The utilitiy spot went from wr-rb to wr-rb-te?

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:37 pm

Vegas, you can show your drafting prowess in the "Draft Masters" event.

The open event allows in-season strategy to play a much larger part. Since we have 14 team leagues (which, by the way, is what you should be crying about) it almost requires no more than an 18 man roster. I'll tell you why.

Many "owners" disdain your idea of a backup for each position. Defenses don't get hurt. Kickers very, very rarely get hurt in practice. TEs suck anyway. Those that believe this will use a slot for bye week fill-ins but not double up on each of these. With 14 teams, however, it is conceivable to corner the market on kickers and/or defenses. If everyone has 2 kickers, just a couple of teams could take a 3rd and freeze out a team looking for a bye week fill-in. Is this farfetched? Maybe, but a post here suggesting the strategy could create a collusion against that poor bye week guy without any true collusive talks between owners.

As for using slot 19 and 20 for that deep sleeper only you know about....nonsense. There are no sleepers anymore. To say you "knew" RB X was going to get hurt so you took his backup... nobody knows who will get hurt. As for WRs, Boldin was not drafted in MOST leagues last year, even with 20 man rosters.

So, how do you manage your roster? Do you take backups for your key players? Do you take high potential backups and hope their #1 goes down? Do you take bye week backups for minor positions? Do you keep your hamstring pulls or do you drop them?

These are important decisons but are only important when your bench is limited. Otherwise, you just load up on everything. Of course that makes it more difficult. More difficult... no wonder Gordon has a problem.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:54 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Eight extra players still seems like a manageable lot to fill those areas, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. How exactly do you want me to prove you wrong? I don't know of any data that can support my argument, only opinions. Both myself and VGambler gave you our opinions. Ask some other people who have done the high stakes arena before. I can play by any rules.

But, I know from last year (WCOFF) that 10 reserve spots was somewhat difficult to manage. 18 has to be even more difficult. I'm sure I can do it, but what about the newbies?

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
While I enjoy the discussion and the fact that Gordon and Vegas Gamblers feel they agreed on something, I'm still confused. We're drafting 252 players, so the last minute magazine buyers will have a lot of work to do, don't you think Phil? Not necessarily. Once injuries and byes come, there will be players on the FA wire, that don't belong there. Owners will have to drop decent players to be able to get through a bye week or because they have three injured players on their team. This all comes back to roster size.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
And it seems like the discussion of managing your rosters, your bye weeks, your injuries, your in-season FAAB bids and the crucial picks in rounds 17 and 18 seem to be the type of stiff guidelines you'd expect if you're going to win $200,000. One could say more luck comes into play with smaller roster sizes. As I said before there will be players on the FA wire that don't belong there. The smart owners who are lucky enough to be in that league will be able to "load up" their team. Could skews the $200,000 grand prize winner.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I keep hearing that 14 teams with rosters of 18 makes it tougher than 12 teams and 20 players each. This is a true statment. Brings more luck into play.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:31 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
This is a true statment. Brings more luck into play.Just not true. Thanks.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:06 pm

I disagree with your last statement, Gordon. Skill will far outweigh luck with 14 teams and 252 players being drafted. There is less luck in winning a 14-team league than a 12-team league, no matter what the roster size is.

I don't agree that there will be a lot of "name" players in the free agent pools of some leagues. If they get cut, most likely it's for a reason. In the NFBC, guys like Austin Kearns have been cut and those type of guys were cut because they were hurt and he's still hurting. Again, how you use your in-season FAAB will be crucial in a 14-team league.

Jersey Paul is correct that the real argument is why I chose 14-team leagues to begin with. The answer is simple: I wanted to create a 13-week regular season rather than an 11-week season and I didn't think it was fair to have people playing some teams twice. I also felt this would be a unique contest and provide different strategies than all the others that would follow the standard rules. I think we've already seen some WCOFF guys who are planning to play in both high stakes contests because logistically they can and the contests are fairly different.

I enjoy the debate and Gordon you are correct that these are all just opinions. I appreciate them and we'll keep the discussion going. We'll all play under these rules in 2004 and make adjustments for the future, but I can tell already that the field is going to be filled with guys who bring a lot of experience to the table.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:06 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
But, I know from last year (WCOFF) that 10 reserve spots was somewhat difficult to manage. 18 has to be even more difficult. I'm sure I can do it, but what about the newbies?1. This ain't the WCOFF.
2. Many of those so called newbies are going to clean your clock.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:46 pm

In most instances where you use the word *strategy*, it could very well be replaced with *luck*.

Take it to the extreme, if you only had an 11 man roster (10 starters and 1 reserve), would that increase the *strategy*. My opinion is that it wouldn't. It may change your strategy, but luck becomes a bigger part.

In addition, I'm not really talking about the 14 team league format (which you refer to in your argument). I'm just talking about the roster size. You started with 20. You changed it to 18. Why is 18 now the optimum number? Why not 19 or 17? Don't mean to bust your balls, just create some good dialog.

I've been told that I'm impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with me; you cannot cause me to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with me. I cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, I do not feel bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. See what you are dealing with...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:
1. This ain't the WCOFF.
2. Many of those so called newbies are going to clean your clock. You are 164 out of 195 in the baseball event. I guess you have a ways to go to "clean my clock?" Perhaps you should concentrate on the baseball event a little more and less on your football posts, newbie!

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:25 am

Gordon,

I'm with ou on this subject and we are both making good arguements, but if you are going to try to insult poeple by telling them where they are ranked in baseball, you are coming across as an ass.

As far as luck, it is a bigger factor with a 14 teams and a smaller roster. And teh luck I am refering to is bad luck. You lose your first or second round pick to an injuy (read as bad luck), it will be harder to recover. Talent will be thin as it is. And yes, decreasing the roster size means a team cannot hold onto backups that could be useful when an injury occurs. I could almost gaurentee that this event will be won by a team that avoided injuries.

I'll play with any set of rules, but don't sit here and tell that luck is less of a factor in this setup. And you can't tell me you can forcast injuries.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:30 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Gordon,

I'm with ou on this subject and we are both making good arguements, but if you are going to try to insult poeple by telling them where they are ranked in baseball, you are coming across as an ass. Simply stating a fact. Thanks.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:49 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:

I could almost gaurentee that this event will be won by a team that avoided injuries.

Vegas, isn't that typically going to be the case in most leagues (10-team and larger) anyway? The teams that typically win are the ones who can avoid injuries. There are other factors involved, obviously, but if you lose your No. 1 and/or No. 2 pick in any league, chances are it's going to be difficult to recover from that, no matter how many players you have on your reserve. There's a reason why you select players at those spots and while you can sometimes find players who can duplicate that production, typically you can't because those are the elite players in the game and they have that status for a reason.

For example, my main league is 12 teams and we draft 20 players so we have deep rosters. But in the 18 years my league has been existence -- yes I'm old, sue me. -- the teams that have won virtually every season are the ones who avoid injuries to their top guys. Sure there are going to be exceptions, but typically good health and production from your top picks = a shot at the league title. The teams who can stay the healthiest, or avoid major injuries from their key guys, typically are the ones competing for the league title. That's been my experience anyway.

[ June 24, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Tom Kessenich ]