Roster Makeup, Not size

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:26 pm

Naturally Don I would assume you would disagree with me since my thoughts obviously followed on as a response to your previous post with a brief interjection by Greg.

I can and have adjusted fairly successfully over the years to a variety of formats but guess I am a traditionialist at heart. If you want to keep going flexible and want variety why even bother to have any required starters. Well simply put if you make things to flexible, the contests will become more luck oriented in my opinion and we will not be able to really see who is the best gamer since it will be like comparing apples and oranges since the team structures will all be so different due to the increased number of flex positions.

I would attempt to better explain what I had previously since you apparently became 'lost' but I think it's more an issue of you simply not agreeing with me and closing your mind a bit. Just my opinion thus we can agree to disagree.

My biggest issue is when people look to constantly fix that which is not inherantly broken. Sure change is good but one needs to be careful because if you go to far, the event morphs so much that many people no longer recognize it and tend to thus shy away since people often will not participate in something that becomes to convuluted and confusing.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:37 pm

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:

My biggest issue is when people look to constantly fix that which is not inherantly broken. Sure change is good but one needs to be careful because if you go to far, the event morphs so much that many people no longer recognize it and tend to thus shy away since people often will not participate in something that becomes to convuluted and confusing. Good grief. Changing a RB to a flex is convoluted and confusing? I guess it doesn't take much to confuse you.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:02 am

Why look it's Mr. Personality himself piping up yet again, get that refund now I hope Jersey? LOL Way to also peel out select items out of context but that is your style based on what I've seen from you over the years in various events. Normally I wouldn't waste my time bantering with you but Jersey since you tend to lean towards being a generally negative human being and it is a Monday I might as well play your little snipe game.

Continue to take shots at those you disagree with in your argumentative way and then when you feel you have been wronged, take your marbles go home with the 'it's everyone else's fault' as you did in FFM. Alas you best behave here bro else you may run out of High Stakes contests to participate in...

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:23 am

I don't see any advantage whatsoever for "unprepared" players by offering the option of starting one RB and 5 WR. I believe that this would make for better competition throughout the league. Whatever the lineup requirements are, the bad drafters will not win out at the end. I've been in many leagues that allow the employment of a "run and shoot" offense, and have concluded that this results in more strategic contests in the long run. I don't see it becoming "confusing" simply by allowing the option to replace a mandatory 2nd RB with a WR or TE. I imagine that a vote on this matter would swing strongly in favor of such an option. I would like to hear more opinions on it and have Greg eventually decide accordingly.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:46 am

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
Why look it's Mr. Personality himself piping up yet again, get that refund now I hope Jersey? LOL Way to also peel out select items out of context but that is your style based on what I've seen from you over the years in various events. Normally I wouldn't waste my time bantering with you but Jersey since you tend to lean towards being a generally negative human being and it is a Monday I might as well play your little snipe game.

Continue to take shots at those you disagree with in your argumentative way and then when you feel you have been wronged, take your marbles go home with the 'it's everyone else's fault' as you did in FFM. Alas you best behave here bro else you may run out of High Stakes contests to participate in... I have to laugh and who is calling another player "negative". Put up a poll on that, lol.

As for what happened at FFM, just know that Ryan has lied on the Message Board and I have saved all the emails from him as proof. After putting his spin on things, he once again decided that lying on a Message Board is not a good thing, so he deleted the thread. Don't get caught up in the posts from his 2 "toadies" that try to cover up for him.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:49 am

I guess I am looking at it differently from a few of you. I simply feel that by increasing the number of what i call escapes (WW use) you decrease the value of being a good drafter. If you have less restrictive starting position requirements in place, it seems to me that people can save their butts by grabbing any of the plethora of wideouts always on the WW to fill in holes that might exist from improper bye week management or naturally injuries. If i draft a balanced team to meet the rules, at times foregoing the best player available, then why should a person be able to plug their holes accordingly.

If you create enough flex positions, then we can all just use VBD technigues and not even have much thought with regards to drafting. Just grab the best player available all the time, no need to worry about what position since i will always be able to cover my light areas with WW pick ups.

Am i really the only one that sees this as a method of evening out the playing field too much and greatly reducing the amount of advantage those that prepare for the draft will have over the casual gamer?

Again maybe it's just me but i like things the way they are...just my ,02.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:54 am

Hey Paul it's Monday and I am grumpy (you would be too if you were a Fins fan...lol). I'm still a bit peeved at your taking sarcastic shots at we in Chicago during the CHI/NYC DM competition...but we'll just let the results speak for themselves as the season progresses I guess.

Note that you are correct that the thread was deleted although it may be as much for your approach to them as it is for them being wrong...noone will ever know now it appears.

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:57 am

I would ask the Deuce McAllister owners that were prepared and drafted well what their thoughts are on your opinion. They have been severely penalized for no other reason than crappy luck. Just MY 02.

[ October 05, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Al Swearengen ]

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:01 am

Actually Al, those owners if properly prepared as many were handcuffed Stoecker and haven't missed a beat...again the strategy would be do i get that HC at the expense of the best player available or risk being lost due to injury...naturally this involves those stud RB's with quality backups as Deuce, Alexander and Green have for example...

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:25 am

Bongizmo, let's just look at the objective facts.

Assume every owner is equally savvy and a very, very good player. There are just not enough RBs to allow each of the 14 owners to have 2 RBs, let alone a 3rd for injury or bye week. Of the 32 teams I would estimate that only 2/3 have a "feature" back. Of those 24, only 18 or 20 are "quality" and only 8 or 9 are worthy of a 1st round pick. On a bye week when only 28 teams are playing, the situation is even worse.

With an equal scarcity at QB, traditional leagues all start 1 QB.

What that scarcity at RB means is that the "savvy" player has his options very limited. In rounds 1 and 2 he can't draft both a stud QB and a stud WR or he will be frozen out of a RB. Nor can he draft 2 stud WRs. The only reasonable strategy in a 14 team league with a requirement for 2 RBs is to draft a RB early, even though the quality of that RB will be far below the 8 or so 1st round worthy RBs. And I haven't even begun to worry about the 2nd RB which probably has to be taken in round 2 or early 3 or you are left with the back-end of a RBBC.

It just seems to me that a roster requirement that forces you to draft a certain way is not positive. Furthermore, allowing a roster requirement that has virtually no WW relief at all vastly increases the luck component. Nobody can predict injury and if 1 injury knocks you out, that's not positive for the event.

With a 1 RB requirement, you can reasonably have 2 RBs worth starting on your team (or a quality handcuff)and if 1 goes down you can start the other. With a requirement for 2 RBs, that's impossible as no team (except for possibly draft slot 1 or 2) can have 3 starting RBs.

Again, the RB and QB situations are analagous.

Thirty years ago teams may have started full backfields with 2 RBs getting quality time. Not today. Today, 3 WR sets are very common. Indy has 3 viable fantasy starters in Harrison, Wayne and Stokely. Most weeks the single covered #3 WR outscores the #2 WR and sometimes the #1. The NFL has changed and fantasy rosters must change to track with what's happening on the field.

[ October 04, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]