Have you tried?
What was the last trade offer you sent for a defense that was rejected? What did you offer, and roughly how good was the defense you were trying to acquire?
Omni’s Ides of Martz Roster (tentative)
QB (3)
- Caleb Williams
- Jayden Daniels
- Justin Fields
RB (2)
- Travis Etienne Jr
- Isaac Guerendo
Khalil HerbertPierre Strong Jr.Kendre Miller
WR (7)
- Marvin Harison Jr.
- Darnell Mooney
- Ricky Pearsall
- Khalil Shakir
- Alec Pierce
- Andrei Iosivas
- Jalen Coker
Javon BakerCedric TillmanJonathan Mingo
TE (3)
- Chig Okonkwo
- Cole Kmet
- Jake Ferguson
Ben Sinnott
K (1)
- Jake Elliott
Jake Moody
DEF (2)
- Kansas City
- Las Vegas
I think drafting 2 QBs last year was the right strategy.
I don’t know what point you’re making. It’s not germane.
100%. I liked it a lot at the time and like it even more now.
Meanwhile, my guy that I traded for (Jordan Love, instead of drafting Daniels) promptly became an injury case as soon as I acquired him. Now apparently he has a thumb. *sigh*
It feels like whoever I was going to acquire was going to be cursed. In hindsight, I should have cursed Daniels since he’s in the NFC East.
Don’t worry, I’m fully expecting Daniels to go full RG3 this year. If I’m lucky it’ll just be a CJ Stroud level fall off.
You seem to be saying that you can’t trade for a defense because nobody is willing to trade you one. But if you haven’t tried, then that’s disingenuous at best.
No I’m not, you brought up trades, not me. I’m saying they don’t make more defenses. Unlike every other position there is no incoming rookie defense to draft. There’s no backup defenses. There’s no retiring defenses. They are fundamentally different than every other position in a Dynasty format. Whether you can or cannot trade for one is not relevant to the argument. Performing a trade does not fix the fundamental problem.
Yes, it does.
It feels like you want the advantage of being able to stream without having to pay the cost of spending roster spots on them.
I actually don’t want to stream. What I’d want is there to be some nominal turnover on rosters. At the end of last season there was exactly one defense on the waiver wire, that’s silly. If you did some analysis I bet you’d find that most teams have had the exact same defenses on their roster for 5 or more seasons.
If we want to let people retain the ability to roster 4 or more defenses (which right now is just you) we could do that simply by forcing teams to redraft defenses. Everyone would have the option to play that strategy every year if they are willing to forego a rookie pick or two. Or, as Beef described above, we could cap it at 2 and always have 8 defenses on the waiver wire that teams could fight to pick up every week (which I think makes this more fun). What’s not fun is this gridlock we see right now.
You say you don’t want to stream defenses, but this right here sounds like you do want to stream defenses.
It’s not gridlock, though. You can trade for defenses.
I’m going to drop this because this is some Rain Man shit, but about half the league has 2 defenses and there’s nothing on the waiver wire. What would you need to offer another manager in trade to get them to drop down to 1 defense? They’d have to have an empty roster spot on bye weeks and would have to seriously consider benching their defense several other weeks to avoid negative points. There’s a better than average chance that that liability could last for YEARS if no one drops a playable defense. Would it take 2 or 3 studs to offset that, more? It only takes a little critical analysis to see that this is a ridiculous “solution”.
I get it, you feel like you have the market cornered on defenses. Just admit that you want to retain your advanatge and stop with the nonsensical arguments.
You know a traffic jam is only really gridlock if you’re unwilling to smash your car into other cars like a demolition derby…
What about the half of the league with 3+ defenses? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and trade with one of them?
You seem really hung up on the fact that I have four defenses. Why haven’t you ever tried to trade for one of mine?
It just seems like you’re proposing a solution in search of a problem.
I had Gronk and Jimmy Graham the year (2012?) they were both breaking the all time TE records every week. But even then as TEs I don’t think they were ranked as top 5 (or even top 15) overall dynasty fantasy assets. I’m not talking about players finishing in the top 5 in their positions, but rather what expert pro rankings considered the top dynasty assets on a list like this. I don’t recall ever having blue chip star dynasty players like that.
When I originally responded to the poll and proposed the change I actually had no idea anyone had 4 defenses. I only realized you had 4 when you became the vocal opposition.
The original poll proposed removing defenses or changing the scoring so that owners could avoid punative negative points (neither proposal came from me). In my view, that’s a symptom, not the disease. Teams are especially afraid of negative points specifically because there’s no possibility of changing defenses mid-season to avoid it. When 2 of the 4 rule changes are about managing the pitfalls of defenses in this league it’s probably worth taking a deeper look.
My roster is a dumpster fire, I have bigger things to worry about than defenses. I simply offered a solution to a problem. You’re making this whole thing weird.
I don’t remember anything that far back, but I’d have to think that Gronk must have been a top 5 asset. TE scaricty has always been a thing and he had Brady and Belichick. Dude was putting up Jerry Rice like TD numbers. If he wasn’t a top Dynasty asset, the formulas are wrong.
I disagree.
The punitive negative points are pretty much entirely because we jacked up the defensive scoring values to make defenses more meaningful. Reverting defensive scoring to Yahoo defaults would solve this specific issue much more elegantly than an artificial limit on how many defenses you can roster.
Having more defenses to choose from would not prevent negative scores.
You get that this is a dynasty league, right? Roster turnover is pretty much the antithesis of what it’s all about.
I finally have time to vote on the proposals, though I’m not sure my vote will matter much for consensus.
Proposal 1: Remove the D/ST position, replace with bench slot
No. Defense is a position and it feels wrong to eliminate it.
Proposal 2: Remove kicker position, replace with bench slot
No. Kicker is a position and it feels wrong to eliminate it.
Proposal 3: Rework defensive scoring to eliminate or reduce the possibility of negative scores
Yes. I think going back to Yahoo default would work well.
Proposal 4: The top seed can pick their opponent for the semi-final game
No. I agree with Spiritus: “Ducking an opponent in round 1 in hopes that they stumble and you won’t have to face them is not the mark of a champion.”
I’m looking to move on from some high performing veterans, so if you’re keen on making a run at the championship, I’m your guy. Making available Tyreek Hill, Alvin Kamara, Cooper Kupp, and possibly Derrick Henry. Looking for picks in the early/mid 2nd round, but might need a slight bit more for Tyreek and Derrick Henry since Henry will truck people until he is 40.