| 0 |
Subject: Survivor week 1
Posted by: Edneck
- [30039613] Mon, Sep 11, 2006, 21:20
Not much action going on at the Fleaflicker site, I think it's best we keep this active, I'm been missing Joe to much.
Why do I get the funny feeling the Edneck is gone in week 1 (WP)...my team looks weak compared to a few other teams. TB looks strong in one..Oh well it's not been my year so far anyway, I couldn't lose last year...Tear drop!!! |
| 3 | Edneck
ID: 30039613
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 00:49
|
Not looking good for the Pimp!! I think he's lost that lovin feeling again this year, somebody has stole his Mojo for sure.
|
| 4 | Shak
ID: 40747240
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 01:48
|
RBP and BSB are first off the rock in 2006. I emailed out the spreadsheet. Let me know if you haven't received it.
|
| 5 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 01:51
|
You have to remember that the fleaflicker site is showing all ten player scores. That was the easiest way to set it up, so three player scores are going to be subtracted and it isn't always the lowest three. Some teams have two QB's and some have two kickers, so the lower scoring QB and kicker will be subtracted. There also needs to be a tweak in some scores based on whether a RB/WR had an odd number of receptions.
Personally, I would like to see it just modified to 2 catches for one point instead of .5 points per catch so that we don't have to mess around with the tweak. I doubt it affects this weeks scores and over the long run I am guessing that it will balance out among all teams. Meaning, every team will average out to about the same amount of odd catches.
|
| 6 | RBP
ID: 4768310
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 02:22
|
I agree with TB on all points. Actually I thought we made it clear that the scoring had in fact been slightly changed to reflect the points per catch on the site.
I guess I'll only survive a total of 18 weeks this year, thats dissapointing....
|
| 7 | Edneck
ID: 30039613
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 10:36
|
TB I don't see a major problem with 1 point for 2 catches for WR/RB's, shouldn't have changed the way people drafted. Plus the Flea site was only meant to do the scoring so we would have a record and handy way to get the player's scores. Teams shouldn't expect the site to show your correct score for the week, it still gives a good indication of who the high and low teams are, plus you don't have to be a genius to figure out the real scores anyhow.
Man did Oakland look terrible last night. Glad I stayed away from Moss and Jordan. Rivers looked like they were letting LT be the show and letting him have a few save passes to build his confidence. LT might be superhuge this year until teams start stacking the line of scrimage.
Do you think T. Green has awoke yet from that hit...Ouch!!
|
| 8 | Shak
ID: 156371210
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 11:47
|
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if we do the point per 2 receptions or the .5 per reception. However, I found it was easier for me to fill in the spreadsheet using the LMSCL site because I could sort the weekly scores by position and just load them that way and have them flow to the two leagues. Fleaflicker wasn't much more difficult, but it did take more time because now you're loading twice as much data.
I love that fleaflicker gives us live scoring, but I don't see how we can keep accurate stats without the spreadsheet. If fleaflicker gives me the capability to sort players' weekly scores by position, I'm all for using the point per 2 receptions, but if not, then I want the old rules. I also think the .5 point will make a difference in at least one week this season preventing a tie.
|
| 9 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Sep 12, 2006, 23:28
|
Originally I thought of having a sheet with just each teams weekly score, not really breaking it down by position. I hadn't put anything together, but was thinking the first column would be the total score from fleaflicker, 2nd column would be the negative adjustment subtracting the three lowest scores (2nd QB, 2nd Kicker, lowest score, etc.), the 4th would be the adjustment for receptions (if we didn't change it), and the final column would be the actual weekly score. We could have that column be the one that adds into the total sheet.
I worked like a dog Saturday, yesterday, and now today. I am tired, but maybe I can looking at making an easier sheet this weekend if you don't want to keep track that way, Shak. I do appreciate you taking the time to score it this week. Once again, you have moved back up to #1.
=)
|
| 10 | Shak
ID: 156371210
Wed, Sep 13, 2006, 10:11
|
TB, I thought about doing something like that too, but then I chose the easy way of using last year's sheets, which isn't really the easy way because there is an awful lot of labor that goes into those sheets. I'll see if I can come up with something a little less labor-intensive today.
Scott, it says my emails to you are getting kicked back. Did you get the final spread sheet?
|
| 11 | Shak
ID: 156371210
Wed, Sep 13, 2006, 17:29
|
Much simplified spreadsheet based solely on the fleaflicker site is now on the streets. Let me know if you didn't receive it.
|
| 12 | Edneck
ID: 30039613
Wed, Sep 13, 2006, 19:54
|
Shak the new sheet looks fine to me, I know it makes it much easier for you to simplify the sheet and I really only need the final scores and who has left the rock. If I want detailed stats on players I can visit Fleaflicker...Nice!!
Joe First off the rock...oh yeah RBP has that dubious honor...Joe second off the rock!!
|
| 13 | TrashHaulers
ID: 29791516
Sat, Sep 16, 2006, 12:17
|
Shak,
Please use this address for mailing the spreadsheet to me:
trashhaulers@yahoo.com
Please DO NOT use: gerhardt@cebridge.net
Thanks bro!
|
| 14 | Joe
ID: 1963078
Sat, Sep 16, 2006, 12:20
|
hiding emails from the ole wifey huh Trash?
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|