rice, Peyton Hillis, Matt Forte, Felix Jones, Jahvid Best, Mark Ingram, Mike Tolbert, Montario Hardesty
3) RNATB - Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, LeGarrette Blount, DeAngelo Williams, Jonathan Stewart, Ryan Grant, Joseph Addai, Jason Snelling, Pierre Thomas
4) VarlosZ - Rashard Mendenhall, Maurice Jones-Drew, Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, Brandon Jacobs, James Starks, C.J. Spiller, Thomas Jones, Isaac Redman
5) SenorBeef - Jamaal Charles, Darren McFadden, Ryan Mathews, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Cedric Benson, Daniel Thomas, Jerome Harrison, Delone Carter, Ben Tate
6) Omniscient - Chris Johnson, Frank Gore, Knowshon Moreno, Reggie Bush, Michael Bush, Willis McGahee, Roy Helu, Kendall Hunter, Marion Barber


This position was much harder to judge than Quarterback. I feel somewhat secure (?) in saying that Beef and Omni are 5th and 6th, respectively (mostly for issues of depth), but even then there are no huge chasms, and the top 4 all seem barely distinguishable to me. I don't know what to say: If anyone except Omni finished with the most RB points, I would be completely un-surprised, nor would a last place finish by Jules or Retro raise an eyebrow.

I will say that my guess is Running Backs were somewhat overdrafted by the league, with the likely exception the two bottom ranked teams above: Omni's first four RBs were taken in the 1st, 4th, 11th, and 14th Rounds; Beef's went in the 1st, 3rd, 12th, and 13th -- everyone else went RB in 4 of first 8 rounds. The league's rosters and settings increase the relative value of WRs and (especially) QBs, yet it looks at first glance as if each position hewed pretty close to its ADP. So, while I think there's a little separation with Beef and Omni at the bottom, that's not necessarily a sign of poor drafts on their part.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Quarterback
1) Jules Andre: Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Josh Freeman, Donovan McNabb
2) VarlosZ: Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Cassel, Jason Campbell
3) RNATB: Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Kevin Kolb, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tarvaris Jackson
4) Senor Beef: Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Kyle Orton, Mark Sanchez, Cam Newton
5) Omniscient: Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning?, Sam Bradford, Jay Cutler
6) RetroVertigo: Drew Brees, Matthew Stafford, Colt McCoy
Omni would move up a couple of spots if it was still Wednesday... but it isn’t. Jules’ 1-3 are clearly head and shoulders above everyone else’s. I prefer my 2-5 significantly to Varlos’ 2-5, but I have no answer for Vick (other than the fact that Romo will probably start more games).

I deliberately went for high-floor guys, because although quarterbacks are valuable, they’re mostly hard to predict. There are a bunch of guys who throw for 28 TDs and 4000 yards every year and you never know which ones will go for 35 and 4500.

[RetroVertigo]

Quarterbacks: 3. (15) Drew Brees, 9. (51) Matthew Stafford, 18. (106) Colt McCoy

I really don't like what I did with my Qb picks after Brees. I have to assume that Stafford will stay healthy all season (which won't happen), for my lack of a decent QB4. This could really come back to bite me. Brees will have his usual year, which hopefully will have less INT's. McCoy will be serviceable, but not very good. It will be a decision every week if he should be in my flex.

*By the way, if anybody is looking to trade a QB let me know.

Runningbacks: 1. (3) Arian Foster, 2. (10) LeSean McCoy, 4. (22) Steven Jackson, 8. (46) Ahmad Bradshaw, 13. (75) Tim Hightower, 15. (87) Fred Jackson, 24. (142) Ronnie Brown, 28. (166) LaDainian Tomlinson

I went RB heavy, taking 3 in the first 4 rounds. I also went with RB's who will benefit from the partial ppr. If I couldn't decide which back to take the tiebreaker was receptions. Foster's hamstring could be an issue this year, and I wanted to grab Ben Tate, but he went earlier then I wanted to grab him. McCoy I really liked this pick, and didn't think he would make it back to me here with the partial ppr. With defenses keyed in on Vick and stopping any big downfield plays, McCoy could be left with a lot of room to run. Jackson I think for some strange reason will have a good year. McDaniel's will open up vertically a offense that has stagnated for the last couple seasons. Which will give Jackson the chance at improving his dismal TD total. Bradshaw will be a solid #4 RB. He is quick and will catch his share of balls out of the backfield, but how many TD will Jacobs poach? I guess I jumped on the "Hightower will not suck this year" bandwagon also.

Wide Receivers: 5. (27) Greg Jennings, 6. (34) DeSean Jackson, 7. (39) Dez Bryant, 11. (63) Percy Harvin, 12. (70) Chad Ochocinco, 14. (82) Santana Moss, 19. (111) A.J. Green, 21. (123) Jordy Nelson, 23. (135) Pierre Garcon, 26. (154) James Jones, 27. (159) Jacoby Jones

My top 3 WR's are all big play guys. Jennings is a little inconsistent, but with Rodgers throwing him the ball, any week could be huge. Bryant will be the #1 guy in Dallas by week 8. Though its not a huge, the return yardage points that Jackson and Harvin will get could be a nice bonus. Who really knows what kind of year Ochocinco will have, he looked done after last year, but its Brady. Moss had 1000 yards last year (IIRC I don't feel like looking it up), now he has Grossman throwing the ball, god help me.

Tightend: 10. (58) Vernon Davis, 16. (94) Kellen Winslow, 22. (130) Brandon Pettigrew

With having to start 2 TE's I wanted to get 3 big play-makers. TE is not a position a regularly take early, usually settling for some middle of pack guys, but for some reason this year in all my draft this changed. Davis will have a year similar to last season. With Alex Smith behind center, Davis seems to be his go-to guy. I really like Pettigrew in the 22nd. If Stafford can stay healthy ( I know) Detroit's offense is very pass happy.

Defense: 20. (118) Baltimore, 25. (147) Detroit, 30. (178) San Francisco

I got in the end of a run on Def's and grabbed Baltimore. They're not what they were a couple years ago, but very steady. Detroit should pressure opposing QB's into throwing picks, along with the expected sacks. San Francisco was really just a homer pick, but they're an above average defense whose offense couldn't keep them off the field last year.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Running Back
1) RetroVertigo - Arian Foster, LeSean McCoy, Steven Jackson, Ahmad Bradshaw, Tim Hightower, Fred Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, Ronnie Brown, LaDainian Tomlinson
2) Jules Andre - Ray Rice, Peyton Hillis, Matt Forte, Felix Jones, Jahvid Best, Mark Ingram, Mike Tolbert, Montario Hardesty
3) RNATB - Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, LeGarrette Blount, DeAngelo Williams, Jonathan Stewart, Ryan Grant, Joseph Addai, Jason Snelling, Pierre Thomas
4) VarlosZ - Rashard Mendenhall, Maurice Jones-Drew, Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, Brandon Jacobs, James Starks, C.J. Spiller, Thomas Jones, Isaac Redman
5) SenorBeef - Jamaal Charles, Darren McFadden, Ryan Mathews, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Cedric Benson, Daniel Thomas, Jerome Harrison, Delone Carter, Ben Tate
6) Omniscient - Chris Johnson, Frank Gore, Knowshon Moreno, Reggie Bush, Michael Bush, Willis McGahee, Roy Helu, Kendall Hunter, Marion Barber
I was surprised to see myself in third place here, because I’m fairly certain I have the second best lineup. I’d obviously take AP over Rice, I think Hillis and Turner are worth about the same (bearing in mind that Hillis sort of fell apart at the end of last season), and I think Forte is only worth a little more than Blount. I would definitely take Williams over Best, and my backups are deeper.

I definitely agree that Retro’s group is head and shoulders above everyone else’s. I would have ranked Omni’s group over Beef’s, just because of Moreno over Mathews.

[VarlosZ]

Wide Receiver
1) Omniscient - Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, Brandon Marshall, Dwayne Bowe, Kenny Britt, Braylon Edwards, Plaxico Burress, Nate Burleson, Earl Bennett, Mike Williams
2) SenorBeef - Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Wallace, Vincent Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, Mario Manningham, Santonio Holmes, Michael Crabtree, Roy Williams
3) RNATB - Roddy White, Calvin Johnson, Mike Thomas, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith 1.0, Mike Sims-Walker, Austin Collie, Robert Meachem, Bernard Berrian, Devin Hester
4) VarlosZ - Hakeem Nicks, TB Mike Williams, Stevie Johnson, Marques Colston, Julio Jones, Malcom Floyd, Johnny Knox, Emmanuel Sanders, Deion Branch, Greg Little
5) RetroVertigo - Greg Jennings, DeSean Jackson, Dez Bryant, Percy Harvin, Chad Ochocinco, Santana Moss, A.J. Green, Jordy Nelson, Pierre Garcon, James Jones, Jacoby Jones
6) Jules Andre - Reggie Wayne, Wes Welker, Anquan Boldin, Danny Amendola, Lance Moore, Lee Evans, Davone Bess, Hines Ward, Jacoby Ford, Steve Smith (PHI), Antonio Brown, Brandon Gibson

For some reason, there seem to be much sharper distinctions at WR than at RB. While obviously there's the possibility for each group to over-or-under perform, just going by accepted wisdom and expectation, I felt pretty confident at almost every step.

Omni and Beef are very close all down the line, but Omni gets the top spot largely for the simple reason that he's got 10 WRs while Beef has only 8 (7 considering one of them is Roy Williams). We must start 7 every week, so Beef will, of course, hit the waiver wire when the byes start and players get injured. And, yes, the players he picks up mid-season will only be a little worse than Omni's 9th and 10th WRs, but doing so will mean he has to chip away at his depth elsewhere, and it's all generally less certain than just drafting your backup scrubs outright.

I was tempted to move Beef to 3rd, below RNATB, for the same reasons, but couldn't in the end: the top twos are very close (slight edge to RNATB), but then Beef has a solid advantage from WR3 straight through to WR7, and they all have to start.

RNATB bests me and Retro on the strength of those top two WRs; after that there's not much separating the three groups. I gave myself a slight edge over Retro mostly because I think less of Dez Bryant, Santana Moss, and Ochcinco than most people do, but it's nonetheless extremely close.

Only Jules stands a good distance away from the pack. As he says, he got a bunch of possession receiver who should put up enough points so that the position doesn't totally murder his team, thus leaving a gap that's small enough for his other positions to make up. It's not an unreasonable plan, and it may well work. OTOH, aside from Welker and maybe Reggie Wayne, there isn't even a chance that any of these guys put up a great fantasy season. And now that Manning is really out, there isn't a single guy there that I would expect to finish in the top 12, possibly even top 15 (though of course the odds are that at least one will outperform [my] expectations and land there). I think he's left himself a lot of ground to make up, and that it's going to be near impossible for him to have by far the best team, as he's conceding a disadvantage right off the bat in 7 of the 16 non-DEF/K positions. If he wins, it'll have to be close.

[VarlosZ]

I was surprised to see myself in third place here, because I’m fairly certain I have the second best lineup. I’d obviously take AP over Rice, I think Hillis and Turner are worth about the same (bearing in mind that Hillis sort of fell apart at the end of last season), and I think Forte is only worth a little more than Blount. I would definitely take Williams over Best, and my backups are deeper.
As you say, ADP > Rice, Hillis and Turner are basically equal, Forte is somewhat better than Blount; I might think the difference in the last pair is a little bit bigger than you do, but basically we agree here.

What you may have missed is that you're not comparing DeAngleo Williams (you) to Jahvid Best (Jules), but rather DeAngelo Williams to Felix Jones, whom I like at least moderately more. After that, you've got a bit of a problem in that it's doubtful that both Williams and J. Stewart will be worth starting (since their team sucks so bad), so out of the pair you really just get whoever winds up being healthier/more effective. If you look at it that way, then the next step it to compare your Ryan Grant to Jahvid Best (and I think you lose pretty bad there), your Addai to Mark Ingram (close, probably a slight edge to you), your Snelling to his Tolbert (you lose that), and your Pierre Thomas to his Hardesty (you win, but it's a pretty meaningless victory unless one of them is elevated by injury).

Which is all to say I think the two groups are extremely close, and if you wanted to put yours on top I couldn't really quibble. I'm just reasonably confident that your group is not clearly better.

[VarlosZ]

Tight End
1) SenorBeef - Jermichael Finley, Greg Olsen, Jared Cook, Lance Kendricks
2) Jules Andre - Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez, Todd Heap
3) Omniscient - Owen Daniels, Jimmy Graham, Zach Miller
4) RetroVertigo - Vernon Davis, Kellen Winslow, Brandon Pettigrew
5) VarlosZ - Dallas Clark, Aaron Hernandez, Dustin Keller
6) RNATB - Jason Witten, Marcedes Lewis


Another very difficult group to rank; I stand by almost none of this.

Part of what's difficult is that neither of the top 2 TEs (Gates, Finley) were joined to an elite partner at the position (Gonzo seems to be finally wearing down, Heap was an underdog to be drafted probably, Olsen was never great and his new offense sucks and won't be throwing, and neither Cook nor Kendricks has accomplished anything yet). I could have pretty easily put Omni #1, what with Jimmy Graham's good game last night.

After that I still don't really know what's going on. Jason Witten is the best guy in on the bottom three teams, but I put RNATB last because (and we've had this argument before) I just don't see Marcedes Lewis doing anything but regressing to the mean this year; I think he got a great TE1 and than, for TE2, just some guy who's barely distinguishable from what's on the wire (and of course he chose not to draft a backup TE).

If Manning wan't out for half the season or more, I'd put myself 3rd or 4th, but Dallas Clark must necessarily take a big hit to his value.

I could have put Retro 3rd, but overall I feel pretty comfortable slotting him in between Omni and myself.


Anyway, the margins here are generally a lot smaller than at the other positions. You really could punt at TE and not seriously injure your team in the process.

[VarlosZ]

Defense
1) Jules Andre - Philadelphia, New York Jets
2) SenorBeef - Green Bay, Chicago, Dallas
3) VarlosZ - Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New York Giants
4) RetroVertigo - Baltimore, Detroit, San Francisco
5) RNATB - New England, Tampa Bay
6) Omniscient - San Diego, New Orleans


I don't have a lot to say about these rankings. They're not very important to our overall scoring, and there's just a ton of variance from year to year (both in defenses' fantasy scoring, and their actual quality), making it near impossible to predict who will finish where.

I will say about my own selections that I think Pittsburgh stands a better than usual chance of repeating as the top DEF, what with their easy schedule, and that KC's defense is a good bet to improve rather than decline (due to the demographics of their high draft picks in recent years). Probably I shouldn't have bothered to draft the Giants, but it was the 7th to last pick and could hardly have mattered less.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Huh. I totally missed that he had Felix Jones. Objection withdrawn.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Anyway, the margins [at tight end] are generally a lot smaller than at the other positions. You really could punt at TE and not seriously injure your team in the process.
I would rank my TEs last based on depth alone, though I think Lewis is the best #2 along with Graham, so no argument here. But yeah, I spend big on tight ends because after Gates/Witten/Finley (and if not for Manning being hurt, Clark) they're basically all the same.

I do like Owen Daniels to firmly establish himself in that top tier this year, but he's not worth what they are yet.

[VarlosZ]

To sum everything up (you're nuts if you think I'm going to rank the Kickers), I'll assign points for each ranking and tally the totals. It'll work as follows:

6 points for each 1st place ranking, 5 for each 2nd, etc. Then we'll apply the following modifiers to account for positional significance: x6 for QB and RB, x5 for WR, x2 for TE, and x1 for DEF. It's quick and dirty, it's somewhat arbitrary, a few minor and totally plausible changes would result in big shifts in the totals, etc., so don't take it seriously. But I will be curious to see how this matches up with the point totals at the end of the season. Please try to remember to quote it back to me so you can shove it in my face when the time comes.

Rankings are for QB - RB - WR - TE - DEF, respectively:

1) Jules Andre . (1 - 2 - 6 - 2 - 1) = 87 points.

2t) SenorBeef . (4 - 5 - 2 - 1 -2) = 72 points.

2t) RNATB ..... (3 - 3 - 3 - 6 - 5) = 72 points.

4) VarlosZ ...... (2 - 4 - 4 -5 - 3) = 71 points.

5) RetroVertigo (6 - 1 - 5 - 4 - 4) = 61 points.

6) Omniscient . (5 - 6 - 1 - 3 - 6) = 57 points.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You know, you could have given me red and given Retro sienna - it’s close to gold, and that’s the Niners’ second color (and red is now the Bucs’ primary color).
Wide Receiver
1) Omniscient - Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, Brandon Marshall, Dwayne Bowe, Kenny Britt, Braylon Edwards, Plaxico Burress, Nate Burleson, Earl Bennett, Mike Williams
2) SenorBeef - Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Wallace, Vincent Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, Mario Manningham, Santonio Holmes, Michael Crabtree, Roy Williams
3) RNATB - Roddy White, Calvin Johnson, Mike Thomas, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith 1.0, Mike Sims-Walker, Austin Collie, Robert Meachem, Bernard Berrian, Devin Hester
4) VarlosZ - Hakeem Nicks, TB Mike Williams, Stevie Johnson, Marques Colston, Julio Jones, Malcom Floyd, Johnny Knox, Emmanuel Sanders, Deion Branch, Greg Little
5) RetroVertigo - Greg Jennings, DeSean Jackson, Dez Bryant, Percy Harvin, Chad Ochocinco, Santana Moss, A.J. Green, Jordy Nelson, Pierre Garcon, James Jones, Jacoby Jones
6) Jules Andre - Reggie Wayne, Wes Welker, Anquan Boldin, Danny Amendola, Lance Moore, Lee Evans, Davone Bess, Hines Ward, Jacoby Ford, Steve Smith (PHI), Antonio Brown, Brandon Gibson
I can live with this. I fully admit that my draft went kind of pear-shaped in the middle in terms of wide receivers, especially WRT the Rice pick (though I think there’s serious upside there when he gets healthy). I think the Meachem pick was borne out to some degree last night - sure, Lance Moore was out, but one or another of the Saints’ wideouts is always hurt.

I don’t care much for Mike Wallace (one year wonder?) or Maclin (at least until he proves he’s healthy) but there’s no question Beef’s overall wideout corps is better than mine.

I actually like Retro’s wideouts better than yours, Varlos. You have lots of talent but also an awful lot of sophomore slump potential. One of Nicks, Williams and Johnson is likely to flame out. That said, Colston is an almost unbelievably good #4, even if he’s a bit streaky.
Defense
1) Jules Andre - Philadelphia, New York Jets
2) SenorBeef - Green Bay, Chicago, Dallas
3) VarlosZ - Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New York Giants
4) RetroVertigo - Baltimore, Detroit, San Francisco
5) RNATB - New England, Tampa Bay
6) Omniscient - San Diego, New Orleans
Jules is the clear winner here, with arguably the two best fantasy defenses outside of Pittsburgh. Green Bay and Chicago are a pretty clear #2 combo.

[Really Not All That Bright]

IBut yeah, I spend big on tight ends because after Gates/Witten/Finley (and if not for Manning being hurt, Clark) they're basically all the same.
That should say, "don't spend big". :smack:

[VarlosZ]

You know, you could have given me red and given Retro sienna - it’s close to gold, and that’s the Niners’ second color (and red is now the Bucs’ primary color).
I thought about that, but I just felt that Sienna was further away from 49ers gold than Buccaneers Pewter; it mostly looked like a straight brown, which I would never come close to associating with San Fran. And I guess it's true that red is the Bucs' primary color now, but that's no less true for the 49ers, and I would imagine that most people who aren't fans of the Bucs would tend to associate them more with pewter (or the orange creamsicles).

Hey, apparently "gold" is an option after all. It doesn't show up on the drop-down menu as a choice, but you can manually type it in. Of course, it doesn't really resemble the dark gold used by the 49ers.

[Omniscient]

You know, you could have given me red and given Retro sienna - it’s close to gold, and that’s the Niners’ second color (and red is now the Bucs’ primary color).

And the Bears are Navy and Orange, no black to be found! ;)


Jules is the clear winner here, with arguably the two best fantasy defenses outside of Pittsburgh. Green Bay and Chicago are a pretty clear #2 combo.

I think it's a little crazy how little love the Chargers defense is getting this year. They had the #1 yardage defense in the league last year, and while the terrible special teams played a role in that, I think they are going to be a pretty potent fantasy defense this year, especially in the secondary.

[RetroVertigo]

The only tiebreaker I can think of for team colors is Super Bowl victories. So....

[Jules Andre]

I can't argue with Varlos' interpretations too much, I think he's ranked them pretty fairly across the board. Of course, any ranking that has my team a mile ahead of everyone else is going to be looked at favorably, that's a given.

I don't have a problem being ranked second, or maybe even third, at RB. But I will say that I think it's unfair to immediately toss aside Ray Rice in this format. I'll say it right now. He leads this league in RB fantasy points at the end of the season.

The overall ranking agrees with Yahoo's projections, by the way. Yahoo really loves my team. My team is projected to finish much higher in final points than any other (I have no idea how I didn't win the best draft award, I did the math by hand and came out damn near a hundred points better by season's end). I don't know if that should worry me or not.

[SenorBeef]

I'm going to be out tailgating by like 7am tomorrow so I can't make last second changes to my fantasy roster. I always tell people that if they clearly state conditional wishes I'll make it happen as commish, so I'm not invoking any special priviledges here.

If Arian Foster is out (game time decision), I want to start Ben Tate, otherwise I want Ryan Mathews in that spot.

Is that cool? I've done that sort of thing for other people before.

[RetroVertigo]

I have no problem with it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think it's a little crazy how little love the Chargers defense is getting this year. They had the #1 yardage defense in the league last year, and while the terrible special teams played a role in that, I think they are going to be a pretty potent fantasy defense this year, especially in the secondary.
Well that's nice and all but we don't get points for yardage (do we?)

[SenorBeef]

I was fairly confident I was going to win the McFadden vs Hernandez matchup against Varlos, but then Brady went nuts and threw 150 yards to everyone on the team including the long snapper, so now it's an uphill battle. I need 15 more points out of McFadden.

And no, no yardage for defense.

[SenorBeef]

I swapped Mathews for Tate as per my stated intentions (Foster was inactive). The game was so close that this pushed me from a loss to a win, but I was clear about it. Hopefully this should cause no issues, but people like to flip out on me about shit that was made clear long ago.

[Jules Andre]

I'm not gonna do... what everyone thinks I'm gonna do... and flip out man

[Jules Andre]

Now that the results are pretty much final... having Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady on the same team is the most fun I've ever had in fantasy.

[Jules Andre]

WR -
Reggie Wayne, Ind / Wes Welker, NE / Anquan Boldin, Bal / Danny Amendola, StL / Lance Moore, NO / Lee Evans, Bal / Davone Bess, Mia / Hines Ward, Pit / Jacoby Ford, Oak / Steve Smith, Phi / Antonio Brown, Pit / Brandon Gibson, StL
•Ouch. Any gains I make at QB and RB against this league are lost at WR. It's a tough group to look at, but it's one I actually like quite a bit, considering. When you go heavy QB and heavy RB, this is pretty much the perfect group to have at WR in a PPR league. The idea here is to just get steady production. Nobody here will score two TDs in a single game, but hopefully every one will catch 4-5 passes every week.
Bolding added for emphasis. Just remembered I posted this. That didn't last long.

Losing Amendola for some period of time could hurt quite a bit, this group is already pretty thin. Moore is apparently more hurt than I read about, so I'm already scraping the barrel for warm bodies here.

[SenorBeef]

I really hope I don't lose by a margin that Jamal Charles could've been reasonably expected to score.

Also, Cam Newton may now be my #1 QB. WTF is that?

[Jules Andre]

I cant believe i'm going to lose to one of your crappy teams again.

[SenorBeef]

I don't see why you'd assume that, you're still ahead a decent bit.

But what crappy teams are you talking about? The only times we played together last year were in the auction league where my team was crazy dominant.

Weird that my crappy teams keep dominating.

[SenorBeef]

I caught up mostly due to Vincent Jackson. There was a tense moment in there when the Pats were in the red zone and you had Brady and Welker, and I had Green Ellis, and he ran it in for a TD.

I've got a 7 point lead with Matt Ryan, Maclin, and Manningham to play against your Gonzo, kicker, and Eagles D. Looking good for me but still a game.

A victory would help heal the wound left after losing my the #2 pick in the draft.



Varlos needs to make up a 17 point gap with Vick, Nicks, Julio Jones, and the Giants D against Retro's DeSean Jackson, McCoy, and Bradshaw.

RNATB is 40 points behind Omni, but he has Eli Manning, White, Sims-Walker, Turner, and a kicker vs Omni's Sam Bradford.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm 53 behind. Assuming they all hit their projections, I'm going to lose by 10 points. I think it largely depends on whether Turner has his traditional 100+ yard, 2+ TD home opener though.

[SenorBeef]

Tough path to victory for Jules. Tony Gonzalez is going nuts, but every time he scores a TD I get 4 points back for Matt Ryan and his Eagles D score goes down.

Edit: Nevermind, Maclin TD.

Odd that my shitty team is going to put up 300 points. Must be a big fluke week.

[SenorBeef]

Well I've got 4 matchups with you this year - three in this league and one in the auction. One down...

[Jules Andre]

Odd that my shitty team is going to put up 300 points. Must be a big fluke week.

I'm pretty damn sure you won't sniff 300 again this season. And I'd be surprised if anyone loses again this season putting up 265. Thems the breaks, oh well.

[RetroVertigo]

Rooting for McCoy in this league, against for every other league I'm in. Multiple leagues will be what puts me on mood stabilizers.

[SenorBeef]

A win is a win. I decided to overachieve somehow. My team went out there and gave 110% and executed and your team didn't give 110% and execute and you're just gonna have to go back to the drawing board and just get a little better every week and just worry about your next opponents etc etc. Head to head matchups are important shit.

I may hit 300 again since I did it this time with an inactive player, my best player injured after 2 players, and another receiver yet to play.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Okay, so now I'm down by 18 with Eli and Sims-Walker to play versus Sam Bradford. Normally I'd rather have the 18 points than have Sims-Walker but obviously any TDs Bradford throws to MSW help me (not that he caught any last week) so maybe I'll be okay.

[Jules Andre]

I may hit 300 again since I did it this time with an inactive player, my best player injured after 2 players, and another receiver yet to play.
Well would you look at that. The flukes keep on comin'.

[SenorBeef]

Well would you look at that. The flukes keep on comin'.

Well that didn't take very long.

The flukes will be coming all year. My base line will be a fluke.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Boy, is your face going to be red after Jason Witten's 300 yard, 6 touchdown MNF performance...

[SenorBeef]

Trade:

Jules gives up
Wayne
Hillis
Gates
Freeman

RNATB gives up
Roddy White
Witten
Romo


I assume you guys want this to go through now?

[Jules Andre]

Yeah, I vote to push it through. I thought that was the default procedure now?

[SenorBeef]

It is, but I want to confirm in case someone didn't realize it'd go through in time, and they didn't want it to go through until after Sunday.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I didn't want it to go through until after Sunday but I didn't bother to check the thread and it looks like I'm going to win comfortably anyway so no biggie.

[SenorBeef]

That's why I asked. My general default leaning is to get deals through before gameday, that's generally how I've done it for the last few years and I'd hope people are used to it - but some people don't expect it and I don't want to catch anyone off guard, so please, in the future, specify whether or not you want trades to go through in time for the next game.

BTW, whoever loses between Jules and Retrovertigo is going to score 265+, so both of Jules predictions about stuff that would never happen again within the season were disproven in the next two weeks.

[Jules Andre]

BTW, whoever loses between Jules and Retrovertigo is going to score 265+, so both of Jules predictions about stuff that would never happen again within the season were disproven in the next two weeks.
At least it took two weeks. Usually any prediction I make goes wrong immediately.

[RetroVertigo]

What would be the cutoff for when its too late to push through a trade?

[SenorBeef]

Everything up until kickoff would be ok as long as both sides made their intentions clear. I may not be at the computer in time to actually execute a trade but if both sides made it clear they intended a trade to go through and specify what roster changes they'd like to make based on the trade going through, I could fix it retroactively. But the intent has to be clear from both sides, so if you make a late trade please post about it.

[SenorBeef]

It's too bad you guys didn't mock my late round selection of Cam Newton, so I can't really rub it in now. #3 in fantasy scoring...

Battle of the juggernauts this week as I face Retrovertigo. It's 239.39 projected points vs 239.86.

[Jules Andre]

Battle of the juggernauts this week as I face Retrovertigo. It's 239.39 projected points vs 239.86.
I came here to bitch about you calling your matchup a "Battle of the Juggernauts" when it didn't involve me and I faced the third place team. Then I realized I faced him last week. It's been a rough week...

I'm projected to get 239.72 despite losing five starters to bye. I'm literally scraping the barrel just to start someone at each spot.

And a week after both my starting defenses shit the bed (and my opponent's two defenses combined for five touchdowns!) my top three defenses face the teams that gave up the 32nd, 31st and 28th most fantasy points to DEF. Oof. But after the draft I knew I'd have a lot of trouble weeks 5 and maybe 7, so stealing a win here would really help.

[RetroVertigo]

I only had a couple starters on bye this week. Scared to look ahead.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Jules' defenses and mine combined for -12 points this week, and the Yahoo android app apparently doesn't work, because I was supposed to be starting Kevin Boss. Not that it mattered, since Boss had no points.

[SenorBeef]

Well that's convenient for you Jules, getting to face the one guy you scored more than this week.

(I had one of those weeks too - I just like to counterbalance claims of how everything always goes wrong for you)

[Jules Andre]

I don't even know where to start with that post. I'll just say, yes, that was fortunate.

[SenorBeef]

Varlos you winless motherfucker, don't go breaking your streak on me while Jules gets to face the lowest scorer in the league again.

[SenorBeef]

Varlos has a 16 point lead, Knox, Greene, and Keller against my Holmes and Bears. He picked a fine week to start scoring points.

The other games are technically within reach but not really.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'd need 35+ from AP and the Minnesota defense. Possible, but not really feasible, even against Jay Cutler.

I'm probably going to go 5-1 in HHM and the Dynasty league - and I'll be 1-5 in this one. Oh well, at least I get to play Varlos and Omni again.

[SenorBeef]

Ah, you meant 35 each, I thought you meant 35 total and I figured that didn't sound right at all. You'd also need to outscore whatever Percy Harvin puts out.

Yeah, it should be nice against Omni and Varlos. They're saving up their good games against me, so you should be safe.

[Jules Andre]

Yeah, it should be nice against Omni and Varlos. They're saving up their good games against me, so you should be safe.
This isn't even a tiny bit true.

[SenorBeef]

Yeah, you're right, their games have been closer than I thought.

[SenorBeef]

Yay Santonio Holmes.

Just need Greene/Keller not to score 4 points on this garbage time clock runout drive.

[SenorBeef]

Greene looked unusually competan with a few runs, giving Varlos 3 points and change...

Leaving the score (barring adjustments) 214.28 to 214.11 in my favor.

[Jules Andre]

Talk about incredibly lucky! It always works out that way, come in complaining about somebody else's luck and you end up the luckiest of all. I'm totally sure that was just a one time thing and won't carry over for, oh I dunno, another week.

Turns out it didn't matter if I faced the person with the lowest score (I didn't) because I would have beaten anyone else anyway.

[RetroVertigo]

Hey Senorbeef, is there anything to the rumors that this weeks ESPN projections will have Jerome Harrison's tumor rushing for 150yds and 2 TD's?

;)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not cool.

[Jules Andre]

My game with SenorBeef is going to be an interesting one this week. Aside from how my team magically forgets to show up every time I play him and his always gets a breakout performance or two against mine, of course.

I'll be down two of my three best players this week due to bye (Brady, the second best player in fantasy, and Welker the best overall non-QB in fantasy), and another two of my starting four RBs out with injury from last week's games (of course). He has a few more players out with byes than me, but not a one is very important to his team overall. He definitely caught me the right week (of course).

[SenorBeef]

We do play 5 times this year, so I'm looking forward to all 5 excuses as to why the situations totally favor me and disfavor you because the universe hates you.

[Jules Andre]

Five times is a lot. I'll really have to get creative to come up with good excuses for those last meetings.

[SenorBeef]

I don't really anticipate winning all 5 matches - you've got a good team, I don't have any truly great teams this year, and 5 games in a row is a lot to win.

Edit: For clarity, 4 in the super league, 1 in the auction league.

Although I have won like my last 67 or so against you, so I guess it's not that wildly improbable.

[SenorBeef]

Big trade:

Varlos gives up
Vick
Mike Williams
Greene
Cinci

RNATB gives up
Wayne
Peterson
Kolb
Oakland

Push this through now, right?

[VarlosZ]

Either way's fine with me.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Nope. I need Oakland for this week.

[SenorBeef]

What the fuck? I started Ryan Mathews, not Daniel Thomas. But Thomas is on my roster.

[SenorBeef]

I'm stuck btw. Not gonna try to fix it now of course. But wtf. I double and triple check my rosters.

[SenorBeef]

Not looking good for me. All of my receivers are doing nothing.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What the fuck? I started Ryan Mathews, not Daniel Thomas. But Thomas is on my roster.
Same thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago- I started Kevin Boss, but for some reason Yahoo left Ed Dickson in- on a bye. There wasn't really much point in making a fuss, because Dickson was just productive on his bye as Boss was in the actual game (ie., 0 points).

[SenorBeef]

Well fuck me, McFadden is hurt. If I lose both of my top 2 picks...

That also probably seals my loss this week.

[SenorBeef]

Some "J Arenas" bullshit stole my rightful Jackie Battle TD!

Save me, ... uh... Darrius Heyward-Bey!

[SenorBeef]

Damn, if I had gotten the expected 20 points out of McFadden, I'd be right in this game. As it is, I've got a 22 point lead against Rice, Ingram, Moore, and Boldin, no way that holds up.

Balls.

[Jules Andre]

I'm in a really good spot going into Monday down just 7 with Ray Rice and Anquan Boldin left, but I'm not confident at all. Lost too many in a row to feel good about this.

[Jules Andre]

Pretty funny that NO scores 62 fucking points and neither of my NO players had a single touchdown. Just noticed that.

[SenorBeef]

It would be an extremely unusual situation for Rice and Boldin not to score 8 points. Less than 1% chance of that happening. You won, congrats.

I gotta stop playing you, you're taking out my draft picks every time. Next up is Larry Fitzgerald, I think.

[SenorBeef]

Ray Rice hadn't fumbled in 500 attempts, and now 2. Actually, this will probably be overturned, but clearly the universe wants me to win.





(There's still no real chance I'm in this)

[SenorBeef]

1 rec, 5 yards, and 10 rush yards is exactly 0 points for Ray Rice. 0 for Boldin.

If I somehow held on to my 7 point lead, which I still say is very very unlikely, it would be the greatest thing that has ever happened in human history.

Makes me feel the McFadden loss all the more, though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, I didn't see this coming.

[SenorBeef]

If somehow this continues, and I pull it off, I won't be able to post tonight about how great it is, because I will be off seeking medical treatment for an erection that lasts for four or more hours.

[SenorBeef]

Damn, it was just too good. Oh well. Congrats.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Jesus. I have a lot of starting running backs. Turner, Hillis, Shonn Greene, Addai, Grant (sorta), Blount, DeAngelo...

[SenorBeef]

And at least 1 and a half of them are startable!

[SenorBeef]

I was almost sure I'd staggered my QB bye dates so that I'd always have 3 available. Not sure how I missed having two out.

Which wouldn't be bad except I've got a whole lot of byes this week. I'm going to have to make a bunch of cuts I don't want to make just to get a full list of starters in there.

[Jules Andre]

I thought I was in the clear with bye weeks starting this week, but I have the #1 fantasy player overall (Rodgers), the #1 RB (Forte), and Roddy White all on byes. Combine that with the two starting RBs I have currently injured and I'm kinda scraping the barrel myself.

I don't have anyone significant with byes in weeks 9 or 11 so I should be fine after this week, assuming I have a healthy RB left by that point.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And at least 1 and a half of them are startable!
The best part is that Blount, Turner and Greene are all on byes this week, and Hillis will probably play sparingly if at all.

[SenorBeef]

Hillis is set to start normally as far as I know.

Edit: Woops, checked my opponent. I meant he's supposed to get 3, maybe 4 carries.

[SenorBeef]

So anyway, we've got a very competitive league going here... among 3 people. This is actually the league I'm in with the biggest gap between the top and bottom players.

I wonder if it's because we run so deep - any different in drafting ability is going to have more chances to show up with a more positions and a deeper draft.

I'm hoping this comes to an epic showdown between Jules and I for the championship, but Retro has quite a substantial lead on me, so unless he gets some unfavorable H2H matchups it's going to be difficult.

It'd be tempting to scrap the plans to drop the bottom rated player and just throw three of you bums out of the league at the end of the year :P

Don't slack off though - you still have to fight to not be last. Varlos and Omni need significant roster adjustment still this week. (Edit: Not that I think you were going to leave the slots empty, just reminding)

[Jules Andre]

Now up to four RBs out this week. With injury, mind. I have another one on bye.

Considering what Ray Rice did just last week, this might be the worst group of four running backs to start in this league that we'll ever see. We could keep this league going for ten years and not see another group as bad.

This has been an amazing week for my fantasy teams. Every single day a new starter on one of my teams has been ruled out of this Sunday's games.

[SenorBeef]

I don't think Varlos is going to be adjusting his roster. He hasn't logged into the boards for a week and he's been having computer issues. Which.. sucks. You're likely to win anyway but not guaranteed, and a free win has significant playoff race implications.

[SenorBeef]

Good, everyone set their roster.

And Fitzgerald managed a 66 yard completion that wasn't a TD.

[SenorBeef]

I feel an epic assbeating coming on.

[RetroVertigo]

Brees has had a horrible 1st half against a bad Rams defense.

[SenorBeef]

I feel an epic assbeating coming on.

Maybe not. My team rushed out to a great first half, but then didn't do anything in the second.

[RetroVertigo]

I have also shit the bed by benching Steven Jackson in favor of Sproles.

[SenorBeef]

I've got a 16 point lead with Vincent Jackson, Maclin, Murray, Battle, and Matthews against RNATB's Gates, Bailey, and Chargers D.

Varlos has a 10 point lead, Cassel, and Floyd against Jules' Romo, Witten, and Eagles D.

[SenorBeef]

I'd say the game between Varlos and Jules is actually about 50/50 at this point. Varlos needs 21 points out of Cassel and Floyd. Cassel is wildly unpredictable and totally capable of putting up 5 or 25 points, and Floyd rare scores more than 7.

[Jules Andre]

I'm pretty sure I'll lose. Couldn't be happier though because it came down to Romo and Witten shitting the bed. Fine by me (this week)!

[SenorBeef]

Cam Newton is the #1 scoring QB and oddly Schaub is #6, so I have two of the top 6 after not investing very heavily in the QB position. Schaub surprised me - he rarely puts up huge games, but he does steadily put up 17+ points every week.

If I only hadn't lost Jamaal Charles, I'd have a pretty badass team.

[Jules Andre]

Cam Newton is the #1 scoring QB and oddly Schaub is #6, so I have two of the top 6 after not investing very heavily in the QB position. Schaub surprised me - he rarely puts up huge games, but he does steadily put up 17+ points every week.
Neither has had a bye yet though.

[SenorBeef]

True.

Varlos keeps creeping up on beating Jules, and then Cassel has a turnover and he goes back down a bit.


Incidentally both of my defenses were on a bye this week, and my replacements scored 21 and 31.

[SenorBeef]

Ha, Jules leads 223.71 to 223.70. It would be hilarious if it would somehow stick there.

Now watch Cassel get another 3 turnovers.

[Jules Andre]

Yeah I still had hope all the way until late in the third when things suddenly went the other way. I guess it's too much to ask to steal a win when you have four RBs hurt and the top scoring QB and RB (going into the week) on bye.

I even might have won if Malcom Floyd didn't suddenly turn into the Chargers #1 receiver despite being questionable to even play all week. Of course he leads a team with Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates in receiving! Makes perfect sense! It felt better when I thought I didn't have a chance and I could pin my loss on Tony Romo and Witten getting beat down by the Eagles. That feeling didn't last long.

[SenorBeef]

It's going to be an interesting run down the stretch. One of us is likely to miss out on a playoff spot. You've got a hundred point lead, but that's not insurmountable.

[SenorBeef]

My RBs are a mess this week. Mathews and McFadden out. Green-Ellis and Daniel Thomas - not sure if they'll even play. Is this the week Javon Ringer becomes the primary Tennessee RB?

Ah, if only I had Charles, McFadden, and Matthews healthy, my team would be going places.

[SenorBeef]

Fuck my life. I fell asleep ahead 195 to 115 and woke up an hour later down 251 to 218.

[SenorBeef]

Omni has a 32 point lead with Torrey Smith, Hester, and Cutler to play against my Wallace and Maclin.

RNATB has a 50 point lead, Vick, and Celek against Varlos' Roethlisberger, Flacco, Knox, Mendenhall, and Steelers D.

Retrovertigo has a 6 point lead, DeSean Jackson, McCoy, and the Ravens D against Jules' Antonio Brown, Boldin, Rice, Forte, and Eagles D.