Not that anyone asked me, but...

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:03 am

Hell, we could add a 2-TE requirement while we're at it!

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:42 am

Good point on the 2 QB's Glenn. Change can be a good thing unless it's constant. I think it's nice to get to use something for awhile before it has to be replaced. (PC's)

The thing I've noticed in FF is no matter what league I'm in, owners are always thinking of ways to improve the experience of playing. I think we all agree, there will never be a format that makes all participants 100% happy. I am confident that the better ideas will come from this group of hard core players, although implementing them all would be quite challenging.

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:20 am

David - You make a lucid point in your own opinion. What your diatribe fails to justify about the 32 teams with a running back is the "dreaded" RBBC that is becoming vogue with many NFL teams. I'm not suggesting this on the basis that I had a less than stellar draft - I can screw up in any scoring format - I simply think that Tamu and KoQ make a better pro argument than your con. In regard to injuries and/or bye weeks, the waiver wire can produce a serviceable one-week stopgap WR more readily than a running back that actually sees the field and touches the ball. If you recall, last years champion picked up a guy named Droughns who was instrumental to his winning the big prize. And before we start getting too full of ourselves about strategy and preparation, let's not lose sight of the fact that winning at fantasy football requires a HUGE amount of luck. Of the championships that I've won in my life, every one of them had a good amount of luck to them. Thanks for your opinion. It counts as one, as does mine. Lets see what the other 270 people think about the idea. I'm not looking to re-invent the wheel, just to add an option to the current system. BTW...how does one dress up as Sam Cassell???

David Wooderson · Post by **David Wooderson** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:44 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
many leagues are requiring 2 QBs for exactly these reasons. Would you be in favor of such a change, or should we leave things alone out of tradition? I think if that were too happen, it would make things even more challenging, so I dont think that would lessen the game any. Anything that puts someone to a decision on whether they should take a top 25 player (Non-QB) vs. a 2nd decent QB because there is a premium in decent QBs, would shake things up.

It would be interesting to run the numbers since passing TDs are worth 6 points, and I think in the championship weeks, having 2 good QBs would be essential.

I personally don't think anything needs to be changed, but if this happened, I dont think it would be a bad thing.

I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb that the more players and requirements you add, the harder the game is to beat, the less players you require, the easier the challenge.

David Wooderson · Post by **David Wooderson** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:00 am

Originally posted by Primo:
David - You make a lucid point in your own opinion. What your diatribe fails to justify about the 32 teams with a running back is the "dreaded" RBBC that is becoming vogue with many NFL teams. I disagree with that. I think in my post I made reference to this. I said that some teams have a featured back, while others use more than 1 back, and within those realms, you end up with enough backs where everyone should get 2 serviceable backs. Going into the year, there were 24 teams that primarily used a feature back, while 8 teams were in a RBBC committee. A few teams have changed into an RBBC, such as the Saints because of injury. And a team like Denver and Atlanta who do use a 2nd back often, still get thier primary guys 20 carries a game.

Originally posted by Primo:
In regard to injuries and/or bye weeks, the waiver wire can produce a serviceable one-week stopgap WR more readily than a running back that actually sees the field and touches the ball. That's exactly my point. Why reward people by easily making free agent backs available. The way it is set up now makes it so that you need to prepare for your bye weeks during your draft.

Originally posted by Primo:
And before we start getting too full of ourselves about strategy and preparation, let's not lose sight of the fact that winning at fantasy football requires a HUGE amount of luck. I agree 100% with this statement and that is why I said the same thing in my previous post, citing the Deuce Mcalister example.

Originally posted by Primo:
Thanks for your opinion. It counts as one, as does mine. Lets see what the other 270 people think about the idea. I'm not looking to re-invent the wheel, just to add an option to the current system. No problem, that's what we are here for.

Originally posted by Primo:
BTW...how does one dress up as Sam Cassell??? I'm not really sure. I would think that any Yoda or E.T. costume would be at the top of any short list.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:01 am

Originally posted by David Wooderson:
I personally don't think anything needs to be changedI agree with this, as I like our present rules...

Originally posted by David Wooderson:
I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb that the more players and requirements you add, the the game is to beat, the less players you require, the easier the challenge. ...but remember that the RB/5WR roster is not requiring FEWER players, just the potential for a DIFFERENT arrangement:

Presently RB/RB/WR/WR/WR/Flex
Proposed RB/WR/WR/WR/Flex/Flex

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:03 am

Originally posted by Primo:
BTW...how does one dress up as Sam Cassell??? I'm not really sure. I would think that any Yoda or E.T. costume would be at the top of any short list. [/QB][/quote]

He always reminded me of a bug for some reason.

Bezoar · Post by **Bezoar** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:38 am

I do not like ANY flex lineup. I believe that they detract from the planning and preparation of fantasy football. The major quandry in fantasy football is the "value of RBs" question. Flex lineups detract from this key decision point.

Do you "always" draft a RB first, do you "always" draft a RB first and second or at least first and thrid.? Do you draft backup RBs before other positions?

Do you handcuff? if so when?

These are the key discriminators of fantasy football success and it is not LUCK! Luck is even more important in a non-fixed lineup league.

My vote is to end the flex position that the NFFC already has incorportated into the rules.

Personally, I would not play in a league that allowed owners to start only one RB.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:41 am

David, great post. I have never been an advocate of "dummying down" the event. It should be challenging, it should be hard. A top player must be able to make the tough decisions (mid RB or a top level WR?). That is what seperates the gamers from the wanna B's.

As evidenced in the past, the winner of these events win from depth and planning (and yes, a large amount of luck). The tougher the event, the more the better player rises to the top.

The flex position does not detract from the event, it does give the flexibility of adjusting your roster to your liking. The only problem with it is some screwed up and the whole MB blew up lol

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:29 am

I agree with David and V$G$,

I like it just the way it is and believe that reducing the number of RBs would make it easier which is not a good thing. It would adversely affect the draft and FA BB moves in a negative way.

If you are going to do that why not just say you have to start 10 players each week. If you want to draft and start 7 QBs, so be it.