NFFC Notables

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:46 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
No. 3 is likely to be a constant for every NFFC champ. exactly, and us as owners have very limited control over that

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:47 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
No. 3 is likely to be a constant for every NFFC champ. ABSOLUTELY!

That is why all you have to do is "get there" (the playoff round).

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:48 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
lucky parts to winning the 100k
1. steve smith getting hurt for the season
2. gonzo falling to us at 3.13
3. getting players hot during the last three weeks I would rank them 3, 1 and 2, with 3 far ahead of 1 and 2. [/QUOTE]i tend to agree with you in general, but the delta between us and 2nd place was quite a bit. most years it will be a lot closer

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:09 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
How about the people who said "all right, I'll take Moss/Peterson" (really didn't want them but "settled" at the time?
The "settlers" are in included in the little skill, lots of luck wagon. [/QUOTE]THIS VERY THING goes on in every league.

THIS is how teams win...when the player they actually "settled" for goes off.

Of course they will claim they targeted "said" player.

~Lance

joetreff · Post by **joetreff** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:04 am

THIS VERY THING goes on in every league.

THIS is how teams win...when the player they actually "settled" for goes off.

Of course they will claim they targeted "said" player.

~Lance [/QB]"settled" is another way of saying, "He was my highest ranked player on my draft sheet which I worked on myself"

Or for the guy in my NY league who took every viable NY Giant "settled" means "there were no viable Giants to take in that slot so I had to take a former Giant"

Working on a draft sheet and having a certain guy that sticks out but that you hate as a player or person might mean you settled or don't feel good about the pick but there is still plenty of skill deciding that nobody is worth stretching for.

[ October 17, 2007, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: felixflamingo ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:12 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
the bigtime breakouts to date are A.Peterson and R.Moss. they are floating a lot of teams to the top. entering draft day, both were huge question marks. if anyone took peterson in the 3rd or moss in the 4th, kudos to you for showcasing your skillz.

for owners who got either player later than that, there was very little skilled involved. I wanted A.Peterson so bad at 3.14.

joetreff · Post by **joetreff** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:17 am

By the way, EGO is the main ingredient in Skill vs. Luck

The people having bad years think that "Well Andre Johnson has no injury history" is a great argument for luck. Their team would be great if AJ didn't get hurt...Thats fine, EGO is one of the reasons people play games for money anyway. Skill would have made them get Andre Davis, or enough WR depth to overcome an injury anyway.

Ask Scott Newman of NY League 2. He has never cashed and probably never will. He makes terrible decisions and has bad drafts...How much luck is there for him? Not enough to ever win money.

I say Fantasy Football is 99% skill, but I will add that even a skilled player who has the 14th pick overall still doesn't get the chance to draft certain guys and by the time the 4th round comes back there are 55 players gone and he got to take 3 of them, so even the more skilled player is limited...

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:29 am

Originally posted by felixflamingo:
By the way, EGO is the main ingredient in Skill vs. Luck

The people having bad years think that "Well Andre Johnson has no injury history" is a great argument for luck. Their team would be great if AJ didn't get hurt...Thats fine, EGO is one of the reasons people play games for money anyway. Skill would have made them get Andre Davis, or enough WR depth to overcome an injury anyway.

Ask Scott Newman of NY League 2. He has never cashed and probably never will. He makes terrible decisions and has bad drafts...How much luck is there for him? Not enough to ever win money.

I say Fantasy Football is 99% skill, but I will add that even a skilled player who has the 14th pick overall still doesn't get the chance to draft certain guys and by the time the 4th round comes back there are 55 players gone and he got to take 3 of them, so even the more skilled player is limited... HEY FELIX YOU RAISE EXCELLENT POINTS BUT THE ONLY THING I DISAGREE WITH IS WHEN YOU SAY IT'S 99% SKILL. REASON BEING IS BECAUSE EVEN THE MOST SKILLED PLAYER CAN'T PROJECT INJURIES. NOW IN A PERFECT WORLD AND EVERY PLAYER PLAYED ALL 16 GAMES AT FULL STRENGTH THEN I COULD AGREE WITH THAT.

[ October 17, 2007, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: KOTRAX ]

mkrucek · Post by **mkrucek** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:32 am

Originally posted by felixflamingo:
By the way, EGO is the main ingredient in Skill vs. Luck

The people having bad years think that "Well Andre Johnson has no injury history" is a great argument for luck. Their team would be great if AJ didn't get hurt...Thats fine, EGO is one of the reasons people play games for money anyway. Skill would have made them get Andre Davis, or enough WR depth to overcome an injury anyway.

Ask Scott Newman of NY League 2. He has never cashed and probably never will. He makes terrible decisions and has bad drafts...How much luck is there for him? Not enough to ever win money.

I say Fantasy Football is 99% skill, but I will add that even a skilled player who has the 14th pick overall still doesn't get the chance to draft certain guys and by the time the 4th round comes back there are 55 players gone and he got to take 3 of them, so even the more skilled player is limited... 99%? I'd argue with you but, well, read your tag line.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:34 am

Do we really have two snakes now?