Originally posted by David Comings:
I am against -2 for an INT. I don't see any reason to remove points from a position that rarely gets taken in the first round. If 30% of the first round becomes QBs in a majority of drafts for 3+ years, I would not have opposition to this idea. Interesting angle...
It most certainly makes the better QB's better.
Everyone points to the Romo game, but the lesser QB's are the ones that have he 4+ INT's more often.
I have used -2, starting at INT #2 for as long as I can remember and the guys like it a lot. I also give +2 for zero INT's with 10 or more attempts.
Fumbles should be kept at -1 as most of the time, it's a great play by the D that causes the fumble, and not a bad play by the O player.
Rules Proposals For 2008
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Rules Proposals For 2008
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
Shrink Attack
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by Coltsfan:
I want to give a real life example of how selecting your kds preferences based on who you are most likely to play can be a huge part of your draft strategy.
When I put together my draft sheet I tend to tier my players. Here are the preseason tiers for 07.
1. LT
2. SJ
3. Addai
These were pretty much set. My next set of players included 4 players that I pretty much felt the same way about.
4-7. Gore, LJ, Westy, and SA
I didn't really care which player I got from this group because I (mistakenly) had them rated as equal.
8-10. Bush, Henry, Parker
Once again I had these players rated equal. Our strategy was to get a WR with our second pick and we wanted one of the preseason studs. The 5 WR's we had tiered as the top 5 were CJ, Smith, Marvin, Reggie, and TO. We figured Manning would go in the top 18 picks so that one of those WR's would definitely be available at the 19th pick.
What we did then was look at which draft positions were most likely to have the easist schedule with each tier. We noticed that the 10th spot missed LT, possibly LJ, Bush, and SA. Plus at the 10th spot we were locked into getting one of the 5 WR's that we considered the (preseason!) studs. Had we picked 8th we would have had a much tougher schedule plus likely missed out on one of the 5 wideouts we wanted, plus we would have had to make a tough decision on one of the 3 Rb's that we had rated virtually the same.
Our KDS started 1,2,3 but after that we felt that going 10th next locked us into a good RB, a top 5 WR, and it possibly gave us an advantage with our schedule. (In the end Westy feel to us at 10th and we were smiling big!)
We worked very hard on our KDS this year and yes the schedule could play a significant role in which positions you request first. We spent hours working on this. Now if some of you think I'm the village idiot for doing this then that's fine, but we did have a less than average points against despite some teams putting up huge numbers against us early in the year. To me this is another component of the NFFC that makes it so much fun. I love looking for an angle. There is no harm in knowing what the schedule is going to be from day one and all it does is possibly reward those who are better prepared. I think that would include most anyone who posts here. (If you're still here post season you are hard core!)
For me 2007 was a dream year. Assuming I wasn't lucky enough to draw a top 3 spot, the 10th spot offered a top 10 RB (and we had a huge dropoff on our cheatsheet after 10th), one of the top 5 stud WR's (with a dropoff at number 6), and a potential advantage with the schedule. Dream world situation.
Wayne I absolutely see your point, Wayne, and I certainly wouldn't argue it's validity.
But as I said before, my own personal opinion is that there are other factors which are more important than what you mentioned. For example, if I'm considering a back-end draft spot, I'd probably prefer 12th or 13th so that I could play the corner the entire draft rather than focusing on missing LT. And while I understand your tiering logic, there's no telling who might fall to you at the 12th pick who you would've taken at 10th. Lastly, with 3RR, you get a better 3rd round pick at 12th vs. 10th.
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
But hey, it's just my opinion, and I'm wrong just as often (if not more) than I'm right. It's not like I've won 100k or anything. That's what makes this hobby so great, anyway. If we all thought the same way, then we could just all go home after we got our draft spots.
I can tell you this, though, Wayne. The fact that you focus on gaining these small edges makes you a formidable opponent who I wouldn't want to face in a league, although it would be fun.
Paul
I want to give a real life example of how selecting your kds preferences based on who you are most likely to play can be a huge part of your draft strategy.
When I put together my draft sheet I tend to tier my players. Here are the preseason tiers for 07.
1. LT
2. SJ
3. Addai
These were pretty much set. My next set of players included 4 players that I pretty much felt the same way about.
4-7. Gore, LJ, Westy, and SA
I didn't really care which player I got from this group because I (mistakenly) had them rated as equal.
8-10. Bush, Henry, Parker
Once again I had these players rated equal. Our strategy was to get a WR with our second pick and we wanted one of the preseason studs. The 5 WR's we had tiered as the top 5 were CJ, Smith, Marvin, Reggie, and TO. We figured Manning would go in the top 18 picks so that one of those WR's would definitely be available at the 19th pick.
What we did then was look at which draft positions were most likely to have the easist schedule with each tier. We noticed that the 10th spot missed LT, possibly LJ, Bush, and SA. Plus at the 10th spot we were locked into getting one of the 5 WR's that we considered the (preseason!) studs. Had we picked 8th we would have had a much tougher schedule plus likely missed out on one of the 5 wideouts we wanted, plus we would have had to make a tough decision on one of the 3 Rb's that we had rated virtually the same.
Our KDS started 1,2,3 but after that we felt that going 10th next locked us into a good RB, a top 5 WR, and it possibly gave us an advantage with our schedule. (In the end Westy feel to us at 10th and we were smiling big!)
We worked very hard on our KDS this year and yes the schedule could play a significant role in which positions you request first. We spent hours working on this. Now if some of you think I'm the village idiot for doing this then that's fine, but we did have a less than average points against despite some teams putting up huge numbers against us early in the year. To me this is another component of the NFFC that makes it so much fun. I love looking for an angle. There is no harm in knowing what the schedule is going to be from day one and all it does is possibly reward those who are better prepared. I think that would include most anyone who posts here. (If you're still here post season you are hard core!)
For me 2007 was a dream year. Assuming I wasn't lucky enough to draw a top 3 spot, the 10th spot offered a top 10 RB (and we had a huge dropoff on our cheatsheet after 10th), one of the top 5 stud WR's (with a dropoff at number 6), and a potential advantage with the schedule. Dream world situation.
Wayne I absolutely see your point, Wayne, and I certainly wouldn't argue it's validity.
But as I said before, my own personal opinion is that there are other factors which are more important than what you mentioned. For example, if I'm considering a back-end draft spot, I'd probably prefer 12th or 13th so that I could play the corner the entire draft rather than focusing on missing LT. And while I understand your tiering logic, there's no telling who might fall to you at the 12th pick who you would've taken at 10th. Lastly, with 3RR, you get a better 3rd round pick at 12th vs. 10th.
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
But hey, it's just my opinion, and I'm wrong just as often (if not more) than I'm right. It's not like I've won 100k or anything. That's what makes this hobby so great, anyway. If we all thought the same way, then we could just all go home after we got our draft spots.
I can tell you this, though, Wayne. The fact that you focus on gaining these small edges makes you a formidable opponent who I wouldn't want to face in a league, although it would be fun.
Paul
"Deserve" ain't got nothin' to do with it
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by David Comings:
I am against -2 for an INT. I don't see any reason to remove points from a position that rarely gets taken in the first round. If 30% of the first round becomes QBs in a majority of drafts for 3+ years, I would not have opposition to this idea. Interesting angle...
It most certainly makes the better QB's better.
Everyone points to the Romo game, but the lesser QB's are the ones that have he 4+ INT's more often.
I have used -2, starting at INT #2 for as long as I can remember and the guys like it a lot. I also give +2 for zero INT's with 10 or more attempts.
Fumbles should be kept at -1 as most of the time, it's a great play by the D that causes the fumble, and not a bad play by the O player. [/QUOTE]I would call it the Kitna rule.
Tom or Greg must love Kitna.
quote:Originally posted by David Comings:
I am against -2 for an INT. I don't see any reason to remove points from a position that rarely gets taken in the first round. If 30% of the first round becomes QBs in a majority of drafts for 3+ years, I would not have opposition to this idea. Interesting angle...
It most certainly makes the better QB's better.
Everyone points to the Romo game, but the lesser QB's are the ones that have he 4+ INT's more often.
I have used -2, starting at INT #2 for as long as I can remember and the guys like it a lot. I also give +2 for zero INT's with 10 or more attempts.
Fumbles should be kept at -1 as most of the time, it's a great play by the D that causes the fumble, and not a bad play by the O player. [/QUOTE]I would call it the Kitna rule.
Tom or Greg must love Kitna.
Rules Proposals For 2008
Paul,
When drafting, do you take into account the tiers and try to hit the bottom of the tiers as your preferred draft spots?
If I couldn't go at the top this year, I liked the 10th spot (regardless of schedule) just because I was satisfied with any RB in that tier and whichever one feel to me I was happy with. It also enabled me to be guaranteed a first tier WR. I know my draftsheet was far from perfect but I had the first tier WR's gone at the 19th pick. I also had the first five WR's on my draft sheet rated equal so I was guaranteed one of the 5 by going with the 10th pick and the 19th pick. If I chose 12th then I could have (and in the main event would have) missed on what I thought was a higher quality running back and the only advantage I would have gotten would have been to choose from 5 wide receivers that I had all rated as equal.
Does that make sense? To me, this is MUCH more important than the schedule. The way the schedule fell this year was just a bonus! I had 10th set high in my kds for DC's this year as well just because of the tiers. I'm seldom a RB-Rb guy. We got Jamal Lewis in the 4th this year and were very pleased (and lucky) with him.
Wayne
[ December 29, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Coltsfan ]
When drafting, do you take into account the tiers and try to hit the bottom of the tiers as your preferred draft spots?
If I couldn't go at the top this year, I liked the 10th spot (regardless of schedule) just because I was satisfied with any RB in that tier and whichever one feel to me I was happy with. It also enabled me to be guaranteed a first tier WR. I know my draftsheet was far from perfect but I had the first tier WR's gone at the 19th pick. I also had the first five WR's on my draft sheet rated equal so I was guaranteed one of the 5 by going with the 10th pick and the 19th pick. If I chose 12th then I could have (and in the main event would have) missed on what I thought was a higher quality running back and the only advantage I would have gotten would have been to choose from 5 wide receivers that I had all rated as equal.
Does that make sense? To me, this is MUCH more important than the schedule. The way the schedule fell this year was just a bonus! I had 10th set high in my kds for DC's this year as well just because of the tiers. I'm seldom a RB-Rb guy. We got Jamal Lewis in the 4th this year and were very pleased (and lucky) with him.
Wayne
[ December 29, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Coltsfan ]
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
Paul Was this strategy there when the NFFC started? no
Was it meant to be a strategy at all? no. It's a by product of implementing KDS.
Is it a strategy that really determines who the best FF owner is? no
It's there now and kudos to all that make it part of their strategy, but It was never meant to be part of the game.
You'd rather pick 12th or 13th than have ANY TOP RB or WR vs a BYE LT?
How many of your games were decided by 7 or less points this year? Every win is vital in a 13-week season.
This would be a great strategy in WCOFF with an 11-game season.
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
Paul Was this strategy there when the NFFC started? no
Was it meant to be a strategy at all? no. It's a by product of implementing KDS.
Is it a strategy that really determines who the best FF owner is? no
It's there now and kudos to all that make it part of their strategy, but It was never meant to be part of the game.
You'd rather pick 12th or 13th than have ANY TOP RB or WR vs a BYE LT?
How many of your games were decided by 7 or less points this year? Every win is vital in a 13-week season.
This would be a great strategy in WCOFF with an 11-game season.
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
Shrink Attack
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by Coltsfan:
Paul,
When drafting, do you take into account the tiers and try to hit the bottom of the tiers as your preferred draft spots?
If I couldn't go at the top this year, I liked the 10th spot (regardless of schedule) just because I was satisfied with any RB in that tier and whichever one feel to me I was happy with. It also enabled me to be guaranteed a first tier WR. I know my draftsheet was far from perfect but I had the first tier WR's gone at the 19th pick. I also had the first five WR's on my draft sheet rated equal so I was guaranteed one of the 5 by going with the 10th pick and the 19th pick. If I chose 12th then I could have (and in the main event would have) missed on what I thought was a higher quality running back and the only advantage I would have gotten would have been to choose from 5 wide receivers that I had all rated as equal.
Does that make sense? To me, this is MUCH more important than the schedule. The way the schedule fell this year was just a bonus! I had 10th set high in my kds for DC's this year as well just because of the tiers. I'm seldom a RB-Rb guy. We got Jamal Lewis in the 4th this year and were very pleased (and lucky) with him.
Wayne Wayne,
I absolutely use tiers. In addition, I agree 100% with what you just said above and it makes perfect sense. I mean 100% because that's exactly how I draft. You just described a draft strategy based on acquiring what you consider to be the best players, and that missing LT by drafting 10th was just a bonus.
I just don't agree with a draft strategy that makes avoiding LT much more prominent than that as my own draft strategy. But I don't see it as bad for the game as some others do. It's just a different draft strategy as far as I'm concerned, not unlike somebody focusing on Weeks 14-16 vs. someone who doesn't.
[ December 29, 2007, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Shrink Attack ]
Paul,
When drafting, do you take into account the tiers and try to hit the bottom of the tiers as your preferred draft spots?
If I couldn't go at the top this year, I liked the 10th spot (regardless of schedule) just because I was satisfied with any RB in that tier and whichever one feel to me I was happy with. It also enabled me to be guaranteed a first tier WR. I know my draftsheet was far from perfect but I had the first tier WR's gone at the 19th pick. I also had the first five WR's on my draft sheet rated equal so I was guaranteed one of the 5 by going with the 10th pick and the 19th pick. If I chose 12th then I could have (and in the main event would have) missed on what I thought was a higher quality running back and the only advantage I would have gotten would have been to choose from 5 wide receivers that I had all rated as equal.
Does that make sense? To me, this is MUCH more important than the schedule. The way the schedule fell this year was just a bonus! I had 10th set high in my kds for DC's this year as well just because of the tiers. I'm seldom a RB-Rb guy. We got Jamal Lewis in the 4th this year and were very pleased (and lucky) with him.
Wayne Wayne,
I absolutely use tiers. In addition, I agree 100% with what you just said above and it makes perfect sense. I mean 100% because that's exactly how I draft. You just described a draft strategy based on acquiring what you consider to be the best players, and that missing LT by drafting 10th was just a bonus.
I just don't agree with a draft strategy that makes avoiding LT much more prominent than that as my own draft strategy. But I don't see it as bad for the game as some others do. It's just a different draft strategy as far as I'm concerned, not unlike somebody focusing on Weeks 14-16 vs. someone who doesn't.
[ December 29, 2007, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Shrink Attack ]
"Deserve" ain't got nothin' to do with it
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
-
Shrink Attack
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
Paul Was this strategy there when the NFFC started? no
Was it meant to be a strategy at all? no. It's a by product of implementing KDS.
Is it a strategy that really determines who the best FF owner is? no
It's there now and kudos to all that make it part of their strategy, but It was never meant to be part of the game.
You'd rather pick 12th or 13th than have ANY TOP RB or WR vs a BYE LT?
How many of your games were decided by 7 or less points this year? Every win is vital in a 13-week season.
This would be a great strategy in WCOFF with an 11-game season. [/QUOTE]John,
Where we fundamentally disagree on this issue is that you appear to feel (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that this strategy is somehow bad for the game, and that it's a negative determinant in assessing Fantasy Football skill. I don't feel that way at all, so we may just need to agree to disagree on this issue.
Who cares if it wasn't here when the NFFC started? Neither was the current scoring system, and other rules that are now in place that weren't there at the beginning and which have altered player strategies over the years. Listing those rules here is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Who cares if it's a by product of KDS? KDS is now a vital and unique aspect of the NFFC. We should all welcome the unique strategy opportunities that it generates. It's a level playing field, and everyone has the opportunity to incorporate it into their strategy or not.
And yes, if I can't have a top 3 or 4 pick I'd probably rather pick 12th or 13th to play the corners and get a better 3rd Rounder than avoid LT. C'mon, there are dozens of more important factors (injuries, team play, coaching, weather, free agent pickups, matchups, etc.) that will determine wins and losses which are more important than whether you have to face LT or not. In the main I beat the Owners of LT, Brady, Moss, and TO to win my League Championship this year.
It's actually ironic that in my posts with you I'm defending the right to use this strategy, and in my posts with Wayne I'm explaining why I don't tend to use it!
quote:Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
My only point is this: Using the NFFC schedule is a valid strategy, it should be allowed, but it's value is overblown when considering my own drafting strategy.
Paul Was this strategy there when the NFFC started? no
Was it meant to be a strategy at all? no. It's a by product of implementing KDS.
Is it a strategy that really determines who the best FF owner is? no
It's there now and kudos to all that make it part of their strategy, but It was never meant to be part of the game.
You'd rather pick 12th or 13th than have ANY TOP RB or WR vs a BYE LT?
How many of your games were decided by 7 or less points this year? Every win is vital in a 13-week season.
This would be a great strategy in WCOFF with an 11-game season. [/QUOTE]John,
Where we fundamentally disagree on this issue is that you appear to feel (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that this strategy is somehow bad for the game, and that it's a negative determinant in assessing Fantasy Football skill. I don't feel that way at all, so we may just need to agree to disagree on this issue.
Who cares if it wasn't here when the NFFC started? Neither was the current scoring system, and other rules that are now in place that weren't there at the beginning and which have altered player strategies over the years. Listing those rules here is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Who cares if it's a by product of KDS? KDS is now a vital and unique aspect of the NFFC. We should all welcome the unique strategy opportunities that it generates. It's a level playing field, and everyone has the opportunity to incorporate it into their strategy or not.
And yes, if I can't have a top 3 or 4 pick I'd probably rather pick 12th or 13th to play the corners and get a better 3rd Rounder than avoid LT. C'mon, there are dozens of more important factors (injuries, team play, coaching, weather, free agent pickups, matchups, etc.) that will determine wins and losses which are more important than whether you have to face LT or not. In the main I beat the Owners of LT, Brady, Moss, and TO to win my League Championship this year.
It's actually ironic that in my posts with you I'm defending the right to use this strategy, and in my posts with Wayne I'm explaining why I don't tend to use it!
"Deserve" ain't got nothin' to do with it
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
Rules Proposals For 2008
It's actually ironic that in my posts with you I'm defending the right to use this strategy, and in my posts with Wayne I'm explaining why I don't tend to use it! [/QB][/quote]
LOL
Wayne
[/QB][/quote] LOL
Wayne
Rules Proposals For 2008
Any legal strategy that helps you win is a good strategy and part of the game. Heck ... if taking you wife out to dinner Wednesday night buys you extra free time to plan your FFAB ... it a good Strategy.
Maybe the others are right though ... and you ARE taking this draft strategy stuff too far Wayne?
BTW ... does ... "don't tap the glass" mean anything to you?
Ugly
[ December 29, 2007, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
Maybe the others are right though ... and you ARE taking this draft strategy stuff too far Wayne?
BTW ... does ... "don't tap the glass" mean anything to you?
Ugly
[ December 29, 2007, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
Hakuna Matata!
Rules Proposals For 2008
Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
[QB]
Maybe the others are right though ... and you ARE taking this draft strategy stuff too far Wayne?I didn't really hear anybody else say that but....
I think the point is to have fun with it and if I have this oddball personality that likes to pour through stats and look for an edge anywhere I can find it then no harm done. What's boring and anal to some is fun and challenging to others. The bad part is you don't know the half of it. You wouldn't believe the computer programs we have for auctions and drafts. They are way over the top!
Wayne
[QB]
Maybe the others are right though ... and you ARE taking this draft strategy stuff too far Wayne?I didn't really hear anybody else say that but....
I think the point is to have fun with it and if I have this oddball personality that likes to pour through stats and look for an edge anywhere I can find it then no harm done. What's boring and anal to some is fun and challenging to others. The bad part is you don't know the half of it. You wouldn't believe the computer programs we have for auctions and drafts. They are way over the top!
Wayne