14 or 12 team leagues.. which is better for NFFC going forward.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:46 pm

Renman, that was an excellent question.

I agree that 14 teams with 2 RBs forces you to take a mediocre RB over a good WR. I'm not going to talk a lot about the issue here because I've already discussed it ad nauseum. Clearly I believe that either the roster change or the league size change would produce a better game.

skipman · Post by **skipman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:14 am

I like 14 teams. I like 2 RBs. This format clearly forces owners to make choices and either reap the benefit or the whirlwind. It forces us to work further done the rosters to find starters. Let's face it, the internet is allowing knob's to plug in to all the data that is need to evalute the top players without doing any work or having any insite.

How many of these online pimps were pushing their rubes to pick up M. Moore a few weeks ago. I am guessing not many.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:39 am

I like the 14 team setup. I have always stated this is not ESPN or Yahoo, it should be difficult. It should seperate the good owners for the bad ones. Leave the 2 RB alone. I like the setup the way it is (though I would like to seee an increase in roster size ,not debating, just staying on topic).

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:43 am

Sure, Renman, you slip this question on the boards while I'm at Lambeau Field, drinking an MGD per point scored (41-20 PACKERS!).

But I like the post and obviously you're helping me with a survey before I can get one out. I'm interested in thoughts about 14 teams, the 10-player starting lineup, scoring and more, so thanks for the post and the kind words.

As I've said in many previous posts, my goal with the NFFC was to make it unique and very challenging for those fantasy players who wanted the ultimate challenge against the best players in the country. A 14-team format is very challenging and so is the current starting lineup of 2RBs, 3 WRs and one Flex. That doesn't mean we can't change things to make them better in the future, but right now this seems like a very challenging and demanding format, yet one that is fair.

I'm watching the proceedings of the NFFC mid-season league that has gone with 1 starting RB, 3 WRs and two Flex positions. I notice that one team continually goes with 1 RB and FIVE WRs and is leading the way. Now I don't mind a "run and shoot" offense in fantasy football, but honestly that's a little too drastic for my blood. I'm not sure it's a true assessment of real football to have one RB and five wide receivers in your starting lineup each week. I mean, NFL teams do that from time to time, but not every play!

I certainly value every opinion on this subject and I look forward to 10 pages of opinions on the 14-team league setup and the 2 RB format. But if you're looking for rules that make your Draft Day job easier, don't look to me for help. I plan on making this competition just as tough next year and giving you guys (and gals) something to write about during the season.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:30 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I'm watching the proceedings of the NFFC mid-season league that has gone with 1 starting RB, 3 WRs and two Flex positions. I notice that one team continually goes with 1 RB and FIVE WRs and is leading the way.

Since most owners, sheep as GG calls them, would stick to 2-3 RB theory, drafting 1 stud RB, then taking 5 straight WR's, would easily lead to the best chance at winning. You'd get 5 stud WR's. The 4th-5th WR's would be better than most teams #2's as teams stuck with old draft models where they don't take a WR until round 4-6.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:10 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I'm watching the proceedings of the NFFC mid-season league that has gone with 1 starting RB, 3 WRs and two Flex positions. I notice that one team continually goes with 1 RB and FIVE WRs and is leading the way. Now I don't mind a "run and shoot" offense in fantasy football, but honestly that's a little too drastic for my blood. I'm not sure it's a true assessment of real football to have one RB and five wide receivers in your starting lineup each week. I mean, NFL teams do that from time to time, but not every play!

You may not have noticed but NFL teams haven't started 2 backs that carry the ball for what.... 20 years?

You also might notice that real teams don't start 6 players at RB/WR on ANY play.

Want to mimic the NFL, require a tailback and a FB. Give Sowell and Griffith their just props. Might be fun to require that everybody start a player that scores between 0 and 5 fantasy points per week. Alstott would become a 2nd rounder.

Clearly fantasy rosters don't track real play. We start 6 at RB/WR, real world is 5. Baseball teams don't start 2 catchers, 5 infielders and 5 outfielders, but fantasy teams do.

I understand about making the game tough but you require some of the teams to just hope for injuries. Don't tell me it's skill to have the right backups... it's luck. With this roster everybody goes on a backup drafting spree, whether they have the starter or not. The guy with Stecker wins, the guy with McAllister loses. The primary backups are not on the WW.

The third string guys are on the WW. Droughns, M. Moore, Brad Hoover, Leonard Henry, etc. Here smart use of FAAB dollars can make good teams great and average teams contenders.

With fewer RBs required (either through a smaller league or a 1 RB requirement), teams can arrange adequate backup either through drafting 2 (or more) good RBs or through drafting handcuffs to their primary RB. Since the craziness to get RBs would be less, handcuffs would be available much later in the draft so you don't have to pass up taking Terry Glenn (#160) to get Lamont Jordan (#130).

If possible, this contest should not be decided solely on who gets hurt but on who performs better on the field and who can see the value of deep roster changes in time. Who got Droughns early? (yes, I did...so did Gekko). And Props for taking Tiki and Curtis and told you so for Rudi Johnson and Kevan Barlow. Everybody knew that SF would suck this year yet Barlow was a late first round pick. Why? because if you didn't take a RB at the turn you got no running back at all. I just think that's not right.

I think it's great that a league leader is first with 1RB and 5 WRs. I'm leading the Auction with 3 good RBs and no top 10 WRs so all this is from a stud RB guy. What it shows is that suddenly there is more than one way to win when you have only a 1 RB requirement.

It's also easier to pick RBs than WRs. Performance is consistent and, in general, past performance is a good indicator of future results. WRs are much less consistent and can be greatly effected by changes in their teams. The emergence of Stokely and Wayne has moved Harrison to "good" from "stud". Moulds and especially Horn have really stepped it up. Who knew that GB would be playing from behind and that RB heavy offense would produce 2 WR studs. If you figured that out, you should win.

Why is 1 QB required when the number of QBs that play a full game is much greater than the number of RBs that play a full game.

If this is to be a fair contest, you can't both increase the number of teams from the "normal" 12 and require 2RBs to start each week. That combination insures that at least 3 or 4 teams will get screwed in the draft. Which draft positions will get screwed depends on the individual draft but I would bet on late middle. Even if all 14 teams were the world's best drafters, somebody would wind up with Richie Anderson or Mike Alstott or Artose Pinner as a starter. It's just math.

[ October 25, 2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:23 am

Dropping the RB requirement to one will NEVER work, and I will NEVER support the change.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:40 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Dropping the RB requirement to one will NEVER work, and I will NEVER support the change. Guess what, some people don't care if you support it or not.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:45 am

Actually, you can have 14 teams and 2 RBs. That's 28 by my count. There are even 4 extra starters. I guess it comes down to making the right decisions at the right time. This contest is very fair, and it is proven there is NO draft advantage. It all has to do with who you draft.

Changing to 1 RB is a cop out, anyone who feels it is too hard, then don't join (Sorry Greg). All people do is complain and wnat to make this easier. People are looking for All Star teams and an easier for them to compete.

Anyone cans start a high entry league and invite you 9 or 11 friends to play. Use any rules you want, but if you want a World Championship, you need world championship rules that are hard.

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:00 am

JP -- After a thoughtful, articulate post like the long one up above, I just might be rooting for your boys to knock Liquid flat off this board.

PS Your shorter post above was pretty good too.