We’ve got a great group together, and everyone so far is involved in the process. Things are getting jumbled on the league board, so communication should flow a little easier here.
[li]Several people are quite opposed to return yardage. That’s cool, that’s out.[/li][li]Someone asked if return TDs = 6 and defense TDs = 4 was intentional - it was. I’d have taken them off if DEF included special teams. As is, DEFs score too many points.[/li][li]Regardless of what I said above, I’ll move fumbles/int. back to 2 pts. As was said by someone, they ARE a big deal.[/li][li]Unresolved is what to do about the flex spot. Basically, do we want to go:[/li]2 RBs, 3 WRs, RB/WR and TE;
2 RBs, 3 WRs and WR/TE;
2 RBs, 2 WRs, RB/WR and TE; or
3 RBs, 3 WRs, and TE?[/ul]
My preference is to go with 2 rbs’, 2 wr, one flex wr/rb, and one TE. With so many teams in the league, talent will dissapate quickly. Which is good for those of us who are geniuses (geniusi? geniusates?), but it really increases the damage done by injuries to starters and decreases the value of backups.
Of course, my preference is to be rich, good looking, married to a beautiful, kind woman, have a brand new Jaguar, and be able to crush the little people. As Mick always says: You can’t always get …
Thank god there are no return yards. Phew.
I think TE should be mandatory so option 2 is out.
With the number of teams, 3 RB spots is too many so option 4 is out.
1 or 3 is fine with me, depending on how many WRs you guys think we can use. If we’re not using return yards, though, it’s going to be sort of pointless to have 42 starting WR spots PLUS the flex spot as well. We’d definitely be scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill out our rosters, but note that personally I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Even if we go with the bigggest lineup and every flex spot was WR (which they won’t be) thats still only 56 WRs, which is not even averaging 2 WRs from each team. Some teams have 3 legitimate WRs that will produce so I don’t see what the big deal is.
I like option A best.
2 RBs, 3 WRs, RB/WR and TE
(Bad hamsters, apologies if this doubleposts)
A lukewarm vote for number 1 here, on the basis that it will lead to the deepest draw on the talent pool. 3 would be my second choice. Definitely not option 2.
Does Yahoo let the flex spot be RB/WR/TE? I want the option to start both Anthony Becht and Chris Baker.
3-4 WRs per fantasy team does not seem problematical, as mouthbreather pointed out.
2-3 RBs could be, since that means between 28 and 42 fantasy RBs, while there are only 32 theoretical first string NFL RBs, and we all know it’s really lower than that. The draft is going to be super RB intensive, I would think, if we keep the current RB/WR flex spot. Not sure if that is a good thing or not. I’d like to devote more time for analysis, but can’t right now.
More challanging is bad? I’d disagree.
Here’s just a for instance. I am now drafting in another league in a 16 man league that has required 3 WRs starting. The WRs (according to the scoring in our legue) in the 50-56 spot (which would be absolute lowest baseline starters in our league, and you all need to accept that my stat projections are flawless) are players like:
Antwaan Randle El, Brian Finneran, Johnnie Morton, Robert Ferguson, Corey Bradford, David Terrell, etc.
I don’t really consider that “scraping the barrell”. I mean, we are nowhere near NFL scum WRs like Cedrick Wilson, Kelly Campbell, Freddie Mitchell or Bobby Shaw at this point.
Even if we go 42 RBs deep, again, a worst case scenario…we obviously can’t be starting 42 RBs and 56 WRs everweek…say 36 and 50 for the sake of argument. While there are not 36 starters, there arte 36 RBs who will put up points. Temas that utilize RBBC, teams that use goalline backs, etc. The bottom three RBs that I have slated in my other league from spots 34 to 36 are Emmitt Smith, Ladell Betts, and TJ Duckett. Again, I would not consider this “scraping”. Scraping is Terry Kirby, Richie Anderson, William Henderson, etc.
Making this league a little harder is not a bad thing!
I guess I can qualify this one. In the local league I’ve been playing the free agency rules were skewed toward someone lucky enough to get a prized free agent, devaluing the draft choices. It seemed to have an effect of screwing over the planning the coach had done in favor of random chance. Now, a little chance is part of the game, but it’s like Pittsburgh losing on Thanksgiving because the ref misunderstood Jerome Bettis’ coin flip choice.
I guess if I’m going to join the “big boys”, it’s time for tough choices. More players in the game means more scoring chances, so I move my selection to #3.
Send me an email if you want to play, dutchboy and others. I can open up a new league- I had one on Yahoo last year, and that’s where we are playing now. If there is enough interest (at least 8 teams) I’ll set up a rookie league.
Another question, one in which I have no opinion whatsoever. I’ve been in leagues where only one person had internet access over the weekend, and he’d scoure the injury rosters watching NFL 2Nite, and pick up all the injury reserves, screwing over anyone who relied on a work connection.
Any thought on freezing the teams Friday night and opening them back up on Tuesday, noon? I doubt interest will pique on this one, due to time zones, universal access to the internet nowadays, etc.
In other news, I’m also of the “deeper is better” camp (at least that’s what the ex-girlfriend used to say).
I think this is a good idea. Rosters should definitely be frozen on either Friday or Saturday, and not open until Tuesday at noon. I’m always leery of a league where free agent pickups are on a “first come first serve” basis, but with the frozen rosters, at least everyone knows when the 'serving" wil begin. I don’t know if yahoo has a waiver priority setting that lets teams doing badly get first shot at free agents, but that might be an idea to check into.
My concern regarding the deeper is better is how hard a team will be hit by injuries and bye weeks. Since the draft would be so much deeper, the free agent pool and the talent within it, shrink drastically. So whoever you pick up to replace an injured person is going to be close to the bottom of the barrell. That’s fine if your injury is to BJ Askew or Marcus Robinson, but if you lose L.T. or Ricky Williams, you got a long fall in talent to replace him.
I’m not dead-set against a deeper league, it’s just that I think it puts too much priority on the draft and whether your 10th-16th draft picks get lucky and you can avoid injury, and doesn’t emphasize enough free-agents or making trades. I’m fine either way, though.
By the way Munch, my ex never said “deeper is better.” She kept complaining I was hitting her larnyx.