NFFC Message Boards

2-1 OUT OF THE SHADOWS 0 points back
Notes:
- Likely loses M.Harrison
- Starting 3 Seahawks. Will they play the entire game?

4-1 GANTZE MACHERS 11.46 points back
Notes:
- If M.Harrison doesn't play, he has to start B.Lloyd this week as his 3rd.
- Tomlinson questionable. He has Turner, but will Tomlinson start and only play a quarter?
- Tom Brady as the QB. Does he play the whole game?
- Only team out of the top 4 not likely starting M.Hasselbeck

9-1 NEMESIS 17.56 points back
Notes:
- Likely loses D.Davis. Will have to start T.Henry as RB1. Should be okay as C.Brown might not play
- Likely loses L.Jordan. Will have to start P.Pass at RB2

8-1 SACKOFPOTATOES 25.34 points back
Notes:
- Likely loses Edge
- Two teams ahead of you in points also have M.Hasselbeck, do you take a chance on starting McNair? You're down 25 points entering the last week. Hope he goes for 30, and Hasselbeck only plays till halftime and gets 10.
- Only team in the top 4 with the beast called A.Gates (vs Chiefs)

9-1 LUMPYS LOSERS 39.6 points back
Notes:
- Only top team with D.Driver, Roy Williams, C.Cooley. Need HUGE games to have any chance
- Three teams ahead of you in points also have M.Hasselbeck, do you take a chance on starting Garrard? You're down 39 points entering the last week. Hope he goes for 30, and Hasselbeck only plays till halftime and gets 10.

20-1 FANTASYFOOTBALL.COM 40.02 points back
Notes:
- Likely loses D.Davis. Will have to start P.Pass as RB2

20-1 TEAM BAYLEY 44.36 points back
Notes:
- Only top team with Chambers. He needs to put up 30+ for any chance

18-1 FIELD
Notes - Normally I'd put the field at 25-1 (or worse), but with so many top teams having one player (M.Hasselbeck), if he flops or doesn't play a lot, all those teams will lose major points.

p.s. don't be the owner who makes the wrong decision on who to start and it ends up costing you 100K

p.s.s. does anyone think my idea last year (expand rosters to 19 for the playoff weeks) is a good idea now? so many injuries. so many players sitting this week. worked hard the whole year to put yourself in this position, and now you find out harrison is injured and possibly out. edge will sit most of the game. d.davis gone, westbrook gone, gado gone, l.jordan gone, etc...

[ December 21, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

While I like the roster sizes as they exist now in the NFFC, I think a compromise on expanding the rosters would be the ability for a team to replace any player who goes on IR or is listed as out or doubtful.

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
While I like the roster sizes as they exist now in the NFFC, I think a compromise on expanding the rosters would be the ability for a team to replace any player who goes on IR or is listed as out or doubtful. "Doubtful" will NEVER happen IMO. I think it was Fred Taylor earlier in the year that was listed as doubtful, and ended up playing.

As far as IR goes, why would they still be on your roster??? If they are on the IR, they ARE NOT coming back, and should be replaced immediately.

Gordon,

Only 46 points back and the only team currently in the money that doesn't get odds?

Now I know it is my destiny.

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
Gordon,

Only 46 points back and the only team currently in the money that doesn't get odds?

Now I know it is my destiny. you lost m.harrison this week. you have too many teams to leapfrog. sorry you are in "THE FIELD"

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
p.s.s. does anyone think my idea last year (expand rosters to 19 for the playoff weeks) is a good idea now? so many injuries. so many players sitting this week. worked hard the whole year to put yourself in this position, and now you find out harrison is injured and possibly out. edge will sit most of the game. d.davis gone, westbrook gone, gado gone, l.jordan gone, etc...
Just to show that I'm not totally anti-gekko and that I CAN change my mind on some issues, I will say that after some thought, I may be more open to the idea of expanded rosters ON THE CONDITION that this expansion would come earlier than the last week of the regular season. Specifically, I was thinking it can start around week 9 or 10.

Nag, how about the week after the bye weeks end - Week 11. Then everyone is on level ground and you still have a couple of weeks to shape your playoff roster.

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
Nag, how about the week after the bye weeks end - Week 11. Then everyone is on level ground and you still have a couple of weeks to shape your playoff roster. Best suggestion yet. Good work, Hook.

my goal with the extra roster spot beginning week 13 is only to benefit teams during the three weeks of no FA moves.

what some of you are proposing will now have an effect on weeks were FA moves are permitted. let me ask a few questions...
1) what is the benefit of having rosters expand when bye weeks end, AS OPPOSED TO BEFORE WEEK 13 GAMES?
2) will the FA pool be "weak" for weeks 12 and 13?
3) how many of you have played in a contest with 14 team leagues and 19 man rosters?

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
my goal with the extra roster spot beginning week 13 is only to benefit teams during the three weeks of no FA moves.

what some of you are proposing will now have an effect on weeks were FA moves are permitted. let me ask a few questions...
1) what is the benefit of having rosters expand when bye weeks end, AS OPPOSED TO BEFORE WEEK 13 GAMES?
2) will the FA pool be "weak" for weeks 12 and 13?
3) how many of you have played in a contest with 14 team leagues and 19 man rosters? 1) Early roster expansion allows teams that are still "in it" to participate in FA selections. Though the Consolation Bowl is a nice bone to throw to the 200+ non-Championship League teams, most of these teams are sleeping at the wheel by Week 13.

2) The bye weeks are much more of a dilutive factor than the 19-man rosters. I say the free agent pool will be BETTER in Week 11 with expanded rosters versus the current format during the byes (Weeks 3-10).

3) Nope, this is virgin territory for all of us (with the possible exception of Zaleski).