Roster Size...

FatPerez · Post by **FatPerez** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:19 pm

Tamu, no need to get your half-shirt all tangled up!!! We'll see you and A.J. Feely in Week 6. As for our RB's, after all of you monkeys snatched every serviceable RB off the board, we weren't about to pass up Holt and Ward with our 2nd and 3rd picks, just because YOUR fantasy magazine said you have to draft two RB's with your first two picks. Now, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but you don't get any points for RB's that sit on your bench. So, we'll handle our #2 RB situation, don't you worry your pointy little head about that. Just worry about getting Emmitt, Peerless, and whatever other shoe-horns you've got laying around your roster ready for Week 6. Hugs and Kisses, Ponch & John

[ September 26, 2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: FatPerez ]

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:06 am

fatperez...

i do not think everyone was "pissing and moaning" to greg and tom about this topic because of an injury or some bad luck might hurt their personal teams... i for one came here to give my two cents on ways that MIGHT make this league more fun (it is already currently INCREDIBLE fun).

in a league against the best fantasy minds around. i just thought we should try to create a league that maximizes skill and minimizes LUCK as it relates to who wins and loses. i was not whining about my team or how injuries might or might not have hurt it.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:56 am

Good luck this week, Ponch. You have an excellent starting lineup and are well deserving of your #5 ranking. I have great respect for you guys and your team as you did not get on here and whine because Maddox went down leaving you having to go get a qb. I am looking forward to Week 6 to see if my rag-tag bunch can stay up with your troops.

FatPerez · Post by **FatPerez** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:47 am

Thank you for the respect Tamu. Please understand that the verbal sparring is nothing more than that, just verbal sparring. You seem like a class act.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:02 am

Rick's just fooling you - he's not classy

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:19 pm

Originally posted by TamuScarecrow:
All of these suggestions are for consideration for the future, Walla, but Vegas complained about this 3 months ago and decided to bring it back up now that there have been a few injuries and people have forked out megabucks for an rb who basically sucks. Not to mention he just told everybody his draft sucked.

I agree with Indy and JP in that I don't want to see any changes in team or roster size, or scoring but a change from the current scoring structure to 1RB, 3WR, and 2Flex sounds good to me. Tamu, I don't kow what your problem is, I'm just bringing something up. But before you assume, look at my team first before you talk.

Since several people missed the point here, I'll type slow... The point is not to fix my team, my point is I would have drafted some of the players being picked up on hte WW that would have been draft with the 2 extra spots (IE- Lamar Gordon, other backups to handcuff with the starters). And htese would be less players other owners get cheap to fix their teams becaseu they drafted poorly. It is more to block other teams from getting baluable players.

I'm sorry a couple guys just can't discuss things on a discussion board without the morons coming out.

BTW- I liked my draft and still do

BTW #2 - The original rules posted was to be a 20 man roster, it was changed after the inital listing. I guess people forgot that...

[ September 27, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Vega$ Gambler$ ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:03 pm

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
1RB, 3WR, 2FlexI didn't respond to this at first because it was BS. Now I see a handful of owners like the idea. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it. Let's just have a starting roster of
1QB;1RB;1WR;1TE;1K;1D;4Flex
or better yet
10Flex

The issue is the # of teams/league and roster size, not # of starting RB's.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:05 pm

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Since several people missed the point hereWe agree again. Some people can't read AND understand what they are reading. That's okay, the world isn't a perfect place.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:16 am

I understood exactly what you said, Vegas and I addressed it. The more draft picks the more the emphasis is on the draft. 18 players gives everyone plenty of opportunity to handcuff their studs. And yes, I got into this league right at the time of the change from 20 to 18. All I was doing was filling some people in as to why this thread exists. Because you haven't gotten over the change.

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:18 am

Gekko -- you are crazy. Doing a league with 10 flex is ridiculous. It should be 3 TE, 5 Flex, 1 KR, 1 PR.

Anyone who truly knows football, is smart, and loves America would agree with me.