| 0 |
Subject: Gurupie 24 '06 Pre-season Discussion
Posted by: Ref
- Donor [539581218] Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 11:04
Last thread
Return invites are out. Please use this thread for preseason discussin |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 154 | Doug
ID: 36613115
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 19:24
|
I think it's more the case that there are teams who would not have kept a D or K even with 9 keepers... so the difference with 8 is, do they keep an older player who's still performing at a fantasy-starter level (in my case Terry Glenn), or a younger player with upside (in my case Ryan Moats)? I think that's the potential "impact" of this change... some managers may have to make choices between "this year" and "hold for the future". Sure, in some cases the K or D will be the player who would be "on the bubble" and gets cut, but in other cases it'll have a more significant effect on keepers. If we were going to 8 this year... I think my choice of who to cut last would be between Moats, Glenn, and Rackers... but I don't know which it would be. Fortunately, this year I don't have to decide.
|
| 155 | THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 19:29
|
Doug-
There is no way you could cut Glenn in this scenario. All it is forcing 1 of 2 things:
#1) You don't get the roster spot to develop talent: Moats
#2) A kicker
I think that spot to develop talent is crucial. Sometimes you will have to choose between two guys with potential instead of a guy and a kicker. Oh well...
|
| 156 | Doug
ID: 36613115
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 20:08
|
LOL, well, I guess that's why we all manage our own teams! =-p No, obviously I wouldn't cut him now... but I guess I'm sort of thinking ahead to when the change goes into effect a year from now, at which point Glenn will be 33, and we'll have seen how many targets TO takes away from him this year...
|
| 157 | Dan
ID: 26743223
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 00:46
|
Hey guys, I just wanted to give you all an update on my status. I've been out of town for the past 8 weeks for training. I've got a fair bit of reading to catch up on in here, but I get home on Saturday and things should be back to normal. Look forward to getting caught up and the season getting underway. Anyways talk to you all soon!
|
| 158 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 11:56
|
Seeing no discussion, we will set a tentative Keeper date of Noon on Tuesday August 22 and the draft start sometime around Noon on Thursday August 24.
Cards and I will start work on the schedule asap. It's a long and drawn out process as we have to do everything manually. We use two random draws to get the matchups except for weeks 5 and 9 that use strength of schedule from last year. The only thing consistent is that your seeding counterpart in the other conference will have the exact same schedule as you do as far as what seed you play when. Complete description is in the rules.
|
| 159 | THK
ID: 2510332316
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 12:01
|
Dan-
Training for? Good to see you back...
I am ready to roll to the Championship! :-)
|
| 160 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 12:50
|
Here is the seeding for Interconference play for weeks 5 and 9:
Seeding AFC
1 Texans
2 Raiders
3 Colts
4 Chiefs
5 Broncos, 6-7, 820.8
6 Chargers, 6-7, 787.3
7 Bengals, 6-7, 782.3
8 Jaguars, 5-8, 766.6
9 Ravens, 4-9, 747.4
10 Bills, 4-9, 710.8
11 Browns, 3-10, 714.1
12 Steelers (Now Jets), 3-10, 648.2
Seeding NFC
1 49ers
2 Cowboys
3 Vikings
4 Rams
5 Cardinals, 7-6, 1142.4
6 Falcons, 7-6, 929.5
7 Saints, 7-6, 901.0
8 Giants, 7-6, 805.3
9 Bears, 6-7, 918.1
10 Eagles, 5-8, 787.8
11 Packers, 4-9, 808.0
12 Seahawks, 3-10, 804.9
|
| 161 | THK
ID: 2510332316
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 13:25
|
I wouldn't mind switching conferences...
|
| 162 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 13:35
|
Something that has bothered me are the Strength of Schedule Assignments. AP10 came up with that based on another league he'd seen. Problem is that it's almost random. It doesn't really place you on SOS. For instance the midling teams have to face the #1 teams etc. Cards and I are shooting back and forth some ideas but in the meantime if anyone else has an idea for a TRUE SOS schedule for weeks 5 and 9, let us see them asap.
|
| 163 | THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Aug 04, 2006, 09:51
|
I am leaving to drive to Oklahoma today. I am stopping at my dads tonight and will have access for about 20 minutse this afternoon. After that I will not be able to be reached until Monday most likely. I will have limited access from Monday until the 17th. With our schedule that shouldn't be much of a problem though.
|
| 164 | Doug
ID: 47725416
Fri, Aug 04, 2006, 17:28
|
FYI, I expect to be out of town from August 18 through 27. I should have reasonable internet access, however. Just wanted to get it down in writing here for future reference.
|
| 165 | Promize
ID: 141018197
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 17:41
|
Can we start dropping players?
Can we start the non official official draft early?
Can you tell im eager to play?
|
| 166 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 18:01
|
I am ready to announce my keepers and start drafting also. I looked at every team to guess who their keepers would be. Maybe three or four teams where that 9th keeper was a coin flip, but for the most part fairly cut and dry.
|
| 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 1973359
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 18:25
|
I'm not dropping anyone until right before keepers are declared. You just never know what will happen.
|
| 169 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 20:07
|
Using the seedings in 160 and a random number roll of 1-12, teams for scheduling purposes will now be in this new slot:
11
6
12
5
2
4
7
8
1
3
10
9
So the Texans and 49ers will now be #11, etc. Therefore the first week when team 1 plays team 12 it isn't the best vs. the worst right off the bat and it is totally random which manager you will play in the orund robin part. Still working on weeks 5 and 9 but hopefully it will be more fair to the teams that finished lowest last year.
|
| 170 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 16:45
|
Cards and I have spent all day working on the schedule and we have it up and it appears right. Weeks 5 and 9 is subject to change.
The other 11 weeks are totally random. You play everyone in your own league once. We can't find a mistake but please look over your individual teams. Mistakes are easy to fix now but perhaps impossible once the season starts.
AP10 sold us a bill of goods when he said he had a SOS schedule a couple years back. After last year's schedule I was like this makes no sense so after talking with Cards, we went to work on a REAL SOS that would help the lower teams. Cards came up with a formula and after discussion he changed some things around. There is still one little issue that bothers us about this, but I'll let him explain. Anyhow, many thanks to Cards.
|
| 171 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:21
|
The original idea behind the 2 inter-conference games was that they would be scheduled based on strenght of schedule using the previous year as the criteria. What evolved however is not a weighted schedule at all, but rather an even scheduling. The current rule is:
These games will take place in weeks 5 and 9 and will use this schedule based on the separate conference standings from each league 1 vs 6 & 7, 12 vs 7 & 6, 2 vs 5 & 8, 11 vs 8 & 5, 3 vs 4 & 9, 10 vs 9 & 4.
If you notice, the sum of all the seeds faced equals 13 in both weeks. This does not present a 'harder' schedule for better teams as anticipated.
Ref and I discussed a myriad of possibilities. We came up with something as a first pass, but have since determined some flaws that will need to be addressed, so the week 5 and 9 schedule will be changed.
|
| 172 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:32
|
So we can either return to the even scheduling or we can figure out how to make it harder for higher seeds and easier for lower seeds, etc. as we first anticiapted when we announced the idea to go to SOS a couple years ago. We have several ideas, just trying ti implement them so no two teams have the same schedule and the sum of seeds goes up as the seeding from 1-12 goes up in both conferences.
|
| 173 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:39
|
I don't want to sound dumb after just taking a quick glance, but why can't the #1 and #2 from both play each other, followed by the 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, and 11/12?
Week 5:
1 Texans vs 1 49ers
2 Raiders vs 2 Cowboys
3 Colts vs 3 Vikings
4 Chiefs vs 4 Rams
5 Broncos vs 5 Cardinals
6 Chargers vs 6 Falcons
7 Bengals vs 7 Saints
8 Jaguars vs 8 Giants
9 Ravens vs 9 Bears
10 Bills vs 10 Eagles
11 Browns vs 11 Packers
12 Steelers(Jets) vs 12 Seahawks
Week 9:
1 Texans vs 2 Cowboys
2 Raiders vs 1 49ers
3 Colts vs 4 Rams
4 Chiefs vs 3 Vikings
5 Broncos vs 6 Falcons
6 Chargers vs 5 Cardinals
7 Bengals vs 8 Giants
8 Jaguars vs 7 Saints
9 Ravens vs 10 Eagles
10 Bills vs 9 Bears
11 Browns vs 12 Seahawks
12 Steelers(Jets) vs 11 Packers
|
| 174 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 18:23
|
This is something that has evolved over time. Initially we had a random pairing, however, we thought it would it interesting to add a weighting to those 2 interconference games, since we can't add any weighting to the intra-conference games since everyone plays everyone. We certainly have discussed 1v1 and 1v2. In this league a #1 seed isn't necessarily stronger than a #4 seed, and all divisions aren't equal in strength either, so we were looking for a way to have some randomness in the scheduling without having situations like a 1 vs 12.
One thought was to have a probability based assignment where like seeded teams would have the highest probability of facing each other and high seeded teams having a low probability of facing each other.
Another idea is to have a random draw within a bracketed range, for instance, no seed could face a team more than +/- 3 seeds from its own.
|
| 175 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 18:50
|
We also didn't like this scheduling because teams play the same two opponents in their "cluster." We have tried many many combinations. One would have you playing your seed counterpart with a random +/-3 team. The one we really like is the random with a +/- 3 but we found in our trial that team 3 and 4 both played a much tougher scheule than team two. So we reordered the sum seedings to equal or greater seeds as we went down the seeds and we still got team 1 and 3 playing the same schedule and the nfc sums were different than the afc seeds. We might be making this too complicated or getting too fine, but I think we will figure this out soon.
|
| 176 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 19:10
|
If that is the case then you could make it random between 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 but I don't think you are going to come up with anything better than the simple 1/2 vs 1/2, 3/4 vs 3/4, etc. It's not perfect, but it is better than 1 vs 12.
Obviously, we don't have 32 teams like the NFL does, but they do not have random scheduling. Every team has 6 games vs their division, 4 games vs a AFC division, 4 vs a NFC division and the final two vs the other two AFC division teams ranked the same as them (1, 2, 3, or 4). A good example is 9-7 Miami as a 2 seed having to play 11-5 Pitt and 10-6 KC (they also play the entire AFC South which includes 2 seed 12-4 Jax). Another example is 9-7 Dallas as a 3 seed getting to play 5-11 Arizona and 5-11 Detroit, both three seeds.
|
| 177 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 11:08
|
1 would never play 12, but right now both 1 and 12 have the same schedules. Same goes for 2 and 11, 3 and 10, 4 and 9, etc. While it might be even, it is not what we intended for a SOS. By playing a cross division, even when the AC comes out perfect, the NFC doesn't, etc. I've spent several hours on this even last night and Cards and I have put a ton of hours on this overall. TB's post is what I had first come up with, but I know we can always fall back and use that if we have to. There has got to be a way that we don't have to have all these teams playing the exact same teams. But...maybe not.
|
| 178 | Doug
ID: 1378713
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 14:29
|
A slightly less severe (IMHO) alternative to 1/2 vs. 1/2 etc. might be the following... basically you play one game +2, one game -2 (except at the top or bottom of the grid)...
1 vs. 1/3
2 vs. 2/4
3 vs. 1/5
4 vs. 2/6
5 vs. 3/7
6 vs. 4/8
7 vs. 5/9
8 vs. 6/10
9 vs. 7/11
10 vs. 8/12
11 vs. 9/11
12 vs. 10/12
|
| 179 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 16:02
|
Doug, that is a nice one. That's what I'm talking about. I've tested it a couple of ways thus far and it has come out true. The AFC/NFC combined matchups work (afc and nfc seeds have same schedule) and the sums of seeds are in equal or descneding order. i.e.:
1 vs. 1/3 = 4
2 vs. 2/4 6
3 vs. 1/5 6
4 vs. 2/6 8
5 vs. 3/7 10
6 vs. 4/8 12
7 vs. 5/9 14
8 vs. 6/10 16
9 vs. 7/11 18
10 vs. 8/12 20
11 vs. 9/11 20
12 vs. 10/12 22
This gives weight to the seeding in general. Naturally Seeds 1 and 3 seem to have a clear advantage but you can't go two steps up for them. Also, with the turn around from year to year there is typiclaly enough change for that not to be a major factor. For instance, I have a #3 seed, but my team has fallen way off so I may play like a #5 or #6 seed (or lower if I can't find some diamonds!). BMD's team is a #1 seed, but wouldn't have even made the playoffs in the NFC and yet could have easily won it all with one substitution. CT's Cardinals had a ton of points for but his schedule left him only at 7-6 and on the outside of the playoffs, yet is much better than a #5 seed. These are just a few examples, but as long as we can make it work and as equitable as possible within our vision, I'm sure it's a possibility. Right now your idea is certainly being considered. THANKS!
|
| 180 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 16:03
|
That should say seeds 1 and 2 seem to have an advantage.
|
| 182 | Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:09
|
No problem, and thanks for the feedback.
Here's a similar system based off of +/-3 instead, but it required a few more tweaks to make the numbers come out smoothly:
1 vs. 1/5 = 6
2 vs. 3/4 = 7
3 vs. 2/6 = 8
4 vs. 2/7 = 9
5 vs. 1/8 = 9
6 vs. 3/9 = 12
7 vs. 4/10 = 14
8 vs. 5/12 = 17
9 vs. 6/11 = 17
10 vs. 7/11 = 18
11 vs. 9/10 = 19
12 vs. 8/12 = 20
This system makes SOS a little "flatter" than the +/-2... so it's just a question of what the appropriate level of "flatness" is.
You could say "Oh, the #2 seed only has to play against 3s and 4s..." but the #11 seed is only playing against 9s and 10s, so even in this "flatter" case there's still a pretty significant SOS weighting based on last year's performance.
I have no strong preference between the two, just figured I'd present the option.
|
| 183 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:13
|
I was thinking, what if we had 1 and 2 and 11 and 12 play each other like TB said and then 3-10 play an alternate way? Only problem with that is then again that seeds 3 and 4 have it like 1 and 2 did earlier. Cards also has a couple ideas working that look cool too. I like the idea of +/- 3 simply because it gives us more options and there is a natural upwards and downwards progression from year ot year for most teams, but it gives even more seeding advantages to the top teams and hurts the bottom teams even more as you showed (ie 1 plays 1 and 4). I would love to have a small program written that did it randomly that would allow all teams to play two teams within +/- 3 positions of them. It would even be nicer if the sum of the seeds descended, but don't know if that is possible with two seperate conferences. I even tried to make it so each team had to play their corresponding seed one game and was random +/-3 in the other game but not sure we can make it work. This way the seeding was taken into account yet their was a random element to it that didn't vary too far from their seed. Thoughts?
|
| 184 | Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:24
|
My guess is that any random-seeding system is going to be somewhat problematic, both in terms of fairness but moreso in terms of actual implementation.
There's already a bit of randomness in the sense that you mentioned... basically, last year's 1 seed might not be as good this year, or last year's 9 seed might be near the top. So I think we'll be best off with a "fixed" pairing system for the game matchups, and let the fact that last year's performance is only a moderate indicator of this year's performance be the more "random" element of it.
|
| 185 | Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:29
|
Another way of describing the system in 182 is to describe 4 "tiers"... seeds 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12
Tier 1 faces an opponent from both tiers 1 and 2
Tier 2 faces an opponent from both tiers 1 and 3
Tier 3 faces an opponent from both tiers 2 and 4
Tier 4 faces an opponent from both tiers 3 and 4
I think it's too severe to have a system where teams in the top tier are ONLY playing other top-tier teams. I'm all for parity, it just seems overly harsh IMHO. This way they still play both SOS games against teams that were in upper half (while teams in bottom tier only play teams that were in the bottom half).
The specific matchups within this system are manipulated such that the "seed sums" continually increase (or at worst stay constant).
|
| 186 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:57
|
I don't think we can have 4 tiers. 3 tiers is the minimum I think. I know Guru is out of town. Wonder if I can find RSF or one of the other coding gods to see if they have an idea how this could work via random or it needs to have a set in stone approach each year. I might email rsf and see what he thinks.
|
| 187 | Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 20:22
|
Just to clarify, the system in 182 already IS a 4-tier system. It's just that the pairings are not random (so that the seed sums will always increase). Actually, looking at it now, I think there's a tweak that might even slightly improve it and get rid of the 2 cases where sums are constant.
|
| 188 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 16:15
|
Something that TB mentioned is intriguing to me. Why not mimic the NFL and use division seeding? Since we have even division numbers it would work perfectly. Week5 we would have AFC West 1 vs NFC North 1, AFC East 1 vs NFC South 1, etc. Then in week 9 we reverse it to be AFC West 1 vs NFC South 1 and AFC East 1 vs NFC North 1, etc. We could use playoff seeding at the end of the regular season, which is probably more indicitave of strength than playoff finish anyway.
A system like that would be easy to document, easy to schedule, mimics the NFL, and overall it will limit the differential between seeds.
I also like the idea of playing one team from each division. Another thing it does is really brings SOS into play for divisions and conferences. The top team within a division is ensured of playing harder teams than their lower division rivals, while inter-division rivals face the same test as their like seed in the other division. So in my division the NFC South, I would play the #1 seeds in both AFC divisions, whereas the second team in the South, only has to face the #2 seeds. My schedule is always harder, the #2 seed is harder than #3, etc. At the same time the NFC North #1 seed will face the same teams that I do, etc.
Right now I favor either that or Doug's post in 178. So far any randomized approach, even using weighting towards like teams and restricting the matchups to +/-3 from a seed, still ends up with one or more lower seeded teams playing a tougher schedule than some higher seeds, and by the time enough restrictions are put in place to limit that possibility, you might as well just use Doug's outline in 178.
That said, I think the division pairings is worth looking into for the reasons I gave above.
|
| 189 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 16:50
|
Cards and I have discussed his last post and I misread his initial email to me. Re-reading it here, I like it. Of course we have to figure out the top 4 teams in each conference as we don't always havethe top 2 teams in each div make the playoffs and with our playoff finish-based seeding coule throw a wrench into things. For instance, I don't remember anyone else in the East making it, so I am supposed to be #3 seed, but then I'd be #1 seed? BMD was last team to make it but is the #1 seed, so I can see one little issue.
I also like Doug's idea. Doug did you figure out the tweak you were referring to earlier?
|
| 190 | Doug
ID: 53728811
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 18:03
|
Tweak:
1 vs. 2/4 = 6
2 vs. 1/6 = 7
3 vs. 3/5 = 8
4 vs. 1/8 = 9
5 vs. 3/7 = 10
6 vs. 2/9 = 11
7 vs. 5/10 = 15
8 vs. 4/12 = 16
9 vs. 6/11 = 17
10 vs. 7/11 = 18
11 vs. 9/10 = 19
12 vs. 8/12 = 20
Same deal as before with respect to tiers. Just switched some matchups around within the tiers.
|
| 191 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 23:58
|
After much debate and polling several managers, we've decided we like Doug's suggestion in 190 the best. If anyone has any questions, issues or further suggestions, please let us know asap!
|
| 192 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 12:07
|
The language used in my league dues email was vague and TB was under the impression that he could opt out whenever he wanted. He was in last year, but has decided he would rather just play for the fun of it and would like to opt out for ever more. If anyone else wishes to opt out at this time, please let us know. The intent of the rule was to try to keep people from only being in during a year they think they could win. We obviously are open to special circumstances, but in general it seems best to have everyone in every year or out every year to keep things balanced for everybody.
Despite what has been said on the boards, you really can change your team around in a short time. Look at BMD almost winning it all last year with a team he didn't expect to compete with. Toral also turned his team around too. The team I won with last year wasn't exactly laden with studs and my best player didn't even play during the playoffs at all. The year before RFS won and the next year finished dead last. This format is set up to allow rebuilding teams a much better chance to get better than a good team. Better draft choice, better waiver wire, easier schedule, and then if you happen to play in a division that is weaker that year, who knows what can happen. I'm sure Roy is excited this year to have LJ as his starting RB.
|
| 193 | Promize
ID: 141018197
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 12:44
|
I've gone from 2nd to gutter in just two seasons :) Yay me! Damn Ricky and his drugs!
|
| 194 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 20:18
|
I coded something up that will generate a schedule. Its all variable driven, so it could be used for as many teams (in your case 12 per conference), as many games (in your case 2) and as much range (in your case +/- 3).
It needs some tweaking because, currently, it might take a couple of times running it to get a completely filled in array (with so much overlap, some teams have all options removed before it can select).
Let me know if you still need it. I'll set it up as a webpage somewhere.
|
| 195 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 01:20
|
Yeah let's see it. Thanks!
|
| 196 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Fri, Aug 11, 2006, 01:53
|
Setup for G24 league.
I'll gussy it up it later (add the buttons to make it more versatile for user-set team count, games, variable range scale.)
For now, just refresh it for different results.
|
| 197 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Fri, Aug 11, 2006, 01:55
|
Oh, I should say its set for 24 teams, 2 games and a +/- 3 range in this example.
|
| 198 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sat, Aug 12, 2006, 16:57
|
Kirk - re #192, please resend the league dues email. It didn't make it to my Yahoo account.
|
| 199 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 19:01
|
Thanks Kirk, I got it.
|
| 200 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 14, 2006, 23:16
|
I will email this as well...
I do not see a need for a Keeper thread this year as CBS has improved their Keeper software. To allow for this, Keepers must be declared by 11:59 p.m. on Monday August 21st.
You must declare your keepers on the CBS site by checking the box next to the name of your player on your lineup page. You may change them up until the deadline. It will not let you keep more than 9. On August 22nd, the site will automatically drop all players who do not have a check mark next to them.
Again, if you do not declare your keepers by the deadline, they will all be dropped and StL and I will not be happy if we have to figure out who you had to choose your keepers. This may place your standing in the league in jeopardy.
I highly recommend that you go ahead and check off your likely 9 now as you can change them up until CBS drops then unchecked names. If you have any questions, please ask!
|
| 201 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 01:20
|
I think we absolutely need a keeper thread. That would be the only documentation in case of disputes, errors, etc.
When setting your keepers, you need to also click the set lineup button in order for it to take effect.
|
| 202 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 08:53
|
And if you mark 10 and then hit set lineup, it will drop off the 10th player you had marked so that it only shows 9 keepers.
Actually, you can mark all of them.
When you hit set lineup though, the only checkmarks it will keep are the first 9.
Cliff
|
| 203 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 10:11
|
I got an email asking for a keeper thread too for historical documentation. SO I'll go ahead and create one.
|
| 204 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 13:45
|
Anyone needing depth, I'm interested in moving Gonzo, Toomer, Wells, Suggs and perhaps another player for a better RB.
|
| 205 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 16:14
|
This thread is apparently too large so I've started a new one as requested here.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|