Forum: foot
Page 4463
Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular Season Discussion #2

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 11:08
Time to reload with a fresh thread.

The playoffs are still 6 weeks away, but as we are about to emerge from the bye week period of the season, I though it would be appropriate to refresh everyone's memories about our add/drop policy during the playoffs, since it might impact your bench managemnent decisions over the weeks leading up to the playoffs:
Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) are frozen for the playoffs. Team defenses are also frozen, since they are not subject to injury uncertainty. Other positions are eligible for injury-replacement add/drop/claim transactions only.

Specifically, players in the other slots (TE, PK, IDP) may only be replaced if they are designated as questionable or worse on the NFL injury report. This allowance does not apply to any player who was designated questionable or worse for the week 14 game.

Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #14 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player is designated as "Questionable" or lower. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (IDPs will be considered the same position for this purpose.)

So, once we reach the playoffs, you need to have your backups for QB, RB, and WR already in place.
 
1Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 11:52 		When's the trade deadline, Guru?
 
2Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:01 		League's season ending trading deadline is: Fri 11/11 11:30p EST
 
3Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:19 		I thought it was coming up soon. I assume that is the deadline for agreeing to trades, not the date by which they must be approved and processed? So two people could work out a deal anytime up until 11:30 next Friday?
 
4Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 13:21 		Correct.
 
5Sludge
      ID: 14411118
      Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:18 		Well there goes about 20% of my scoring and about 100% of my season.

I'm obviously in the market for a good wide receiver.
 
6I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 12:50 		Looks like the 2nd straight week where a manager decides to give me a free pass by not starting a full roster?
 
7I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 13:07 		I AIM'ed him and he managed to get them in under the wire... live scoring shows them in at least.
 
8BoNkA
      ID: 21033623
      Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 00:33 		Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal was, I thought I had everyone started since I know I had the box checked for both lineups when I did it. Not that it really matters, lost both games anyways. Two WR and one RB bye really hurts.
 
9Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 00:15 		What a way to end the game. Mathis gets a sack that ought to be the difference in my game with Bandos. I've been following the live scoring all night and I don't think it's right (they've given Vrabel many more points than I think he should have), but that sack ought to provide a margin of victory.

The streak continues (I think!).
 
10Guru
      ID: 341036514
      Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 09:41 		Looks like your margin of victory was more than that final sack, MC.
 
11Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 10:01 		Yes, somehow Cooley also "unfumbled" a ball, 24 hours later. Add in the sack and a forced fumble for Mathis on the last play, and the score was extremely close. Like, within a point and a half.
 
12Bandos
      Sustainer
      ID: 279492419
      Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 21:51 		I really needed those wins as my points are nowhere close. But with 10 minutes left, I knew that my slim leads wouldnt hold just as my beloved pats couldnt either. Wherefore art though Seymour and Harrison?! The NE D pick is proving to be costly in MANY ways. Gonna have to pull a Crue and win out to make the offs.
 
13 Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 03:04 		Anybody interested in picking up a quality TE? I have 2 (LJ Smith and Heath Miller) and would be willing to move one to upgrade at some other position... maybe packaged with another player on my squad (or a team D)... just need to know if you'd be interested in order to formulate an offer. Trading deadline is this Friday. Drop me a line!
 
14Guru
      ID: 341036514
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:15 		I've got this sinking sense that I'm going to face Challenger in the playoffs and the combo of Peyton Manning and Donald Driver are going to clean my clock.

If the Holmes rumors are true, then that trade certainly backfired. Somewhat perversely, the immediate impact of losing Holmes is probably to improve my team on the margin, since Larry Johnson as the sole RB for the Chiefs is probably better than having Holmes and Johnson share the load. But it also leaves me much more vulnerable to a RB injury.

This was a tricky week for me for F/A claims. There were four players that I had interest in: Staley, Reggie Brown, M. Bennett, and S. Gado. I figured there was a good chance that I'd get one of them, but only a slim chance that I'd get more than one.

Staley was my top choice, but Doug nabbed him. I had Brown 2nd, who I got, and then the other two disappeared quickly.

The tough issue was that any of those RBs would probably be only an injury replacement for me, while Brown might end up as a starter. But then, Brown is such an unknown that he could turn out to be a bust.
 
15Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:42 		No worse than any other Philly WR, pre-TO. The investment was worth it.

I am still playing TE roulette and having a great time doing so. I've had Cooley in my sights all season (after drafting and dropping him) and I'm happy to have him back in the fold. But I felt bad ditching Kinney who has played so well the last few weeks (no WR's in Tennessee has turned Kinney into a stud), so I ran out and picked him back up. Nothing like having 2 mid-range TE's and being forced to hang onto them until the Playoffs.

Only 4 weeks left!
 
16leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 15:08 		I have sent out a couple of trade offers, but figured I would post here in case I missed any interested teams...

I am looking to ship Jamal Lewis (and his handcuff) with Joey Galloway for an upgrade at RB. I am looking for a reliable RB2 (unless you want to trade me a top tier RB!).

Just an FYI...my personal email has been blocked at work, so, email me at matthew.legge@db.com if you would like to chat during working hours.

On a side note, I am not sure I if I should be happy or mad about last week's games...for the first time all season I used two different lineups, with the only difference being Chambers and Jurevicius. If I started Jurevicius on both teams, I would of been 2-0. If I started Chambers on both, I would of been 0-2. I guess I should be happy with being 1-1, especially since I didn't break 100 either way.
 
17Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 15:12 		I noticed that and was thinking at first "Damn, he's lucky he started Jurevicius on one team." Then I realized you were probably mad you started Chambers on one team.

You should probably be thankful. You could have lost both and then you'd be tied with me.
 
18leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 15:15 		I was out of town Monday/Tuesday, and the last time I checked Sunday night, I was sure you were going to lose at least one game and that I'd keep a 2 game lead over you, but alas, never underestimate the fantasy power of the Colts.
 
19Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 15:38 		Haha. Also, you are forgetting about the late season surge capabilities hardwired into Motley Crue teams. They get better at the end...

Actually, I was pretty unhappy looking at the deficits I had to overcome Monday morning, too. I thought 0-2 was more likely.

I am continually amazed at the quality of IDP's available as Free Agents each week.
 
20Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 18:16 		Re: 14... I had the same 4 players on my FA radar this week, but am pretty happy w/ my existing WRs and clearly RB is where I lack depth so Brown was at the bottom of the list. I was pretty surprised that Staley got past the first two in the claim order, though I would have been happy to even have received Bennett and roll the dice on him, or Gado to pair up with Fisher. Of course, in the latter case, I'm sure Rashard Lee would have emerged as the starter the rest of the way, just to spite me! =-) This is was the first time in several weeks where it seemed to me that there was more than one player who was definitely claim-worthy.

Kinda busy just now, but just FYI, Tax and Leggestand, I'll probably drop trade offers later tonight trying to get those GB RBs paired up... especially Tax since he's also a little weak at TE and I've got one to spare.
 
21Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 18:29 		It feels weird having only 5 RB's. With one on bye, and 2 questionable, this might be the week to go with the Indy tandem. Can't ask for a much better matchup.

I'm still happy that I traded Anderson and Parker to Ender. I suspect Anderson will tear it up this week, but I have won a couple of games since the trade because of Brees. I think that trade helped us both a lot. It sucks about Parker, Ender, but he may be back sooner rather than later.
 
22Ender
      ID: 406351010
      Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 23:20 		Again, no worries. I won't look back. Of course, with Cincy on bye this week I'll have to see what I can do...
 
23Trip
      Leader
      ID: 13961611
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 11:17 		A thought for next year.

I would propose the trade deadline to be set for the Friday after the week 10 games. The reason being is that after week 10, it is no longer necessary to carry backups for your bye week players.
 
24Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 11:25 		A reasonable proposal. Now someone has to remember it next summer.
 
25I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 3579513
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 19:02 		WOA!!! Problem!!! I PUT IN NO SUCH Claim...

The pickup of TO for Witten is an error. Please review this ASAP... I will admit that I put in a claim for TO with D.Clark, but I have since dropped Clark thus I didn't think I had to go and change my claim.

Please fix this ASAP. Thx.
 
26I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 22:59 		hmmm, interesting! Apparently I now dropped TO @ 10:38PM? There's no mention of this being a commish imposed moved, but I guarrantee that it once again it wasn't me.

I guess I give this a little time to sort itself out. :)
 
27I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 23:05 		Thank you Guru! Lineups updated and ready to go.
 
28Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 23:05 		I was able to release Owens from your roster, but the only way I could put Witten back was to turn off Waivers. That allowed me to access players who were on waivers, but it also dropped allother players on waivers into the free agent pool.

If anyone had a waiver claim on any of the following players, please let me know and I can process it manually.

Priest Holmes
Dallas Clark
Daylon McCutcheon
Az Hakim
Terrell Owens
 
29Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 23:31 		I just went through a gyration to put Hakim back on waivers, since he had been dropped only a couple hours ago.

I can't imagine that Priest Holmes would be of interest to anyone.

Dallas Clark and Daylon McCutcheon were supposed to go off waivers tomorrow, so I left them as free agents. If anyone had a pending claim for either one, let me know.

Ditto for T.O., if someone had a waiver claim on him that was usurped by I_A_C's bogus claim.
 
30Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 11:34 		For the record, I submitted a support ticket to Fanball, reporting the erroneous waiver claim. They responded that IAC did not submit a waiver claim to drop Clark and pick up Owens. The original claim was to drop Witten and pick up Owens.

If so, it sounds like you may have simply had a brain fart, IAC.
 
31I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 3579513
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 12:12 		Hmmm... considering that I put in the claim sometime on Wednesday... it's hard for me to say for sure at this point... considering when you sellect the player to be dropped that both TE's are one on top of the other... I guess this is a posibility.

Also, the player to be droped is then "hidden" in the drop-down list afterwards.

Fanball's claiming interface is kinda screwy... even though I raised "flags" as soon as I saw the problem... I'll accept however the league wants to deal with this. For the record... I certainly never "intended" to click that player, and I don't think anyone would think that this was an intentional claim either.
 
32Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 12:48 		I wasn't suggesting that we undo the undo. I'm content with your initial explanation. I just wanted to point out that it's possible that the system didn't screw up.
 
33I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 3579513
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 13:03 		Thx Guru...and my appologies to any owner that was hoping to put in a claim for Witten. :)
 
34Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 01:19 		Red Flag

I dropped RW McQuarters Fri 11/11 5:31p ET

Taxman picks up McQuarters Sat 11/12 12:46p ET

Only a 19 hour time difference instead of the league rules 48 hours.
 
35kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 06:07 		Big ups to Ender for emailing me to tell me my kicker wasn't in my starting lineup. Good on you dude...I wouldn't have noticed it, and I don't think Im gonna make it for the AM kickoff as well, it's late, and I have been drinking!
 
36Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 07:26 		Challengers issue is valid - I neglected to notice a few more players who were on waivers and should not have been available for pickup before today's games:

McQuarters
B.J. Sams
Kyle Orton
Bills defense

I will be away from about 8am until after the early kickoffs, so I don't know if Taxman will notice this before the freeze. So this may or may not be resolvable.


 
37Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 07:37 		I sent an email to Taxman this morning, but I realize he may not get it before kickoff. If someone wants to call him to alert him, please do. I won't be available to do that, and it's too early now.

I just dropped Gates in order to cycle Sams, Orton, and the Bills onto waivers, since they should be there. Don' get excited. I will restore Gates to my roster shortly after the freeze, and before the claiming period. It was simply the quickest way to waiver those players in a hurry this morning without any other unintended consequences.
 
38Taxman
      SuperDude
      ID: 029463114
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 12:50 		Per p/c from challanger...dropped McQuarters...then picked up Hope of Pitt...who didn't make it to my roster...I may just play w/o a DB this week.
 
39Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 12:59 		Tax, Don't know why Hope didn't make it to your roster, but I have no problem considering him your starting DB in our matchup.

Good Luck! (on your other match) ;>)
 
40Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 13:26 		Taxman had some trouble picking up Hope, but I just spoke with him by phone, and that was the guy he intended to have. So, I will put Chris Hope in his DB slot, and remove Anthony Henry.

However, I am going to wait to do that until later, because to do so now would risk creating other waiver problems. Taxman plays against Challenger and me this week, and we are both aware of the situation, so a delayed processing is no big deal. When I make the switch, it will be retroactive to today's freeze.
 
41GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 14:32 		Figure the odds that at the half, Legge and I would both have QBs with Negative Points.

And I sure did make the right choice in going with Roy Williams after all.

Cliff
 
42Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 17:09 		Word of warning regarding live scoring - virtually every IDP that I've looked at today has incorrect stats in live scoring, and some of those that have correct stats have incorrect point calculations. Something is obviously going haywire.

 
43Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 19:54 		I think I may be in the running for the boneheaded move of the week. I dropped Josh Scobee to pick up Rian Lindell.

Lindell=0 points
Scobey=13 points

Those 13 points are looking pretty important this week, too.

 
44kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 00:40 		Those 13 points did me great!

I was going to pick up Edinger until I saw him available.
 
45Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 09:37 		re #42 - This inaccurate, or not even close, scoring for a good percentage of IDP's have been going on for the last 4-5 weeks, at least for my teams. I've lost more than 5 points on an IDP score at least 4 times over this period. Quite a discreancy between unofficial live scoring and scores posted the next day.
 
46leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:27 		Me too, Challenger...What I have been seing is that Fanball is combining solo and assisted tackles into solo tackles; therefore overscoring the IDP's. For example:

Aaron Schobel had 4 solo tackles and 2 assists yesterday, but Fanball gave him credit for 6 tackles and 2 assists.

Fanball also doesn't track fumbles or Missed FG's correctly during Live Scoring...No matter the outcome of a fumble (recovered by offense) or missed FG (43 yards miss), you will get negative points during Live Scoring.
 
47leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:35 		I ran into the aptly named Bruisers yesterday...and I am kicking myself for relying on Jamal Lewis too long. With Gado and Wells on my bench, I figured I should just ride my "#1 pick" and Gado puts up what could easily be the best fantasy game of his career.
 
48GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 14:23 		Legge
That's what you deserve for getting Gado ahead of me on the WW.

Of course, odds were I wouldn't have played him either if I had him.

And my giving up on Lee Evans finally bit me.

But, the good news is it looks like I will go 2-0 and the points were there.

Thank goodness I get Palmer back.

Cliff
 
49kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 18:39 		A huge 2-0 for my team as well. Much needed after the 0-2 I put up 2 weeks ago. Even more surprising, is the fact I got away with having Dom Davis start.

All I can say, is lets hope Peppers keeps up this hot streak. I need it...badly.
 
50Athletics Guy
      ID: 539531515
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 20:04 		My points were there, but it looks like I'm going 0-2. I seem to be having some poor luck so far.
 
51Bandos
      Sustainer
      ID: 279492419
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 09:58 		After two solid weeks point wise (and a 1-3 record) it looks like I stand a chance at the 7th highest in points. Now If I could just stop losing games in the 130's...

To think I was soooclose to picking Stallworth and S Moss...
 
52Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:09 		I don't think 7th highest in points gets you anything. You have to be Top 6 in standings, or Top 2 in points, excluding the Top 6 in standings to make the Playoffs. As a practical matter, the Top 6 in standings probably have the highest scores for the most part.

So, Guru, how does it feel having a points against average under 100? You're the only one. Does that make for less stress each weekend? I stayed up late again last night to root against McNabb, but I kept falling asleep in the 3rd quarter so I missed the "Grand Finale".
 
53Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:32 		I have certainly benefitted from having the easiest competition, although my team has been doing pretty well, regardless. I've only had one week with more than 130 points, but I've also been above 100 points every single game. Meanwhile, only 9 (out of 20) opponents have scored more than 100 points against me, and only three opponents put up more than 130 against me.

At this point, I've clinched a playoff spot, since my record can be no worse than 17-9. I'm still expecting that I'll come up against a juggernaut in the first round of the playoffs and go down in flames.

If the playoffs were seeded today, here is the lineup:
1 Guru
2 leggestand
3 Motley
4 Oaktown
5 I am Canadian
6 Goatlocker
7 Bandos
8 Sludge
 
54Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:55 		So this week's game between GoatLocker and me is a potential first round Playoff matchup.

I doubt I've mathmatically wrapped up a Playoff berth, but I'm #4 in points and would be 14-12 if I lose the rest of my games. That was good enough to get into the Playoffs last year, and I think it will be again this year.

Glad to see Sludge is in the running. When I saw the standings this morning I forgot to look at the points and I noticed he was near the bottom. The Playoffs just aren't the same without the slimy, green S.
 
55kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:58 		It's going to be close for the last 4 spots looking at the standings.

I'm going to have to go 4-0 the next 2 weeks to feel really good about my chances.
 
56kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 11:03 		I have also placed a phone call to Cooper Manning, telling him to phone his brothers, make up a story in which it is very important they not play this weekend.
 
57Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 11:13 		Peyton, Cooper, and Eli. Nice. Sort of like a redneck version of Friends.
 
58Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 11:25 		There's a pretty decent chance that Eli wil be on my bench this week anyway, as I'll probably start Plummer at home vs. the Jets.

For those of you with Eli on other teams, take that as a strong sign to start Eli. Most weeks this season have seen my best QB performer on the bench. In fact, of the eight weeks in which I had two active QBs, only twice have I started the QB with the better output.
 
59Sludge
      ID: 14411118
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 11:25 		Glad to see Sludge is in the running.

Well, at least someone feels my pain... well, okay... not so much "feels" but "notices". I honestly don't think I have a chance. This season is nearly exactly like last season, except I haven't started scraping by at 0.500 since I made the following observation on Sept. 28:

Gee, thanks for reminding me that I was 5-1 with the second highest PF after three weeks last year, which is very similar to where I am now...

If history repeats, I guess this is where I start scraping by with a sub 0.500 record...

Injury bug has bit me really hard in RB and the stupidity bug bit me really hard in WR. (Not that I mind, really. I still think it's funny someone finally told one of these jokers to go home and take a long time-out.) The "I have no team around me" bug bit me really hard at QB, but that one's my fault. (Of course, I would point out that Favre finally has a decent game Week 10... Ahhh... Week 10. Horn on a bye. LT on a bye. Thanks for nothin', Brett.)
 
60Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 12:22 		I was just looking at last year's standings and noticed that legge finished with an 11 game winning streak. That means at one point he was 5-10. Nice comeback.

That means that 8-12 is nothing you can't overcome, sludge.

Heck I was 5-12 at one point last year, and then I won 9 to end the season. I was 2-6 before my current streak started. An ugly record at this point doesn't eliminate anyone.
 
61Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 13:28 		Well, I sold my soul to the devil, picking up T.O.

I figured it was worth a gamble just in case the arbitrator's ruling allows him to play for another team. A long shot, but presumably one that will be resolved quickly, and with bye weeks now done, I figured I could invest a roster spot on him for a week.

Of course, the football gods - who have been smiling on my team all year as evidenced by my Points Against average - will now bring all of their fury and wrath upon me, and I will never win another game this season, regardless of the T.O. verdict.

Woe is me...
 
62Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 16:22 		I have him in a keeper league. Until today I was hoping he'd come back at some point this season.

Now that you picked him up, though, I think I'd rather he stay banished. I don't like the looks of your lineup with him starting in it. It should be tough enough to beat you without him if we face off in the Playoffs. TO starting would shift the advantage to you against virtually anyone.
 
63kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 20:19 		Blasted. With the 2nd waiver wire priority, Adrian Peterson went...gah. Would have helped my RB needs...now once again, Im left in the dust.
 
64Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 18:17 		Per this thread, I am claiming 6 extra fantasy points for Mike Vrabel, who scored a TD on offense this week.
 
65GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 18:28 		Yeh, rub it in.

Cliff
 
66kev
      Donor
      ID: 043111845
      Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 21:51 		Well, when it comes down to reviewing why my year was unsuccessful, the answer will be as easy as 1,2,3

1.Dom Davis
2.Curtis Martin
3.Darrell Jackson

My first 3 round draft picks ammounted to nothing.
 
67Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 22:11 		Well,...

1. My first rounder was Peyton Manning, subsequently traded for Priest Holmes, now done. And while I owned Peyton, Eli was outscoring him.

2. Second rounder - Brian Westbrook. No complaints.

3. Third rounder - Andre Johnson. Averaging about 3.5 per game. If he had been healthy all year, he would still be on pace to have about one-third the total points of either D. Davis or C. Martin.

Based on this, I don't think my top 3 picks get much credit. Well, 2 out of 3, at least.
 
68leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 09:02 		I can play this game, too...

1. Jamal Lewis - worst pick of the 1st round
2. LaMont Jordan - good pick.
3. Michael Bennett - cut.
4. Trent Green - Not even a top 15 QB
 
69Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 09:53 		I have a tough schedule for the next two weeks, facing both leggestand and Motley. Fortunately, I can afford to rest my regulars and prepare for the playoffs.

The injury to Gates is worrisome. Ditto for McGee. Hopefully, they can get back to full strength by playoff time, because it appears that I'll continue to bench my more productive QB each week.

At this juncture, Motley is looking like he's ready to defend - even if Bulger is out again. If he'd have started Brees yesterday, he'd have close to 190 points for the week!
 
70leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 10:14 		I am staring an 0-2 week in the face...can Gado outscore Sam Cowart by 13 points to salvage 1 win for me? Against Minnesota, anything can happen.

All in all, I will be dropping to 3rd in the standings, with IAC 1 game back. With my points, I should be able to get the #3 seed in the playoffs if I can just win 2 of my last 4 games, but taking two L's this week certainly hurts.
 
71Frick@Work
      Donor
      ID: 3410101718
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 10:27 		Excuse me for interupting, but what is the criteria for making the play-offs? I know their is a provision for the highest points, but is it the highest 2 in points get in regardless of their record or the last two in are decided by points?

I looked through the prior threads, but couldn't find the rules.
 
72Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 10:34 		Top six teams are based on W/L record.

Last two spots are for the top total points among the remaining teams.

Rules - post 184

In the case of ties, Fanball only applies the head-to-head tiebreaker in the case of a tie between 2 teams. If 3 or more teams are tied with the same W/L record, the tie is broken based on total points.

 
73Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 10:42 		It really makes things comfortable when all three WR's go off.

Of course, Guru, Bulger being out affects Holt and Curtis, too. Jamie Martin is no where near as talented and if he has to start for any length of time, I expect to suffer in all 3 spots.

Brees explodes like once a month. Too bad it came this week when I needed it least. Now it's probably back to the Chargers riding the LT Express for a few weeks.
 
74Ender
      ID: 285713
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 11:44 		I was bummed after the early games seeing that I was chasing ~35 pts. I knew I had Johnson and Anderson left, but the way my season has gone I wasn't optimistic. They were huge and I'm a solid Sam Cowart game away from winning 2. I hope he's Gado's shadow all night long and keeps him in check.
 
75Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 13:24 		The Gado-Cowart swing has now expanded to 17 points. My games are both over, so I guess that's one of the interesting matchups to watch tonight.

Other interesting matchups:
Taxman needs 25+ from Brad Johnson, Chatman, and Franks (vs. BoNkA)

Sludge needs 31+ from Favre (vs. Doug)

Sludge also has a seemingly comfortable lead of 26 over Taxman (with the above listed players stil to play)

All of the other unfinished games seem to be pretty well in hand.
 
76Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 13:25 		Yes, Anderson finally tore it up! And Bell was slightly injured. Anderson's value could be creeping up by the week now, Ender. What a great value.

I have him in another league and he put me over the top yesterday. Awesome.
 
77Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 13:40 		Looks like Doug and Challenger will move into the top 6 based on W/L thru week 11. Oaktown and Goatlocker will probably take over the 7/8 spots, and Kev, Bandos, and Sludge will be bunched together, just below the cut line.
 
78GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 14:19 		It is getting tight and I expect it to stay that way all the way through to the playoffs.

Sure got hurt by the 0-2 this week, but not much I could have done about it.

Not a good week for both Portis and Jackson to not perform.

Cliff
 
79Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 14:45 		Actually, GL, given your competition this week, it was a very good week to have your guys underperform. No sense getting a respectable 120 points and still lose both games. If you are going to face two of the top teams for the week, you might as well have the bottom result.

I salute your efficiency!
 
80Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 14:50 		I was thinking the same thing, Cliff, but I didn't want to rub it in any more than I have to.

Save the 140's for the Playoffs.
 
81Ender
      ID: 285713
      Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 16:46 		Anderson finally did payoff :) I knew it was a good trade.

I may not make the playoffs, but I'll have some say-so in who does :)
 
82leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 08:59 		Didn't have to stay up very late to see Gado wasn't going to get me the points...nice wins Ender and MC!
 
83Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 10:39 		If the playoffs started today, Motley would be seeded 2nd and would get to face Oaktown, whose total points are second overall (and just a few points behind MC).

It's also quite possible that Motley could still get the top seed, which might put me in that enviable seed.

I suppose I should root for Oaktown to finish strong (and he does face four teams with losing records), just to get him seeded out of harm's way.

That said, the playoff opponent I'd most hate to face in the first round is Challenger. But I'll bet that's exactly who I do face. Peyton Manning and Donald Driver would undoubtedbly come home to bury me.

 
84Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 10:55 		I'm doing what I can to make sure I'm in RIFC again next year. That's my main goal. Claiming a second Championship would be icing on the cake, but I really just want to be in this league again. It's the most competitive one I play in. I would love it if I could find another one like this one

By the way, since we are doing the experimental implementation of the other Playoff format--the higher seed advantage format--in parallel, I've already decided who I am going to choose to play against in round 1. But I'll need to get the #1 seed to make it happen.
 
85Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 11:06 		You'll also need to make sure that team is seeded somewhere from #5-8. You can't pick me.
 
86Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 11:21 		Booo, what fun is that?
 
87Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 12:49 		Guru, why you so worried about piddling old me in the 1st round? ;>) If I qualify, it looks to me I'll have to do it with W/L record as my points would need another great boost like last week to qualify in the 7/8 slots, prolly both remaining weeks.

Under the W/L scenerio, you would have to slip to third to face me in the 6th slot, right? Since I'm playing MC & Legge this week, 2nd & 3rd places, I would prolly need to beat at least one of them (prolly both for good measure) to keep my hopes alive under W/L. If for some unknown reason MC finally loses again, you're secured as #1, no matter how your games play out. and I'll have to drop to #8 to avenge last seasons 1st round playoff lost to you.

Here's hoping I can improve on last weeks numbers so I can at least have the chance for Peyton & Driver to beat you w/Plummer on your bench as I don't foresee you benching little brother anymore this year if he remain healthy.
 
88Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 13:11 		Oops! I have IAC this week and MC next week.
 
89Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 14:02 		Why are there guys in the waiver pool that can't be claimed until next week?

This message

Players who will become free agents next week:

appears above these names

QB Harrington
DL Rod Coleman
DB Anthony Henry

The site says none of them is available until next Tuesday. Is that a mistake?
 
90GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 14:37 		MC, it is because they were dropped today for pickups this week.
So, they are not available until next week.

Cliff
 
91Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 14:39 		Challenger[87] - Murphy's law can be a very powerful force. Logic is futile.

Motley - no mistake. Those three play tomorrow, so they won't clear waivers until after the game freeze. Once a player's game is frozen, they can't be picked up until the next week.
 
92Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 14:55 		Oh, duh. The early games caused the situation.

If they all played Sunday, they would be available Friday. OK.
 
93I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 3579513
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 16:21 		I was just wondering... was I the only manager who put in a claim for Jamie Martin? I noticed that MC made a claim l8r in the day... being the Bulger manager... I would have thought you would have put in a claim for sure?
 
94Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 16:53 		Why? I have Brees. Martin has proven he is not a great alternative no matter who the opponent. Good luck to you with him.
 
95I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 3579513
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 18:01 		Why? Cause his previous starts for the Rams were w/o Holt & Bruce I believe yes/no? Having those two guys back in the offense would certainly give me a little more confidence in him. Of course... you know I'm praying that Bulger will be out all year... and you of course are hoping for a speedy recovery. Too bad it's too late for trades at this point in the year.
 
96Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 18:41 		My team wins because it is well-rounded and I get points from every position. Brees will be fine.

If Brees gets injured, then maybe I will run out and make a panic move.
 
97I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 23:44 		RE MC: I guess we'll soon see how effective he is w/o Gates in the lineup? Week 1 was a mediocre week for him.

And this is not to give any disrespect to your team... because I certainly view it as highly explosive... but certainly not "well-rounded". Too many RBs to be well rounded.
 
98Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Thu, Nov 24, 2005, 21:20 		I guess my team isn't well-rounded in that I haven't picked up and dropped the same guys over and over again several times this season. I am not currently concerned or worried about the composition or configuration of my roster. I appreciate your input and look forward to the Playoffs, where results will likely be more conclusive as to the adequacy of my team.
 
99Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 02:50 		Early season commentary: Wow, I was nearing the panic point only 1-2 weeks into the season... Nene, Shaq, Kiri... I was sitting in 9th with 42 points. Almost made some dumb offers. But things have turned around. One week later (Nov 16th) I was up to 6th with 49.5 and now through yesterday's games I'm tied for 4th with 61.5... thank goodness for early season volatility! (At least when it seems to be favoring you!)

I certainly don't have any delusions of my teams recent level of performance maintaining, but as long as I can weather this storm of early season injuries, then I really like my chances long-term, assuming both Shaq and Kiri get healthy in the next few weeks and live up to their typical form! My blocks are suffering as of late...
 
100Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 07:42 		Yeah, Doug.

So, did you eat too much turkey yesterday or what?
 
101Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 08:37 		Scratching my head trying to figure out Doug's standing and points commentary, then I realized Shaq doesn't play footsball...
 
102Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 10:31 		I wonder how Shaq would be as a short yardage RB?

Or maybe a DE? "Too tall O'Neal"?
 
103Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 12:39 		DOH! Football, basketball... it's all the same, right? He's not bulky, but I guess with all those blocked shots (PDs) and steals (FRs) Kiri would have to be on the defensive line as well. *sigh* I'll leave the post here for self-depricating and embarrassing comic effect. "Who's the idiot who posted bask... oh... wait, that's me..."
 
104leggestand
      ID: 17744278
      Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 12:57 		Well, I had been wavering back and forth between Jamal Lewis and BJ Sams before settling on Sams at 12:53...then at 12:55 I changed my mind to Lewis, but our rosters are frozen. Hopefully my indecision doesn't cost me. Here's to a blowout in Cincy!
 
105leggestand
      ID: 17744278
      Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 16:43 		Looks like starting Sams could cost me...lost 13 points by changing my mind last minute. Both my games look to be close ones until tomorrow night.
 
106I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 21:57 		My QB situation has gone from being my strongest assett to crap in a hurry. Out goes McNabb, then Leftwich, and even my backup J.Martin went out concussed. And I thought taking the two loses this week was bad enough?
 
107Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 11:59 		leggestand - if you are going to leave a 21 point RB on the bench, you picked a good week for it. If you had started Lewis, Galloway, and Jurevicious this week, you would be approaching 200 points!

That makes me feel better about benching Dante Hall (18.6) in favor of Reggie Brown (0). Even with an extra 18.6 points, I'd be toast this week against you. And I apparently didn't need Dante's points in my other game.

Here's my early take on the playoff picture:

There are still a lot of points available in tonight's game, but unless Motley gets 61 from Edge, Wayne, and Mathis, I'll clinch the top playoff seed. Admittedly, 61 is plausible from those three, but certainly a longshot. They did combine for almost 57 in week 6 vs. the Rams. But this time they'll have to better that combined mark against the Steelers.

If they get less than 61, then it looks like the #2-3 seeds will be probably be all but locked up by Motley and leggestand, with the #4-6 seeds controlled by Doug, IAC, and Challenger. Oaktown could potentially take the #6 seed from one of them, but if not, Oaktown has a virtual lock on the #7 seed. And the # 8 seed will be up for grabs from among Goatlocker, Sludge, BoNkA, and Bandos, with Kev as a real dark horse. It looks like Goatlocker will enter the final weekend with the inside track, but the point totals are bunched together enough to make it interesting.

As Challenger mentioned above, he really needs to get at least the #6 seed, because his total points aren't going to work for the last two slots.
 
108leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 13:49 		Yep, everything just seemed to come togetehr for my team this week, even though I left 85-90 points on the bench between 5 guys. I won't say I am guaranteed two wins, though, Guru, as you could possibly catch me.

I was kicking myself after the 1 o'clock games as I thought losing 13 points could put me at 0-2. Then, Gado goes for a 33 yd TD and Jurevicius catches a TD in their 1st quarters, and I am kicking myself even more.

IAC losing two was big for me as well, as that should lock up at least the 3 seed for me. Could still catch Motley and the two seed with a good week next week, as he looks to be ending his winning streak this week.

Let me get this in, too: Could I be the only one to give Guru two losses? Let's hope so.
 
109Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 13:54 		I beat Guru. And I'm playing him next week.
 
110leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 13:56 		But you won't win next week because I am going to get the 2 seed...
 
111Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 14:25 		Huh?

Maybe I'll beat him and lose my other game. And you'll win both.
 
112Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 15:37 		My team has been consistent, but unable to post a big score (or a bad score) so far. My closest loss so far was by 12.4 points to leggestand. My narrowest win was by 12.5 over Sludge. No games have been settled by a margin inside of 12 points.

Barring a collapse tonight, this will only be my third week with a score over 130. My previous high is 138.58, and I have a good chance to top that tonight, if I can get about 8 points or more from the Indy defense and Randle El. But it would take a real monster to catch leggestand, and if Randle El has that kind of game, then the Indy defense will have difficulty putting up a good score - and vice versa.

While any team is capable of putting up a monster score on any given weekend, it seems to me that Motley, leggestand, and Oaktown are the three teams most likely to do so (although I haven't checked the actual game scores to see if the actual game scores support this - it's just based on looking at averages.)

So, I'm pleased to see that the likelihood is good that those three teams will probably be in the 2-3-6-7 bracket. If I can get the top seed, then I think I have a better chance in the early rounds to continue to survive with modestly decent scores. (Knock on wood.)

Even so, I'll be the first to admit that the playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot, with each game not much different than a coin flip.
 
113GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 15:53 		Naw Dave, you get the number 1 seed and I get revenge from last years squeeker loss. ;)

Of course that is based on hanging on.
It sure will be tight.

Cliff
 
114GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 00:14 		Yep, it'll be tight all the way to the end.
My 26.32 point lead over Bandos is now down to 18.20.
Fun, fun, fun.

Cliff
 
115Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 09:04 		...and Sludge is only 7 points behind Bandos.
 
116GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 09:13 		Yep,
Actually, it is now a 20.2 point lead and Sludge 7.1 behind him.

This is gonna be fun.

And I get Rotoguru and Challenger this week.
Could be a preview of the first round of the playoffs.


Cliff
 
117Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 09:16 		Please review the rules for player substitutions during the playoffs, stated in the opening post. In short, you cannot make any transactions involving QB, RB, WR, or team defense after this week's freeze. You can only make add/drops for other slots if you drop a player who is listed as questionable and you replace him with someone at the same position (all IDPs are considered the same for ths purpose).

There will be a "losers bracket" as well, but teams in that bracket will not be able to make any transactions during the playoffs, regardless of position.

Once the playoffs are seeded, I will turn off all free agent add/drop capabilities, and any transaction will need to be done through the Commish. Transaction requests should be posted here, and will be processed first come, first served. There will be no claiming process on Wednesday, Dec. 7, since players will not yet have their injury status determined for week 14.
 
118Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 09:59 		Guru, I thought we actually used claim priority last year in the Playoffs. There weren't many transactions, but didn't we still follow the priority order? I seem to remember that happening once.

Did you also disallow Consolation bracket teams from making Playoff transactions in `04? I don't remember that either.

So to be clear, no transactions (outside of emergency replacements for PK, TE, and IDP's) will be allowed after Sunday 4 December (unless Seattle or Philly players are dropped and picked up before the MNF game on 5 December). Correct?
 
119Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 10:47 		I'll dig through last year's thread to see if we used claim priorities. I don't recall.

I do recall that Consolation bracket teams were locked. That was to ensure that those teams could not impact the "true" playoffs.

Your final statement is correct - with the proviso that if you want to pick up a replacement at TE (for example), you must drop the injured TE on your roster. So, for example, if Gates is injured in week 14, I can only pick up a replacement for him if I drop him. I can't drop a backup IDP to get a replacement TE.
 
120Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 10:56 		MC is correct about claiming during the playoffs. Copied from last year's thread:
All adds may now be done only via the claiming system. Claims will be processed at noon on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, but you may only drop a TE, PK, or IDP who is designated "Questionable" or lower, and then you may only pick up a replacement for that position.
So we'll follow that approach once again. That allows everyone to make transactions without my intervention - assuming I am clever enough to get things set up correctly.
 
121Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Nov 29, 2005, 11:00 		It just didn't seem right that people would have to post their claim requests publicly, even though it would have been first come, first served. I still think claims are the way to go. If you use them the first 13 weeks, may as well use them in the Playoffs, if common interest in a player occurs. It's doubtful there will be more than 2 or 3 transactions during the Playoffs anyway, in my mind. I had a questionable DL that I swapped out last year. There weren't many others that I recall.

Thanks for clarifying, Guru.
 
122Toral
      ID: 541029611
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 11:50 		Question, urgent, from a AAA League. Can't read through the thread, in great hurry.
What is the last day when waiver claims or FA pickups are allowed this week?

Toral
 
123Toral
      ID: 541029611
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 11:53 		OK, I did read up and far as necessary and went to post 1. It's thhis week's freeze, right? No Saturday games, so this Sunday?

No longer urgent question. Tx anyway.
 
124Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 12:15 		Monday, if you get a player from a Monday game.
 
125Toral
      ID: 541029611
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 12:16 		Ah! Good catch. thanx.
 
126Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 12:27 		Monday, if you get a player from a Monday game.

In which case you must also have a player from the Monday game to drop, as those will be the only players whose status isn't frozen after Sunday.
 
128Da Bomb
      ID: 43359416
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 16:11 		AAer question here. Say for the semifinals Gates is Q and isn't expected to play. Why is it so that he would need to be dropped to pick up a replacement instead of dropping a 6th string WR to pick up a TE so that Gates could potentially be used for the finals?
 
129Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 16:51 		Because those are the rules we developed last year, and we did not change them for this year. If you want a sub for Gates while keeping him on the roster, then you need to have a backup TE in place before the playoff rosters are frozen.

It may seem onerous, but it is more flexible than completely freezing the roster altogether - which was another possibility we considered.
 
130culdeus
      ID: 321042023
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 18:08 		What is the point of all that? Why not just have active teams get a free for all. What exactly are you trying to prevent?
 
131Da Bomb
      ID: 43359416
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 18:19 		I guess the underlying purpose of it is to prevent an eliminated team from dropping its players for the heck of it? But I would assume the supposed integrity that managers possess in this forum would make that result unlikely. And if a team still in the playoffs does pick up a dropped player of quality value, then just give him a 0 for the week. I apologize if I misinterpreted the goal of the rule or if I'm overstepping my bounds.
 
132Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 20:24 		I forget the rationale for all this, but at first glance I agree it does seem overly tedious and potentially problematic. Say one manager drops Gates who's out for week 14... because he wants to make he gets some points at that spot. Suddenly the other playoff teams are hoping that one of their existing TEs gets downgraded to questionable so they have the right to pick up Gates. WTF? Seems there must be some larger problem that we're trying to prevent, but I don't know what that problem is (or, at least, have forgotten it over the course of the past 12 months).
 
133Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 23:37 		We can consider adjustments next year, but it's too late to do so now. These rules were voted on last year, and I posted them again at the beginning of November. Too late to raise objections now.

I recall that last year, we had some managers who thought that rosters should be totally locked for the playoffs, with no ability to substitute for any reason. This was a compromise resolution.
 
134culdeus
      ID: 321042023
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 08:37 		It just seems overly pedantic for the purposes. Of course, I missed the playoffs (badly) last year so it never came to my attention.

You can still run waivers per se on reverse order of seed each week if you want if a free-for-all doesn't work.

I also don't see why it's too late to change this for the year?
 
135Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 12:01 		I don't care if any of the QLs want to relax this rule. Each league can make its own decision.

For the RIFC, we set up this rule last year by vote, and I don't recall any issues arising from it. I posted it again four weeks ago just to make sure everyone was still aware, and there were no calls to review it. I think that it is now too late to make a change for our league, since teams should have been positioning their rosters over the past several weeks.

 
136Ender
      ID: 285713
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 12:25 		The basic iea was to play the playoffs with the same roster that got you there. That's as opposed to making the playoffs with one team and winning the championship with another (or partial anyway).

 
137Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 13:37 		Re: 133/135... I had no recollection of this rule last offseason. It's even in the main post of this thread and I never noticed it until now. There's enough information to track as it is, I think subconsciously I may block out playoff-specific rules during the regular/offseason. It's not that it's a big deal to me, it's just that I think we will have the most successful discussion if we discuss at the relevant time (that is, now). If we wait until next offseason to discuss it, IMHO it will likely be forgotten again (even if it's written in the rules). I realize any implementation wouldn't happen until next season.

Re: 136... That statement seems to imply that the roster that you enter the playoffs with is the "roster that got you there", which I think is a bad assumption. Often times the week 13 roster is very different than the roster you had during the core of the season, and those W/Ls were just as important as your week 13 W/L... in fact, usually I don't think there exists such a thing as "the roster that got you there" since we all cope with injuries or upgrades/downgrades throughout the season and adjust accordingly... except for maybe a few key players, and I don't think those are the ones we're talking about adding/dropping anyway. Seems to me the most successful managers are often the one who deal with those changes throughout the season and make savvy roster moves... why cut that off that ability for the playoffs? To me it's a fundamental part of the game.
 
138Ender
      ID: 285713
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 13:59 		Obviously the majority of the league agrees with the sentiment in 136 or we wouldn't have the rule, but I seem to recall MC being the main champion of the philosophy. Of course we aren't all the same managers from last year so maybe the majority opinion has changed. However, it is a bit late in the game to reverse it now. It just needs to be revisited prior to next year.

Personally, I'm in the minority with you, Doug.

 
139Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 14:51 		To reiterate, I'm not suggesting we change the rule for this year. I'm suggesting we discuss it now and make a decision for next year (while the topic is still tangible and fresh in our minds).

So far Guru has explain why we can't change it for this year, and Ender explained what he believes was the rationale behind it (even if he disagrees)... but no voices yet actually supporting the rule. In particular, if Ender's statement of the rationale in favor is correct, I'd like to hear a response to the counterargument in post 137. I'm open-minded, but haven't been able to come up with a good reason for this rule in the time I spent thinking about it yesterday/today, and hoping maybe someone can help me grasp it. Thanks in advance!
 
140Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 15:04 		you can see last year's discussion in this thread, starting at post 115.

Leggestand and MC were the two primary proponents of allowing no transactions at all.

It appears that we never really vetted the concept of allowing a team to drop a non-injured player to pick up an injury replacement. We simply said that you could only drop an injured player and replace him a player at the same position. Dropping an non-injured bench player in order to get a replacement for an injured player was never explicitly discussed.

 
141Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:02 		To make that issue concrete, I'm having that issue with Ray Lewis. I had to pick up a 3rd LB since he's still questionable for this week, but now I'm stuck with a 3rd LB, whereas I'd really rather drop one of my LBs after this weekends games and pick up another RB or other spot that might help my team. My alternative was to drop Ray, in which case some other lucky owner might pick him up for weeks 14-15 simply because they had the "fortune" of having one of their existing LBs downgraded to questionable.

What's more, there are certain positions such as DL, DB, Team D, etc. where I make a fairly regular practice of cycling players based on matchups. If we had more IDPs I would be less inclined to do this, but given our roster depth there are enough quality players available each week that I find it advantageous to play matchups. That fundamental ability which I think is part of my team's relative success this year is stripped away from me for the duration of the playoffs. This seems unfair.

So these are two pretty obvious and significant problems that our current system creates. As such, I'd need to feel like we're preventing some greater evil in order to support this rule as it stands. MC posted an example in 117 that might fit this bill, but I can't understand since I don't know which players were on which team. I'd like to have that example explained if possible.

The other argument I find in that thread is similar to the one Ender put above: "If your team got you there, then finish the playoffs with them". Again, I think this is false logic... it's not "the team that got you there", it's "the team that you happened to have on week 13"... because the team that got you there is some amalgamation of all the adds and drops that you made throughout the season, or maybe the team you had when you eeked out two wins by a small margin in week 6, in most cases it's impossible to define really... but the guys on your roster in week 13 by no means "define" the team that you made the playoffs with.

In fact, in many cases (as in the two examples I started this post with), the cycling of certain players at key positions (in my case DL, DB, K, Team D being the most obvious, but other positions too) or based on certain circumstances (in my case Ray Lewis) are much more fundamental and defining of "the team that got me there" than the players who happen to be on my squad as of week 13. BJ Sams was on my team most of the year and several games for me as an injury filler, so I'd say he was part of "the team that got me to the playoffs". Does that mean he gets put back on my roster now?

By disallowing normal roster movement, we are actually preventing managers from playing with "the team that got them there" in many cases, because those types of roster moves as much a part of what defines that team as are the "stars" who are part of the lineup every single week.
 
142Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:24 		Guru, you and I talked about that exact issue via e-mail last season. I wanted to pickup a DL because Kevin Williams was hurt. I decided to get John Abraham, and I sent you an e-mail asking if I had to drop Williams (because when he was playing, he was scoring well, so I wanted to keep him stashed on my bench). After examining the rules you affirmed that I would indeed have to drop him.

I may have the players in reverse order (Abraham to Williams), but I definitely remember that e-mail. I've re-read it since then.

Incidentally, according to the link Guru provided, culdeus voted for the rules as we now have them (post 138).
 
143Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:39 		There's no question that that was our rule last year. I just don't recall what, if anything, led me to make that particular regulation. I suspect there were some email discussions that took place outside the discussion thread.

Doug makes some good points in 141.
 
144Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:44 		From my post 121 in the other thread:
If you lose a player to injury and you NEED a guy to fill the spot, then that seems ok. But let's say that some stud RB on a dead team gets injured, and his backup is available and projects to have good productivity. It doesn't seem fair to me that someone should be able to make a free agent claim during the playoffs solely to upgrade a non-injured player on their team. In fact, that seems downright silly.

You disagree with this, Doug? You think you should be able to acquire, for example, Maurice Morris if Shaun Alexander breaks a leg? I do not. If he's not on your roster by this Monday night, Morris ought not to be available to you.

At some point, we should set rosters for the Playoffs. The NFL does it for a reason: it's unfair to add new and talented players to a team just for the Playoffs. Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship.

From my 117:
There's a reason for a trade deadline. It's the same reason to have a roster move deadline. At some point, the team you have needs to be the team you are stuck with. That's how they do it in the pros.

Guru's response in 118:
In the pros, teams have enough roster slots to allow for sufficient backups.

Ah, but let's look at our rosters for a second. 8 of 21 slots are for backups. You don't need a backup TE, PK, or IDP's because of injury because if one of yours goes down, the rules allow you to acquire a new one. You don't need a backup DEF because they don't get hurt (although some play like they are Questionable). If you are holding 3 LB's or 2 DEF's (or 2 TE's like me) that's your prerogative. You set your roster now with the intent of playing matchups. Once the Playoffs start, though, you shouldn't be able to play matchups anymore.

Matchup play is a facet of the regular season. All 14 teams likely employ it. The Playoffs are a self-contained tournament and it's not right to allow new players to be injected into it. If we are going to freeze the lineups of the bottom 6 teams, that's an admission that we don't want the integrity of the Playoffs messed with. You've had 13 weeks and the preseason to get your roster the way you want it. An injury to a stud in Week 15 and the sudden promotion of his backup; or a better matchup for a bottom feeding defense should not be able to save your team if you don't have a good roster. And I realize all 8 Playoff teams have a "good" roster. The Playoff games determine whether it's good enough. The waiver wire and free agent claiming should not be a determinant in the Playoffs.

 
145leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 17:39 		I put together a post a couple hours ago, but after re-reading it multiple times, I wasn't sure it was getting across the point I wanted to make, but I think Motley put what I was trying to say perfectly...

I had two major reasons for wanting frozen rosters:

1. Productive backups that get a shot because of an injury and flip the playoffs upside down. Like MC, I actually used Morris in my (non) post as an example because if Alexander gets hurt, every playoff team would want him. There is no adapting your team or being a good GM for picking up a guy like Morris; if he is starting, you want him.

2. Matchup play needs to be lessened in the playoffs. I can't tell you how much I hate the rotating Team D style that people sometimes use in the playoffs. If you want to play matchups, in any position, look at the Week 14-16 schedule and see who you may want to have on your team, and pick them up pre-playoffs.

The waiver wire and free agent claiming should not be a determinant in the Playoffs.

This is the statement that really rings true to me from MC's post.
 
146Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 22:20 		I'm iffy on the Maurice Morris question... that manager likely deserved the pickup, because he had high claim priority. Why should the reward of claim priority acquired during the season go away for the playoffs? If Alexander gets injured in week 13, a manager who's been holding out for a good pickup gets Morris, but if the injury happens week 14, he doesn't... seems rather arbitrary.

Or, if Alexander gets hurt, and someone happens to have Morris already on roster, that team benefits. How is that any more/less fair or preferable than using claim priority to achieve the same effect? Actually, it seems by extending the logic of "Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship." that we should actually cut or lock out all players from all rosters who weren't in the regular season lineup for a given fantasy team, because they did not help the team earn the berth either.

That said, on some level I do agree that it sucks if some manager picks up a new RB who is suddenly more valuable, etc. and beats you with him, which is why I'm said I'm iffy... it bothers me slightly on an emotional level, but I'm having a hard time finding a rational justification for that emotion.

Even so, I completely disagree to with statement "The Playoffs are a self-contained tournament and it's not right to allow new players to be injected into it." Rotating IDPs, TEs, Team Ds... regardless of injury... that to me is fundamental to the fantasy game and definitely SHOULD be part of the Playoffs. Disallowing ALL transactions except for injury is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

HOWEVER, let's put ALL of that aside, and say for the sake of argument that I completely agree with you. In a perfect world such pickups should be disallowed.

Even then, I would contend that the potential acquisition of Maurice Morris (or similar) is a far less significant issue than the other issues that have been raised... in short, that we're preventing a small problem by creating two bigger ones. The two issues I raised ARE happening. The issue you raise MIGHT happen:

IN THE EVENT that a primary RB suffers a significant injury in the next week or two, then yes, THERE'S A CHANCE that the backup player who benefits might not already be on a fantasy roster, AND POSSIBLY the manager who acquires the new RB will insert him into his starting lineup, IN WHICH CASE it could conceivably have an effect on the outcome of the game.

Sort of thinking out loud as I write this post, but to sum up after considering it all... I'd much rather allow normal transactions and avoid the problems we've already created, even if it means running the risk of encountering a situation described in the previous paragraph... because I think the risk is tolerably small, and is outweighed by the costs of preventing it. YMMV.

A possible compromise that I'd be ok with is locking QB/RB/WR slots except in case of injury (only to be replaced with a like-kind player), and allowing normal transactions for the other positions, recognizing that rotation is a normal part of the fantasy game, and that these are the positions where rotation typically occurs, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely that any injury to a stud player (LB, TE, etc.) would suddenly elevate the status of another player in the same manner as it would at the 3 main skill positions.
 
147Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 22:49 		We value QB, RB, and WR more than the other positions. We draft RB's like crazy in the first few rounds of the draft. People grab QBs like McMahon, Martin, Garrard, Volek, and Simms like they are worth their weights in gold. There are almost no #2 WR's left on the Free Agent list.

We value these positions higher than the others. There's nothing wrong with that. The scoring system we use typically dictates that those 3 positions are the most valuable.

If you can agree with that, then maybe this won't be such a stretch for you: those emotions that you feel, that it's unfair for a guy to get lucky with Mo Morris in Week 14 when Alexander goes down, they are there because it isn't OK for the Playoff Tournament to be affected by players that could have been had earlier, but no one bothered to take. We are being arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is not a bad word. We are making an arbitrary cutoff date for rosters to be locked in, just like they do in MLB, NFL, and just about every fantasy league I've ever seen. Just because a date is arbitrary doesn't make it bad.

Why do we have kickers on our fantasy football teams? They are a crapshoot when drafting and they all usually score about the same except the Top 2 or 3. We just do. The NFL does it, so we do it. That is in fact a good example to follow.

Actually, it seems by extending the logic of "Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship." that we should actually cut or lock out all players from all rosters who weren't in the regular season lineup for a given fantasy team, because they did not help the team earn the berth either.

I disagree. Let's say you had Steven Jackson and Marshall Faulk this year. You would have played Jackson every week, because he missed no games. But if he had been hurt and missed one game, you could have plugged Faulk in that week and had a "starting" RB. The fact that you didn't actually do it doesn't detract from the fact that Faulk allowed you some insurance for Jackson so that you could spend a 3rd round pick on another position, rather than picking up some lesser starting RB from another team with that pick. Having Faulk, who you never played, still helped your team indirectly to make the Playoffs. You never had to worry about claiming a FA RB to back up Jackson in case of injury. Faulk sucks now so this isn't a great example, but there are many scenarios where this happened this season.

In a way, the game is more challenging if you have to build your roster for the Playoffs before they begin, and then you aren't allowed to change it. It creates a situation where you must use strategy and make good decisions as a manager. Frankly, this appeals to me. I am having a hard time understanding why those who have managed to perform well enough during the regular season to get into the Tournament would back down from the challenge.
 
148Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 03:10 		Too late an hour for a thought-out response, but just wanted to say that in the context of this discussion I definitely think arbitrary is a bad word. "Subjective" I have no problem with. "Arbitrary" I have a major problem with.
 
149TB
      ID: 1286814
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 11:06 		Every competitive league I am in (minus Yahoo leagues) freezes all rosters for the play-offs. I think the reason we allowed the pick-up of an injured IDP, TE, or K was because of the large roster requirement. I still don't favor any pick-ups during the play-offs. It becomes another part of your strategy. Do you carry a second TE or kicker or do you keep your 5th RB? Obviously, there are several different opinions on this.
 
150Sludge
      ID: 581043311
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:24 		We value these positions higher than the others. There's nothing wrong with that. The scoring system we use typically dictates that those 3 positions are the most valuable.

Actually, no. Under any reasonable scoring system, you would see the same basic ordering of importance: RB > WR ~= QB. It is less a function of the scoring system than it is a function of the differences in the players themselves and their teams (e.g. the variability, and the power you have to predict performance). You said as much yourself when you stated that, "They [kickers] are a crapshoot when drafting and they all usually score about the same except the Top 2 or 3." After the top two or three, the same can be said for tight ends and team defenses.
 
151Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:37 		Re: 147... Regarding following the NFL rules, we're selective about it. Yeah, we have kickers and RBs and WRs just like the NFL, etc. But we don't have 11 IDPs. We follow some NFL rules because we're modeling our game on their format. We break some NFL rules because they don't translate to our contest. Thus, just because the NFL locks rosters doesn't mean our fantasy game should. It's subjective. For some leagues I agree it's appropriate, but for our league I think it's quite inappropirate (for teams that are still alive). Obviously we disagree on this point.

As for the Mo claim thing, again, even if we agree on this point, it just seems such a small possibility that I don't see it being worth the other problems that we've created. I'm yet to hear a response to that point, or really anything after the "Let's put ALL of that aside" portion of my post. Fine, OK, it's bad... do we cater to that one possibility regardless of the expense? No. We have to weigh the pros and cons and make a subjective decision accordingly.

Re: 149... Every competitive league I am in is different. Some lock rosters for playoffs, some don't. Some have IDPs, some don't. It's also the only league that has both IDP and Team D. Some have 12 teams. Some have 14 teams. One has 24 teams. FWIW, this is the only IDP league I am in that locks rosters, the other 3 don't. Not that it particuarly matters... I don't care what other leagues do, it doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong for our league, because each league is different. I love the variety. IMHO, our league is constructed such that rotation of players (at least non-QB/RB/WR) is fundamental, and stripping this ability for the playoffs is too drastic of a change to be justified (particularly in the compromise suggested previously, which addresses your concerns at the QB/RB/WR spots). Not to mention the other issues it creates, such as the Ray Lewis/Antonio Gates situations.

Sure, no pickups during the playoffs becomes part of your strategy. But ALLOWING pickups during the playoffs would become part of your strategy just the same. Do I burn my claim priority in week 12 or 13, or do I save it for the playoffs? Do I keep the DL who I think will be solid most weeks but has a crappy matchup this week, or do I risk throwing him back in the pool? And so on... strategy elements that disappear when you eliminate pickups.

So eliminating pickups doesn't "add" strategy, or "create a situation where you must use strategy"... all it does is "change" the strategies being used. And I don't understand why we'd play the whole season according to one set of rules and strategies to select the top teams, and then suddenly change those rules and strategies for the playoffs. Particularly when it has a number of negative consequences (IMHO) on the quality of our game... all for the purpose of avoiding one relatively unlikely scenario.

I'm sure there's some old adage that's appropriate here... like, "We're so afraid of the spider that we stepped on a snake instead"... but unfortunately the appropriate down-home aphorism doesn't come readily to my mind. =-)
 
152Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:59 		And I don't understand why we'd play the whole season according to one set of rules and strategies to select the top teams, and then suddenly change those rules and strategies for the playoffs.

The reason why we should do it this year is that everyone knew (or had the chance to know) that this would be the case since August. It isn't right to change it now. Those managers that are in RIFC next year can decide democratically, or else Guru can decide unilaterally, to make a change in the rules for next season. If I am in RIFC next season, I will play by whatever rules Guru or the majority set forth. This season I expect to play by the rules we put in place before the season began.

Since I seem to remember that Doug was not advocating a change for this season, I think I'll end my argumnets here. If a change is being contemplated, I think people need to know that as soon as possible.
 
153Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 15:45 		You are correct that I am not suggesting we change it for this year (nor is anyone else, to my knowledge).

If we wait to talk about it next offseason, the discussion will be very abstract, if anyone even remembers to bring it up. This is why I felt it was a discussion to have now. As I recall, last year the discussion was had about this time of year as well (presumably it was not contemplated prior to the season). Even if we don't make a definitive vote that is binding for next year's managers, we could at least at this point I think take a poll to see where the current managers stand now that we're talking about it and actually in the midst of it. Such a poll would at least serve as helpful advisement for next offseason.

I don't think there is any call for "unfreezing" the rosters of eliminated teams. As I understand it, the 4 main options seem to be:

a) No transactions. Period.
b) Our current system.
c) The suggestion at the end of post 146.
d) Normal transactions (for non-eliminated teams).

Whether we use these 4 or some other combination of options, I would prefer a more elegant polling system than a simple yes/no on each option get a slightly more nuanced understanding of what would be acceptable to the most people... maybe ranking the choices 1-4? Is this even the appropriate list of options?
 
154Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 15:55 		(a) likely doesn't need to be on any list of options, since it's more restrictive than what we are doing and I doubt it would have strong support.

Guru, do you feel the need to have a vote on this now? I'm sure it will be more widely discussed next season before we start drafting. I can see that Doug is highly interested and would likely bring it back up, and I am fine with debating it and voting on it as well, so I'll make a point to bring it up also.
 
155Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 16:48 		The point of voting now is to get the input of managers who have been and are going through the process this year. This can be used to advise managers for next year, who would ultimately make the decision, but I definitely think it would be good for them to get input from this year's group. Personally, assuming I'm still around, I won't be terribly interested in as lengthy of a discussion of this topic next offseason compared to now. There's enough going on in the preseason to deal with, a discussion about playoff roster freezes would be pretty low on the priority list, whereas right now it's tangible for everyone and really hits home.
 
156TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 22:13 		After reading post 151, I would like to admit that in my haste to post my opinion, I should have stated that it only changes your strategy instead of adds strategy. When you have to stick with the same players throughout the play-offs you are forced into tough decisions. Do you add depth at every position or gamble and keep the extra RB and WR? When you can make changes every week, screw grabbing a back-up TE, K, LB, DB, or DL because there are ALWAYS comparable players (to the depth you would have grabbed) available on the waiver wire. I suppose we can call that a strategy, but semantics aside, it allows you to continue to hoard skill position depth and play risk free with the possiblity of "lucking" into the player who gets the starting nod in week 14-16 because a play-off team is resting a starter. Again, just my humble opinion.
 
157Doug
      Leader
      ID: 02730280
      Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 00:56 		When you are NOT stuck with the same players throughout the playoffs, you are ALSO forced into tough decisions... same as you were all year. Is the guy you are thinking of picking up going to help you enough to risk burning your claim priority? Can I outplay my oppoenent and be a better predictor of which free agent DL, DB, etc. will have a big week this week? In fact, without locking, such strategy continues throughout the playoffs... witout locking, strategy dies in week 13.

For example, if I could have made roster moves freely in this year's playoffs, it would have been a tough choice to decide whether to keep Ray Lewis or not. Since rosters are locked, it became an unstrategic no-brainer for me to just drop him outright. Similarly, I would have considered whether to burn my claim priority in week 13 to pick up a guy who I think can help my playoff squad, or save my priority for a potentially better pickup during the playoffs (or just to ward off my oppoenent from making a similar pickup)... strategic decisions abound. The effect of locked rosters was to make my decision an unstrategic no-brainer.

Across the board, locked rosters forced my hand into a much less nuanced strategy of "drop anyone you can afford to and hoard any RBs who might help"... a strategy which is not only boring, but completely different than the game we've been playing all year. Locking rosters doesn't necessarily make strategy significantly more difficult at the end of the regular season, and at least in my case, it had quite the opposite effect on my squad. What's more, from here on out I pretty much have NO strategy at all... because there's unlikely to be anything I could do even if I wanted to. Rosters are essentially locked... thus no more strategy.

All of this, again, for a case where there MIGHT be a player who gets injured, and that player's backup MIGHT be a free agent, in which case he MIGHT get picked up by a team who could use him in their starting lineup, in which case it MIGHT affect the outcome of the game...

I realize we probably seem to be talking in circles. I guess I'm just not seeing this great benefit of locking rosters... just one small questionable benefit (the hypothetical Maurice Morris example) and on the other hand a whole lot of obvious negative side effects. I guess rather than weighing the pros and cons of the rule, it boils down to a philosophical difference of whether you should be managing your team in the playoffs, or if the playoffs are some separate deal where you just step back and watch the cards fall where they may (other than maybe shifting a player in your starting lineup, etc.) On that point, I feel the game is meant to be played all season long, up until the point that your team is eliminated from contention (your teams "dying breath" you might say), particularly in a league constructed such as ours where such weekly roster moves have been a fundamental aspect throughout.
 
158Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 01:10 		Doug: I guess rather than weighing the pros and cons of the rule, it boils down to a philosophical difference of whether you should be managing your team in the playoffs, or if the playoffs are some separate deal where you just step back and watch the cards fall where they may (other than maybe shifting a player in your starting lineup, etc.)

You make this sound so insignificant. Are you telling me that you've missed significantly fewer points on your bench this season than you did on free agents you neglected to pick up?

I think we just have different philosophies of the game. I have never seen the one you are advocating before. I think part of the game is building your army, including reinforcements, and then going into battle. Most leagues play this way. You want to continue the game the same as it has been all year into the Playoffs. As long as the rules are set out before the game starts, I can't argue against that. I don't prefer it. But if I agree to play with that rule, I will play with it. To me there is something to be said for displaying foresight enough to lock up a guy like Morris early on. You think the game should be inclusive of picking him up after Alexander breaks a leg in Week 14. That seems ridiculous to me. It's the difference between being overly cautious (saving waiver position until Week Umpteen) and having some good instincts and foresight (going into the Playoffs with Morris already on your roster).
 
159Athletics Guy
      ID: 1210562417
      Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 01:27 		Hey! Stop using Alexander as an example!
 
160TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 12:38 		When you are NOT stuck with the same players throughout the playoffs, you are ALSO forced into tough decisions
No you are not. You keep your best players and if one of them gets hurt, you drop them for someone else. Just like every team has done all year. You can also continue to play match-ups with the interchangeable DL, LB and DB available as free agents because this league doesn't require enough IDP starters. That is a whole new discussion, though.

Is the guy you are thinking of picking up going to help you enough to risk burning your claim priority?
Again, the same choices you have to make all year. This isn't forcing new TOUGH choices on you. This is maintaining status quo. The tougher choice is having to make the moves on week 13 that are going to last you throughout weeks 13-16. That is coming up with a strategy, implementing it, and then watching it unfold. I think you are mixing up continuos management with developing strategy.

Let's be real honest here about how much football "strategy" anyone has used the last 3-4 weeks and will be using for the rest of the year. Some teams who needed to make the play-offs, looked ahead and gambled on some players or a defense who have had some recent surprise weeks or who have favorable match-ups in the near term. For teams who have already made the play-offs, they have done the same looking out to weeks 14-16 and their match-ups. Otherwise, the highest scoring players are on everyone's rosters and the lower scoring players are not. Picking up Ryan Fitzpatrick because Bulger and Martin is hurt or Gado because Green, Davenport, and Fisher are all hurt isn't strategy.

I read what you wrote about Ray Lewis, and think you have it backwards. With players allowed to be picked up, I think you are forced into holding an injured Ray Lewis 1) in hopes he comes back and plays for you, but also 2) to keep him from the competition. With locked rosters, like the 24-team league we are both in, I just dropped every player I was certain was not a keeper for me to pick up possible keeper players without the fear of someone else being able to grab those dropped players. I understand we are talking about two different leagues so am not trying to compare them, just using one example.

Across the board, locked rosters forced my hand into a much less nuanced strategy of "drop anyone you can afford to and hoard any RBs who might help"... a strategy which is not only boring, but completely different than the game we've been playing all year.
Maybe we manage different, but that is the opposite to what I have done. I understand the make-up of each team dictates their needs but through the season on most of my teams I have hoarded RB. In all my leagues with locked rosters, I have dumped lots of those extra RB this week to snag a 2nd DEF or TE or QB.

We are all limited based on roster and bench size on how much strategy can be implemented. Holding two top 10-15 TE's to keep one away from the competition, provide the opportunity to play match-ups, and prepare against injury. Keeping 2 or 3 defenses because of match-ups and to keep them from opps.

I read everything you are saying but think the unstrategic no-brainer is not locking rosters. Nobody is forced into decisions that will have consequences for 4 weeks. Again, status quo.

Have you never been burned in the play-offs? Made it to the championship game or semi-finals only to lose to a team that grabbed a bench QB or RB who got the start against a crappy team while your stud player rested for the play-offs? No strategy involved, just luck by the team you outscored by 200 points all year. A free agent player that was announced getting the start on a Thursday, no claim required. First person to hear the news and log on was the winner.

I certainly play in leagues that allow you to manage all the way to the end. Heck, I commish one in Yahoo. Truthfully, I don't care if rosters are locked or not. I just think it is more challenging when they are locked. I do prefer locked, but would rather have it wide open instead of the partial pick-ups currently in place.
 
162Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 13:20 		This has been a good discussion - much better than the one we had last year when the issue was first addressed. Much of the preference seems to derive from a philisophical premise for the playoffs - are they a separate, self-contained tournament to be planned for well in advance, or are they simply an extension of the regular season with comparable roster flexibility desirable.

Frankly, there is no right answer to that question. But if you accept one or the other as your philosophy, then the choices seem more obvious.

One issue that I haven't seen addressed vis à vis playoff flexibility is the claiming priority. This was a bigger deal last year, since the weaker team in any playoff week would have had the higher priority for the week - which certainly seems unfair in a playoff setting. This year, with priorities carrying over from week to week, the issue does not automatically favor the weaker team. I suppose you could even put forth an argument that during the playoffs, the higher seeded team should have the higher priority, as a privilege of "home field advantage". This would at least give a top team the ability to block a potentially game-changing F/A pickup.

I think a poll at this point could be instructive, even though it would not impact this year's playoffs, and would not even be binding on next year, since all rules will still be reconsidered prior to the season. Let me think about how to frame that poll.

There are some other rule changes that we will want to consider for next year, and perhaps we should hash through some of those now as well. A separate thread might be a better venue, however, as it will be easier to review next summer. Again, give me some time to organize that.
 
163GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Sun, Dec 04, 2005, 13:39 		As if Guru needs any help.
I don't play Lee Evans and he already has 28.60 points.

Sheesh, and I knew I didn't feel comfortable with Williams.

Oh Well.

Cliff
 
164Guru
      ID: 2811847
      Sun, Dec 04, 2005, 13:45 		Actually, I don't need any help today. But thanks just the same.
 
165leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:36 		A total of 6.5 points at my RB position...that's not going to cut it in the playoffs.
 
166Guru
      ID: 2811847
      Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:36 		Here is the unofficial outlook on the playoff seedings prior to the Monday night game:

1 Guru
2 Motley
3 Leggestand
4 Doug
5 I am Canadian
6 Oaktown
7 Goatlocker
8 Bandos

BoNkA has a shot at overtaking Bandos for the #8 slot with a combined 38 points from Hasselback, Trotter, and the Philly defense.

Oaktown needs 6.04 from Shaun Alexander tonight to win his game vs. Sludge. That will probably put him at 13-13, tied with Challenger. Oaktown wins that tiebreaker, gets the #6 slot, and Challenger misses the playoffs based less total points than a number of other teams.

Leggestand and Doug may end up tied in W/L, but the tiebreaker will go to leggestand.


Hopefully, I've correctly interpreted all of the tea leaves.

 
167Ender
      ID: 285713
      Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:40 		I have had precious little opportunity to toot my own horn this season (and generally don't anyway). I'd like to take this small window to poke my head out of the cellar door and breathe the fresh air :)
 
168Guru
      ID: 2811847
      Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 10:17 		We will have a consolation bracket as well, so Ender seems to be peaking at just the right time!

Tax Returns has a chance to sweep this weekend as well, although he'll need 25+ from McMahon, Lewis, and Bryce Fisher to overtake Bandos (who is done for the weekend).

So the battle for the basement goes down to the wire. With a weekend sweep, Tax Returns would win a tiebreaker with Ender based on a head-to-head sweep. But if McMahon et al come up short, Enders climbs into 13th (and out of the cellar for the first time since week #3).
 
169Ender
      ID: 285713
      Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 11:49 		That will be an odd combination to root against, but I will do my best :)

 
170Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 08:49 		Wow, Guru gets his last 2 wins by 1.32 points, combined. 2 close calls, Guru. When I saw Westbrook getting crushed last night, I thought I had a good chance.

Nice job dominating the regular season the way you did. 4 losses out of 26 games is a pretty damn impressive result. I think you've earned an invitation for next year.
 
171leggestand
      ID: 11102399
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 08:55 		Congrats Guru on a great regular season...was perusing some of last year's threads and you said something along the lines of football being your weakest fantasy sport. I think you need to re-analyze that thought.
 
172I_AM_CANADIAN
      ID: 23916230
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:31 		Yeah, excellent domination Guru. It's interesting to look at the power rankings and see that of the "potentional" matchups... I would have almost gotten a .500 against his juggernault. MC and Legge could have actually kept a winning record against him.

Good luck to all in the playoffs... Looking forward to my week 1 matchup vs Doug.
 
173Guru
      ID: 2811847
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:42 		Until this weekend, I never had a close game all season. If this week's games had mattered, they would really have been nail biters. The points to overtake MC came on the next to last play of the game, when Reggie Brown caught a 6 yard pass. (I needed one yard).

It is worrisome that Westbrook sprained he foot, however. I wanted my guys to rest this week!

I'm going to open a new thread for playoff discussion.

 
174GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 060151121
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:44 		Nice season Guru.
I thought we saved the close ones for the playoffs.
So, if I figure this right, I get Motley in the first round.
And they still continue to be fun.
So, now I'll play Lee Evans and he'll revert back to his season average.

Best of luck to all in the playoffs.

Cliff
 
175Frick@Work
      Donor
      ID: 3410101718
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:45 		Guru, the rules state that for ties you go with head to head record then points. How do you hand 3 way ties? We actually have 2 of them in the AA league. One will determine which of the teams tied for 6th place gets in and the other is for play-off position, teams 3-5.

 
176Guru
      ID: 2811847
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:53 		For 3 way ties, you skip head-to-head and go directly to points.
 
177Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 11:06 		The points to overtake MC came on the next to last play of the game, when Reggie Brown caught a 6 yard pass.

Crap, I don't like reading that. I went to bed at halftime. And I likely would have never known. And I would have preferred it that way. Oh well, I guess it doesn't really matter. Stupid Koy Detmer. Stupid Seahawks for letting him catch it.

Did anyone else notice that the Eagles receivers look like they wished they could go back to the bench and let TO and Freddie Mitchell be on the field instead last night? Pathetic display, especially on the 2 INT's.